On Monday, the USPTO is expected to publish a set of proposed administrative rules for implementing the new first-to-file regime codified by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). A pre-publication copy is attached. Changes to Implement the First Inventor to File Provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. Once finalized, the rules should become effective by March 16, 2013. Comments on the rules are due by October 5, 2012.
The rules identify four primary areas of legal changes: (1) conversion of the United States patent system from a "first to invent" system to a "first inventor to file" system; (2) treating U.S. patents and U.S. patent application publications as prior art as of their earliest effective filing date, regardless of whether the earliest effective filing date is based upon an application filed in the U.S. or in another country; (3) eliminating the requirement that a prior public use or sale be "in this country" to be a prior art activity; and (4) treating commonly owned or joint research agreement patents and patent application publications as being by the same inventive entity for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102, as well as 35 U.S.C. 103.
Carl,
At a quick glance, “In other words, Jung does not challenge the substance of the prima facie rejection, but only the procedure.” The discussion here is very much on the substance of the prima facie case being made or not.
Carl,
I hope not. Jung is not on point for this discussion and is easily distinguished.
This in reply to both Ned and Leo.
Ned, just as Americans usually file foreign with a text unchanged from that they filed domestically 12 months earlier, so does the rest of the world. But I do agree, when the priority document is clearly skimpier than the full application filed 12 months later, AND when there are two (or more) rival independent parties with interlaced filing dates on the same invention, there are going to be translation issues. But remind me: how many interferences are there per year, and how do translation costs stack up against the costs of an interference?
Leo, on the issue that it’s only filings in the USA that are deemed published as of their priority dates, I am not yet totally reassured, for I recall a presentation from a US attorney where I understood him to say that PCT WO publications would work like this, regardless whether they enter the USPTO national phase. Did I get that wrong? I fear that it might matter quite a lot, if only because Chinese companies own huge numbers of WO publications. A very small number enter the national phase, thereby to qualify in the EPO as prior art for novelty as of their priority dates. But what if all of them are citable at the USPTO for BOTH novelty and obviousness, whether or not they enter the US national phase?
Max, Foreign patent applications are effective prior art only as of their publication dates even under the new law. However, if they are cited, they are in a foreign language. If they have no US counterparts, who provides the translation?
The MPEP directs the examiner to provide them. However, as we all know from experience, they actually do not provide translations.
I expect most US examiners do not search foreign-language art except if they have an English abstract. The examiners are supposed to translate and provide the whole document, not just the abstract. But, as we all know, they do not.
My complaint is that the new law is going to greatly expand the art that will be cited requiring translations. Half of all US patents and applications have foreign language priority applications. The USPTO will now be citing US patents and applications as of their foreign priority dates, but will not be providing translations despite having an MPEP-recommendation to do so.
As Leo noted, if the two documents have the same figures and appear to have the same Google translation, one could safely assume the critical disclosure is there. But, what if the figures do not match up, particularly the one that forms the basis of the rejection? What if it is not there, or is different in some fashion?
Regardless, we Americans are going to be faced with a lot more foreign-language problems than ever before. It is going to potentially substantially raise the cost of prosecution a great deal. Anyone who regularly deals in foreign-language prosecution (as most inside counsel do) know that translation of references can be a major expense.
Max, I find it hard to believe as well. I think the relevant language is here, in paragraph (2) of the new version of Section 102:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless:
(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
I’m no expert on statutory construction, but I think paragraph (2) is directed to U.S. patents and published applications, just as the old section 102(e) was. The difference is that the these references can now be dated back to their foreign priority dates. I presume that this is contingent upon the relevant subject matter actually appearing in the priority document, which is where the translation issue comes in.
I’m afraid I still don’t know what Dorothy is talking about when she says that “The reference itself need not have a related US application and can be used directly as prior art (i.e., not filed at all in the US).” That’s already permitted as of the publication dates of foreign references, but I don’t think anything changes for foreign documents unless there is a subsequent U.S. filing.
