Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 301

Jobs Postings from the Past Week:

Interviewing Director Kappos: Tony Mauro writes a comical story about one reporter’s quest to interview David Kappos:

[W]hen ABA Journal senior writer Terry Carter got nowhere in his recent effort to reach Patent and Trademark Office director David Kappos . . . he decided on a characteristically novel approach: on Tuesday he drafted and posted a humorous patent application for a “method to get an interview with USPTO Director David Kappos.” Edward Adams, editor and publisher of the ABA Journal, wrote in this story at the Journal Web site, “We figured the problem was that Carter was not speaking the agency’s language.” [Link][Read the Application]

Next Federal Circuit Judges and en banc petitions:

  • There is currently one open slot on the Federal Circuit. In the interim, it should be statistically slightly easier to get the court to agree to an en banc rehearing. Instead of convincing seven of twelve (58%), now a successful petitioner need only convince six of eleven (55%).

21 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 301

  1. So…how many errors can we spot in the ABA patent application?

    I count at least three, with possibly more if we start counting ethical rules.

  2. Paul, all those cases were before Phillips. IIRC, the lower court in Phillips had similarly limited the claims to the preferred embodiment. An en banc circuit court reversed.

    How does that impact you analysis?

  3. Paul, good point… and along the same limes, I think “objective” of the invention is worth of mention. See Gentry Gallery.

  4. I could not resist kibitzing even this joke application. Note all the CAFC claim-narrowing decisions of recent years based at least in part on the patent application having used [as here, repeatedly] the words “the invention..” E.g., C. R.Bard Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp; No. 04-1135, (Fed. Cir. 2004); Modine Mfg. Co. v. United States Int’l Trade Commission, 75 F.3d 1545, 1551(Fed. Cir. 1996); Storage Technology Corp. v Cisco Systems Inc., 66 USPQ 2d 1545 at 1553 (Fed. Cir. 2003) [where the Court expressly relied on the fact that a particular term was used under the subtitle “Summary of the Invention” [as here] to render that term an express claim limitation]. Also, SciMed Life Systems Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 11/14/01) and Gaus v. Conair Corp. 70 USPQ2d 1380 at 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

  5. Posted by anon | Nov 23, 2009 at 11:22 AM:

    “If I were contacted by the ABA for an interview relating to patents, I probably wouldn’t return their calls either. Not after my experience chairing an ABA IP sub-committee. Upon attending the IP Section Leadership Conference, I was shocked to find it apparently dominated by a furiously anti-patent crowd. I’m not even a member of the ABA anymore.”

    Why am I not shocked by this?

    But, Kappos is one of them, is he not? See this bit from EETimes:

    “Kappos’ opinions, as articulated in the testimony, generally follow the line of the Coalition on Patent Fairness, a lobbying group backed by companies including Cisco Systems, Hewlett-Packard and Intel. However, even opposing groups such as the Innovation Alliance have issued positive statements about the Kappos nomination.”

    link to eetimes.com

  6. Dennis, can you clarify the “one open spot” calculation? As I understand it, CJM has not yet retired, and he keeps his vote until that retirement happens. But since he has announced it so early, Pres. Obama has the opportunity to get a successor ready to take an oath the day after the retirement actually takes effect.

  7. “I have yet to see any form of…” -insert your favorite technology here- “…that isn’t merely some ancient form of…” -insert generic description of your favorite technology here- “…adapted in an obvious way…”

    I think there is a seat in the Obama administration for you Mooney, its called the Charles H. Duell memorial armchair for Luddites.

  8. More laughs:

    link to newsdaily.com

    Stone declined to give detail of how Twitter would introduce advertising next year on its site to its users, but hinted again it would be different from traditional forms of internet advertising, which include display ads and sponsored search.

    A new form of internet advertising? I’ll believe it when I see it. I have yet to see any form of “internet advertising” (“traditional” or otherwise) that isn’t merely some ancient form of advertising adapted in an obvious way to reach a user of the internet.

  9. Barack Obama speaking before National Academy of Sciences:

    The key to meeting these challenges – improving our health and well being, harnessing clean energy, protecting our security, and succeeding in the global economy – will be reaffirming and strengthening America’s role as the world’s engine of scientific discovery and technological innovation. And that leadership tomorrow depends on how we educate our students today, especially in those fields that hold the promise of producing future innovations and innovators …

    Fyi, no mention of “financial engineering” in this speech. I wonder why.

  10. For dependent claims like 2 (wherein Director “is” Kappos) would the claim still be infringed under the doctrine of equivalents if another director held office at the time?

  11. The phone number in the figure appears to be registered to a Mike Kimball in san fran, not the reporter Terry Carter.

    Hope he gets his interview, otherwise the app should be rejected under enablement.

  12. Panel O: Monday, December 7, 2009, 2:00 P.M., Courtroom 201

    2008-1248 DCT ARIAD PHARMACEUTICAL V ELI LILLY [argued][en banc]

    nm

  13. If I were contacted by the ABA for an interview relating to patents, I probably wouldn’t return their calls either. Not after my experience chairing an ABA IP sub-committee. Upon attending the IP Section Leadership Conference, I was shocked to find it apparently dominated by a furiously anti-patent crowd. I’m not even a member of the ABA anymore.

  14. Does anyone know when Ariad will have oral arguments for the En banc? Or do they not get to have oral arguments? Can the public come?

  15. The Carter application is hilarious. Make sure you read it.

    …Although, Kappos should have held out until Carter actually filed it. We could really use the fees.

Comments are closed.