Leo, I wonder if I can help here. If I understand it right, a patent application in a foreign Patent Office is citable, upon its publication, as prior art against a US claim, AS IF it had been published on its effective filing date. I find it hard to believe this is so, but I collect that it is, in the AIA (but not as of now).
Will others confirm or correct me here?
I believe he’s referring to in re Jung. /media/docs/2011/03/10-1019.pdf
Do you have a cite for this recent case Ned?
The reconfigured 102 removes the “in this country” aspects of some prior art.
The reference itself need not have a related US application and can be used directly as prior art (i.e., not filed at all in the US).
I’m still not following you, Dorothy. Foreign publications were already available as references under 102(a) and 102(b). What has changed with respect to foreign applications/publications that are not related to a US application?
Mr. MPEP is the LAW!,
We recently had a Federal Circuit case, right on point. What does the PTO have to do to establish a prima facie case?
Give notice.
What? That's all?
Yes, that's about it.
Not "prove their case?"
No.
And, that, my friend, is the LAW!
“Am I missing something? ”
Yes, the part about “as using them to provide an effective US filing date” is incorrect. The reference itself need not have a related US application and can be used directly as prior art (i.e., not filed at all in the US).
I am pretty sure I stated that part clearly.
“There is no rule or law that requires the patent office to provide a translation. I suspect they not only never provide a translation, but when asked, will flatly refuse to do so, forcing you to petition. And, in your petition, what law or what rule will you cite?”
How about the ones already provided? Don’t you read before you post (the posts included more than just the binding MPEP; I included both law and rule)?
Do you understand the basics of evidence and the burdens of persuasion and production inherent in establishing a prima facie case?
Do you understand that flatly refusing violates the law (35 USC 132(a), the rules (37 CFR 1.104 and as suppported by 37 CFR 1.99) and the legally bound examiners (the aforementioned and accepted MPEP)?
Your response was supposed to include something of subtance, something more than just your “feelings” on the matter. Do you have anything more than just your feelings?
“I’m here to learn.”
No way – too many dead horses at the trough. More correctly, you are here to shill.
Mr. basics, I already cited this passage when I began discussion. It tells examiners to provide a translation. But it is the MPEP, and the MPEP itself is not law. Some of the provisions of the MPEP, such as the one you quoted, are binding on the examiners. But I suspect that in the ordinary case the examiner will not provide a translation of a foreign-language priority document, and that the director, on petition, will not order him to provide such a translation as well. At that point, I will you file a lawsuit in court to force the examiner you to give you a translation?
Leo, I agree that in many cases it will be obvious that the foreign-language document is identical to the US document in substance. In such a case, a translation would not be necessary. But I welcome your observation that they do take shortcuts which implies that in the ordinary case they will not provide a translation, forcing you to request it.
You say that the examiners in your experience take similar shortcuts with provisionals. I am sure they do, but normally provisionals are in English and onus is on the applicant to review provisional and provide an argument as to why the subject matter that forms the basis of the rejection is not disclosed in the provisional. Is going to be a lot more difficult to do so in the case of a foreign language priority document without a translation provided by the PTO.
There is no rule or law that requires the patent office to provide a translation. I suspect they not only never provide a translation, but when asked, will flatly refuse to do so, forcing you to petition. And, in your petition, what law or what rule will you cite?
Matter of law?
Obviously, you were unaware that the MPEP does not have the force of law.
Max, I fear the US PTO is going to do exactly what you say here: they will provided rejection based upon the US document with the assumption that the subject matter forming the basis of the rejection is disclosed in the priority document. That would put the onus on the applicant to get a translation of the priority document in order to check.
But who benefits from the prior art rejection? Abstractly the public, but in particular the filer of the rival application. He should pay the cost of translation.
I think so.
My understanding is that the only change to the law that implicates foreign patent applications or publications is that they can now be used to provide an effective US filing date for a subsequent US application that is used as a right-denying reference. Am I missing something?
As you please Dorothy. We all know what, say, “not invalid” means, in any jurisdiction. We all know that what it takes to be “not invalid” in the USA is different from what it takes in Europe. But still, that doesn’t take away the common meaning of the concept “not invalid”.
In my book, so it is too, with “prima facie” (however you spell it).
Of course reasonable minds will differ, on whether the “prima facie” standard has been attained, in any particular matrix of fact. But must we start from the position that the “prima facie” standard is bound to be different in Europe? Or shall we start from the position that the standard is the same but that the means of evidence to reach the standard might be different, depending on the forum and the weight of precedent in that particular forum?
I’m not a qualified, registered US attorney-at-law, just a British and European patent attorney running around in Europe. So enlighten me, if you wouldn’t mind. I’m here to learn.
My turn to apologize Leopold, as foreign patent applications and foreign publicaitons are indeed involved.
They are involved as the right-denying prior art.
They are not the right-seeking application.
Did you understand the “in this country” limitations prior to the change in law?
“The useful thing about the Latin language is that it serves as a Lingua Franca, carrying the same meaning, in fields like medicine and the law, as one hops about between jurisdictions. Don’t you agree?”
No. To turn a blind eye and assume that a term must mean the same in different legal regimes is to court disaster. While in most instances, the terms may mean the same, no one should assume that this is always so.
” gold star”
It gets gold bars. Lots of them.
Dorothy you have set me wondering what exactly the difference is between the requirement in the EPO to establish a prima facie case and the burden on an Examiner in the USPTO to establish what you call a prima facia case.
I had been supposing up to now that prima facie = prima facia.
The useful thing about the Latin language is that it serves as a Lingua Franca, carrying the same meaning, in fields like medicine and the law, as one hops about between jurisdictions. Don’t you agree?
Oh, so you’re not talking about foreign patent applications or foreign publications at all, then.
Can you please give me an example of the type of art that you’re concerned about, that newly reachable in the Examiner’s search per the AIA but that has no related U.S. applications?
Leopold Bloom,
The reconfigured 102 removes the “in this country” aspects of some prior art.
“Why should it be any different at the USPTO?”
Because our laws are different. See the posts above by From The MPEP and Basics.
Your interjection of “whether the objection is well-founded” is immaterial. In the US, the Office, as a matter of law (as Basics states) to establish a prima facia case. It is their burden to provide suitable evidence for this legal position.
Now return to the fact pattern as presented and do your best (and no, you may not translate the fact pattern to an EPO procedure because we are not talking about an EPO procedure.
I welcome the chance to discuss. I STILL don’t see your viewpoint. Sorry.
Using your terminology, the “foreign art” is a JPO A publication, in Japanese. Its declared JP priority date is earlier than your USPTO priority date. Prima facie, it’s a good cite under the AIA. USPTO Examiner relies upon the drawings of the JP A publication, an English language abstract of its disclosure content (and, from now on, a machine translation into English).
To settle the matter, whether the objection is well-founded, a full and competent translation of the JP priority document is needed. Who should pay for that?
For the last 30+ years at the EPO, this fact pattern has been bog standard. The EPO does NOT pay for the translation. Why should it be any different at the USPTO?
The Examiner, with the change in law, can now expand her search to include substantively ONLY foreign art, that is, art that has no presence or related US applications.
Ah, this is the part that I apparently missed. I admit that I’m no expert on AIA, yet. Where is this change in law?
My apologies, Dorothy, I was not clear. What I meant to say is that, per item #2 on Dennis’ original post, we’re talking about a foreign-language (and foreign-territory) priority document for a U.S. application or patent (US Application A), where the foreign-language/foreign-territory document is cited to reject a claim in another U.S. application (U.S. Application B).
My point is that the law change only applies to a particular set of foreign documents where the subject matter has subsequently entered U.S. territory by way of the priority-claiming U.S. application (U.S. Application A). Public disclosure of the subject matter in the U.S., in English, will generally be before the publication of the rejected application (Application B). So what’s to be gained by granting a patent to the filer of Application B, when he didn’t invent it first (in an absolute, global sense) and when it’s detailed disclosure to the U.S. public by alternative means was inevitable and timely?
Hence my earlier question: Isn’t the issue then not one of territory, but of timing?
Thank You FTM,
I would add in to my point the general notion of establishing a prima facia case and who, as a matter of law, has the burden of establishing that case for both production and persuasion purposes.
Note that the MPEP section you reference (706.02 II) continues with some rationale that should be kept in mind:
“The record must also be clear as to whether the examiner is relying upon the abstract or the full text document to support a rejection. The rationale for this is several-fold. It is not uncommon for a full text document to reveal that the document fully anticipates an invention that the abstract renders obvious at best. The converse may also be true, that the full text document will include teachings away from the invention that will preclude an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, when the abstract alone appears to support the rejection. An abstract can have a different effective publication date than the full text document. Because all patentability determinations are fact dependent, obtaining and considering full text documents at the earliest practicable time in the examination process will yield the fullest available set of facts upon which to determine patentability, thereby improving quality and reducing pendency.”
Now if Ned Heller wants to present a counterpoint, I am more than willing to entertain whatever compelling position (other than his mere “thoughts”) that Ned can present on the matter. And Ned, please make your citations current.
Let’s take an “I didn’t know I was replying to a strawman” add in the recognition (?) that you are replying to a strawman, and reply AGAIN to the strawman…
MaxDrei, please FOCUS.
Place your analogy based on what Ned said aside (lose the Bill and Ben story, it’s in the weeds and is NOT what the principal discussion was about). See my post at 9:26 AM and resist with all your might the tendency to muck it up by changing the basic fact pattern to an issue that was not being intially addressed.
Try focusing on the following fact pattern alone:
A US applicant is seeking a US patent only. There is no tie in to any PCT or EP or other foreign application for this application.
The Examiner, with the change in law, can now expand her search to include substantively ONLY foreign art, that is, art that has no presence or related US applications.
The foreign art, chosen at the Examiner’s discretion lacks an English translation.
Who pays for the English translation?
Sorry for being less than clear, Leo.
I should have said that I’m replying to Dorothy and confirming Leo.
I was thinking that, when there are priority contests at the USPTO, under the FITF regime of the AIA, the handling of them will have to like in the EPO, no?
Dorothy, I still don’t follow you. When Ben’s doc hinders Bill, or when Bill’s doc hinders Ben, who pays for the translation of the other feller’s doc. I had thought the problem to be there, even when it’s a contest over priorities.
“Dorothy, I’m not sure I understand your concern. We’re talking about foreign-language (and foreign-territory) priority documents for U.S. cases. ”
No Leopold, that is the tangent strawman introduced by Ned that sidetracks the issue.
The issue is with he new law opening up the Office capability to reach out and grab a third party’s foreign language document, who picks up the tab for the translation costs. This is specifically NOT the case that the applicant has some tie to the foreign language document being introduced by the Office for the benefit of the Office rejection (your post below on evidence is on point).
Max, I’m afraid I don’t know which aspect of my comments you are addressing. I’m afraid I also don’t understand how your “Bill and Ben story” is about the PTO, when you then go on to discuss EPO prosecutions.
But I agree that the change to U.S. law that is under discussion is likely to be no big deal. Really.
This is in reply to both Dorothy and Leo.
I was not aware I was replying to a strawman argument or that I was muddying the waters. My Bill and Ben story is of two rival applicants at the PTO, each going after substantially the same subject matter, each with a PCT filing date in (say) 2011 and each faced in the EPO with a foreign language citation that declares an earlier Paris Convention filing date (in 2010). Believe me, these days that situation is far from uncommon.
It is inevitably going to be a delicate business, comparing the subject matter each respectively claims, as the respective EPO prosecutions advance, with the entire disclosure content of the other applicant’s earlier-filed foreign language priority document.
Isn’t it?
But however delicate, it is a bread and butter issue at the EPO, rehearsed countless times over the last 30 years or so. Unlike an interference, it is no big deal. Really.
Dorothy, I’m not sure I understand your concern. We’re talking about foreign-language (and foreign-territory) priority documents for U.S. cases. The subject matter has entered our territory via the U.S. application. Isn’t the issue then not one of territory, but of timing?
I really do not expect the Office to provide translations, do you?
Yes, I do. I expect examiners to try to game the system for a while by citing text from the U.S. case and using the date from the priority document, which is the same game some of them play with respect to provisional applications. But if you call them on it, they either have to put up the translation or pull the rejection. They can’t have an evidence-less rejection.
However, as Max correctly notes, in some cases it will be apparent, even without a translation, that the documents are substantively identical. In those cases, if the rejection over the English-language text is solid, I don’t think I’ll be recommending that my client fight a battle over evidence.
As a matter of law.
35 U.S.C. 132(a):
Whenever, on examination, any claim for a patent is rejected, or any objection or requirement made, the Director shall notify the applicant thereof, stating the reasons for such rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of his application;
MPEP 706:
The goal of examination is to clearly articulate any rejection early in the prosecution process so that the applicant has the opportunity to provide evidence of patentability and otherwise reply completely at the earliest opportunity.
MPEP 706.02 II:
Prior art uncovered in searching the claimed subject matter of a patent application often includes English language abstracts of underlying documents, such as technical literature or foreign patent documents which may not be in the English language. When an abstract is used to support a rejection, the evidence relied upon is the facts contained in the abstract, not additional facts that may be contained in the underlying full text document. Citation of and reliance upon an abstract without citation of and reliance upon the underlying scientific document is generally inappropriate where both the abstract and the underlying document are prior art. See Ex parte Jones, 62 USPQ2d 1206, 1208 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2001) (unpublished).
To determine whether both the abstract and the underlying document are prior art, a copy of the underlying document must be obtained and analyzed. If the document is in a language other than English and the examiner seeks to rely on that document, a translation must be obtained so that the record is clear as to the precise facts the examiner is relying upon in support of the rejection.
37 CFR 1.104:
In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for obviousness, the examiner must cite the best references at his or her command. When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.
See also 37 CFR 1.99(b)(4):
An English language translation of all the necessary and pertinent parts of any non-English language patent or publication in written form relied upon.
“I think, though, that if one is relying on his foreign priority for patentability, and that is also the basis that his US patent or application is prior art, I think he does gain benefit from the assertion and should pay the costs of translation”
Ned throws out a strawman and MaxDrei lively follows.
There is no issue when an applicant supplies his own item which needs translation. The applicant must already supply an English translation.
That’s just not the issue.
The issue is when the applicant, minding their own business, is faced with the Office making a rejection and sua sponte deciding to make that rejection with art that needs a translation.
The new change in law opens the availability that the Office can use far flung art outside of the jurisdiction to deny rights within the jurisdiction.
MaxDrei supplies his own straw by attempting to draw a parallel to EP, but misstates by mixing the foreign language issue within the EP. The issue is not a translation issue only. It is a translation and territory issue.
The “territory” from which to gather patent defeating art is not the same as the territory for which the patent right will apply. No one is talking Paris Treaty in this instance and to introduce it is a strawman that only muddles the translation cost issue.
The cost of lively threads should not include muddling the issues.
Me, I’m wondering whether there is anything preventing USPTO Examiners from managing the issue like Examiners have been doing in the EPO these past 30+ years. Under the First to File EPC, it is completely banal, that Bill claims a (say) Japanese priority date and Ben claims a (say) Korean priority date, with the respective EPO filing dates and foreign priority dates interlaced with each other. So, in the immortal words of the BBC’s 1950’s Flowerpot Men puppet show for children:
“Was it Bill or was it Ben? Filed that application then? Which of those two Flowerpot Men? Was it Bill……..or was it Ben?”
Who indeed was “first to file” with an enabling disclosure of what is being claimed? In Europe, a lot hangs on it. Exclusive patent rights for a 42 country territory of 600 million consumers.
At the EPO, the Examiner takes a prima facie position and each Applicant is welcome to try to overturn the prima facie position (for example, by filing expensive accurate translations). It might even get as far as an opposition between the parties. Yippee.
How to establish a position, prima facie? Paris Convention priority is in respect of the “same” invention. Are the drawings the same in the priority document? How about the text paragraphs, do they exhibit a 1:1 correspondence between priority document and PCT? How about the English language abstract?
How often is the prima facie position overturned? Not often? How often does it come to an opposition? Not often. How often is the result in the opposition difficult to call? Even less often.
Who should pay the costs of trying to overturn the prima facie position? To me it’s beyond argument. The Applicant. Of course. Goes without saying. So, isn’t this thread a Chicken Little fuss over nothing, an attempt to make difficulties where none really exists?
Still, if it makes for a lively thread, I’m all for it.
Basics, "as a matter of law?"
I don't think so.
You are welcome Ned.
“I really do not expect the Office to provide translations, do you?”
The Office must, as a matter of law, make the rejection clear enough for the applicant to fairly adjudge the situation and decide whether to pursue the patent or not.
The Office has the onus of both production and persuasion. If the Office is to rely on foreign art, then it MUST provide the translation of that art upon which it is relying on. If it does not, the courts will VERY QUICKLY back any challenger in that the Office has failed to make a prima facia case. You simply cannot make a prima facia case with a reference that cannot be understood.
Leo, I think we are going to get a lot of rejections in the future over foreign priority dates where the foreign application is not in English. I really do not expect the Office to provide translations, do you?
Est, good comment here. I think, though, that if one is relying on his foreign priority for patentability, and that is also the basis that his US patent or application is prior art, I think he does gain benefit from the assertion and should pay the costs of translation. Perhaps we should defer the translation costs until there is an actual need for translation, but that is another issue.
Max, What's good for the goose, as it were. So long as we are not dealing in certified translations, I suppose Google might be good enough.
Google should get a gold star for making the world a better place.
Who should bear the cost of translation: The PTO, the foreign applicant or the rejected party? Who? IMHO, it is he who obtains the benefit of the rejection.
The public (as in everyone other than the rejected applicant) benefits from a properly made rejection. If the PTO can recover the costs from those seeking government-issued rights to exclude, then more power to it.
You pick some silly things to get agitated about, Ned. Not enough work to do?
Such cost is a cost of examination and cannot be known a priori. Of the three entities you listed, the Office is the most logical and fair choice.
It is less logical and fair to charge the applicant. It is not up to the applicant (in any way, shape or form) to examine his application and he has no control over whether or not the Office goes on a frolic to obtain such art as would need translation in the first place.
It is less logical and fair to charge the foeign applicant. That applicant has no control of the Office reaching out and grabbing his document for use in this country. How would you feel if you got a bill from the Chinese government because they decided to translate Patently-O comments and decided to charge those making the comments for that translation?
No. The logical place for the bill to come to a rest is with those who decide to pursue that information in the first place: the Office. Keep in mind that this mirrors the existing policy of requiring those that submit such references to bear the cost of translation.
Is there anything to prevent the Exr relying on an English translation from Google, instantly available, free of any cost? The EPO has signed a contract with Google, under which all EPO translations are available to Google. Presumably this will uplift the quality of Google translations of anything “technical”.
Higher fees to us all.
“PTO that will bear the costs, and this is wrong”
Why is this wrong?
With the expansion of prior art to include foreign priority patent applications in languages other than English, we are going to have an explosion of rejections where the content of the foreign language document will be placed at issue. Who should bear the cost of translation: The PTO, the foreign applicant or the rejected party? Who? IMHO, it is he who obtains the benefit of the rejection.
But as it stands, it is the PTO that will bear the costs, and this is wrong. See the following:
This is from the MPEP. It is guidance to the examiners, and therefore is not a binding rule. It should be elevated into a rule, and require translations of foreign language documents be provided to the extent a rejection is made in reliance on that document. This, of course, would include US patents that rely on foreign language priority patent applications.
“If the document is in a language other than English and the examiner seeks to rely on that document, a translation must be obtained so that the record is clear as to the precise facts the examiner is relying upon in support of the rejection. ”
link to uspto.gov
“That is entirely incorrect”
Sorry, but no. It is entirely correct. “Obamacare” did have a severability clause.
That is entirely incorrect. I don’t think anyone went that far in the arguments to the Supreme Court on Obamacare. Remember that? If the mandate was unconstitutional, the next issue would have been severability, but obviously that wasn’t reached.
MM, true.
I should have focused more on the word "internal."
I recall at one time they gave the Nobel Prize to some AT&T scientists for inventing the laser while the patents were still in an interference. AT&T lost the interference.
Then there was the bit about the airplane. For years people thought some Brazilian was the first in Paris. But it turns out, the Wright Bros. were first and they had a patent to prove it.
And the beat goes on.
The first to invent should not only get the patent, but the fame and glory. It just doesn't always work out that way.
Guerwood told me the IP was not mine? So he knows who it was given too. And Lorraine is the captain of the protect team.
and Bryants Secretary told me that too. And if I had no Guardian ad Litem… then even that is fake if there is one somewhere!
For that matter, it seems that a tweet would be considered a printed publication as well.
Ned, I’m not sure what you’re freaking about. Emails are certainly printed publications if they are, well, publicized. For example, one can subscribe to Hal Wegner’s widely circulated email newsletter. Why would that NOT be considered a publication for prior art purposes?
So now I know that most Attys. I spoke with were gay. and i also know that lorraine is openly gay. And i also know that Louise was her pet. And Lousie probably put my Property in her sons or Daugnters name. Or it is Lorraine. Anyhow I know lorraine is protectimg Louise,Ramona, Gloria, or Ray. And I also know there is a TOLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Lorraine said she was going to Nova Scotia but she didn’t! She has either stuck her nose in my business or she is in my business. And as for Dutie. Mayber her name is Ann. but anyway here I come Lorraine!
The “new” appears to be in that 102 will now specifically state that the publication/patent is prior art “…as of its earliest effective filing date…” The current 102 only states that the assrted publication/patent must have been filed prior to the filing date of the application. Maybe its splitting hairs.
Patrick= PA Trick?
Ned I really do hope the reason for awarding a Nobel Prize is NOT the same as the reason for handing out 20 year term exclusive rights to make, use, exercise, import, keep or vend embodiments of an invention that is a modest contribution to the progress of useful arts. Which Nobel Prize have you in mind, the one for contributing to gearbox design, the one for chip fabrication, the one for better lens or perhaps the one for financial engineering? How many Nobel Prizes would you have given to Thomas Edison? Are patent attorneys the right people to sit on the committee to decide who should be the next Nobel prizewinner? As John McInroe would have it: “You cannot be serious!”
The purpose of the patent system is to promote the progress in useful arts. I hardly think that is what Alfred Nobel had in mind, when he created the endowment. What promotes the useful arts is dissemination of enabling descriptions of useful contributions to the technical field? Publication of the invention will do it; in a form that the PHOSITA can grasp immediately; getting it out as early as possible, spreading the word as widely as possible.
Why would a guy named PATRICK from Century Telephone put a connection outside my house? So a Fax or phone call could be sent, obviously. The ones they sent from my house while I was gone could not have been sent by me I was in FLA with no land line! And when jim went to pack up the rest of the stuff, i was in FLA calling the house # on a calling card. But the Cherry’s didn’t know I wasn’t there. So obviously the fax they claimed I sent was not sentfrom the house but from the connection. Because Jim had removed the fax and the phones when he left. He called his son Jimmy though. And that is on the bill! so you see when it was sent from outside it was not registered. Like so many of the faxes that are in the File!
But, who should get the Nobel prize?
Now, I've seen everything.
Sent from iPhone
I understand the payment was to be mine as well as the inheritance. I also understand the Patent was filed in another country. I also understand mine was published.
But the ROD BRACKET can be corrected. The money they stole can and will be returned.My Inheritance can and will be resored and returned in full.
And EGB should immediately be removed from the Bench. and should lose his license.
And of course the one done with the Shadow you had better not evennnnnnnnnnnn think about stealing that. And the IDS he has a copy. He can file it if he hasn’t already. And he knows everything that transpired. And sadly I am sorry for your loss Judy. I understand what you feel and why.
And it’s a shame when the person you believe lies his whole life so you don’t see he’s a greedy theiving liar! And he joined the church after years of no religion. LOLOLOLOL.If thats what they call born again. When does he tell the Priest in the BOX what he really is guilty of? Then he will at least be honest in the BOX!
These four rules serve to remind us all that harmonization has arrived. Combined with the Cooperative Patent Classification system, total international harmonization of the patent system looks not only inevitable, but imminent. Interesting times are ahead.
And you tried your darndest to make this just about my Inheritance. I will get an atty. for this Crime too, there has to be someone out there that will see what you did and why. My Inheritance made into a Trust. YOU ARE SICK. It wasn’t enoughh to destroy my life, and steal my IP? Now you will Pay!
so now that I know all about you NAL and your destroying of my caseS I wonder if you knew that the state would say if you won’t press we won’t either.. OH BUT I WILL!
From the thread link to patentlyo.com
“Internal Prior Art: Remember that e-mails and other correspondence can potentially serve as printed publications under the patent laws. (See caselaw on 35 USC 102(a) & 102(b)).”
I cannot provide a link to Hal Wegner’s stuff, he posts his stuff by email. You can search for him onthe internet and write to him to be put on his distribution list.
I will get my Day in Court.. EVEN IF I HAVE TO GET ARRESTED TO DO SO! AND I WILL TELL THE WORLD. THANKS NAL THIS IS AWESOME STUFF. DID YOU SIT IN ON THE CHERRY CASES? OR DID YOU ALSO HIDE IN THE RABBIT HOLE?
Why would I be told to Sue JFS in State Court because he had my 5,000.00 and all my evidence, and they let him go.. (scratches head) Whether he is a state lawyer with “Federal Records and evidence” or a State Lawyer period He is not a Federal lawyer and (scratches head) wuttt upppp withhh that???????????????????????? If NAL is above the Law than how did he influence the State?
Preventing, OK, then, Wegner and Crouch.
I have a hard time believing this. Could you give me a link?
Sent my money back on the first Cases because he was ashamed. Now how do you feel? All warm and fuzzy?
And obviously the MASTER PLAN was to keep me out of the loop so you ..if you beat NAL you could still run the show and throw me Peanuts? I don’t think so! NAL has beat himself. I have a history to share with the Court.
It’s hard to follow with your head turned sideways like that.
Try looking at things straight.
“E-mails? You really have to be joking”
I did not create that impression that E-mails could be considered publications for the purpose of 3rd party submissions. It comes, I believe from this blog’s founder Dennis Crouch and Hal Wegner.
Put down your bow and do not shoot the messenger.
E-mails?
You really have to be joking.
Not following you. Would you like to expand on your theme? Like, what exactly is it that’s bothering you?
“only during oppositions”
Again, not quite true. As I noted, this is available during prosecution, and under the AIA, such items that are submitted by third parties and pass the Office scfeanings will be evaluated by the Examiner. There is no place for doubt.
Mr. Preventing, the publications themselves are prior art. The PTO ex parte could cite them. But only during oppositions can true public use be brought it.
However, I doubt the PTO would ever cite e-mails.