Look on Page 2 of this Link.. Well just Read this Whole
Court Document.. Trillion Dollar Liablity.. oh Well..
Let's Pretend we Just did not Know...
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/United%20States%20District%20Court%20Southern%20District%20NY/SGI%20Bankruptcy/Ramirez%20Declaration.pdf
intel
Bankruptcy Court Fraud,
Showing posts with label US Patent Office. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Patent Office. Show all posts
Friday, January 1, 2010
Sunday, December 20, 2009
David Kappos and The Impact of KSR – a unique opportunity for our profession
From a Patent Law Blog, Source Link at Bottom of Post
r
"Guest Post by Paul Cole, Visiting Professor,
Intellectual Property Law, Bournemouth University, UK
On Tuesday 24 November, David Kappos
made a posting on the Director’s Forum including the following statement:
Some have suggested that the Office is determining obviousness in a way that stifles innovation by refusing patents for truly inventive subject matter. They’ve asked us to provide examples of non-obvious claims in view of KSR. Such examples would serve as a complement to the examples of obvious claims already in the guidelines.
David Kappos gave a presentation at the AIPLA Annual Meeting in Washington on October, and in a question and answer session that followed there were three questions which concerned KSR, more than any other topic.
The two questioners who preceded me expressed dissatisfaction with seemingly unjust and arbitrary rejections for lack of inventive step. I asked whether the US examination guidelines on inventive step could be brought into line with those of the EPO, where positive and negative examples are carefully balanced, and the suggestion created a burst of applause from the audience.
More detained comments on the suggestion are found in a paper on KSR that was published in the John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law in 2008 [1]. For convenience of reference, the final section is set out here:
*** The USPTO has been accused of having become significantly less applicant-friendly following the KSR decision. This may reflect concerns about “patent quality” and is reflected in the Guidelines given to examiners. A big difference is noticeable between the EPO Examination Guidelines and those of the USPTO.
The EPO Examination Guidelines at Part C Chapter IV give examples relating to the requirement of inventive step. Considerable care has been taken to balance these examples. Examples illustrating the application of known measures in an obvious way and in which inventive step can be ruled out are balanced by further examples showing the application of known measures in a non–obvious way and in which an inventive step is therefore to be recognized.
An example of an obvious and consequently non-inventive combination of features is balanced by an example of a non-obvious and consequently inventive combination of features. Examples of obvious and consequently non-inventive selection are balanced by examples of non-obvious and consequently inventive selection.
The single example relating to overcoming a technical prejudice shows a situation where the application should be allowed, not refused. A reader of these Guidelines is made aware that although many applications are open to objection, there are many others that cover meritorious inventions and should be allowed.
When the USPTO issued its post-KSR Guidelines, from the standpoint of a prosecution attorney they made depressing reading. For example, the first heading which refers to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results gives two examples, one of which is Andersons-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. and the other of which is Ruiz v SAB Chance Co. in both of which obviousness was established. There is no balancing example in which inventive character was established.
There follow five other headings illustrated by examples, each and every one of which shows the claimed subject matter to be obvious. The final heading concerns the TSM test which is not illustrated by any example. Under the heading “Consideration of Applicants Rebuttal Evidence” there are cursory indications that an applicant might have something relevant to say in reply, and that, for example, they might argue that the claimed elements in combination do not merely perform the function that each element performs separately.
Might it not have been a good idea to inform the Examining Corps that if an applicant can demonstrate a new and unexpected result, this is strong prima facie evidence of inventive step, that this fact is supported by several opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court and that where such evidence is available an applicant should unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary expect a grant decision to follow?
Experience in the EPO is that where an applicant can demonstrate a credible technical problem that he has solved, he will almost always be granted a patent and that although other objections, e.g. “one–way-street” or “bonus effect” are available, circumstances where such objections succeed are rare, as acknowledged by the U.K. High Court in Haberman.
Instructions to examiners are of general importance to the public because they are the main tool used during examination and the important event for most applicants is grant or refusal by the patent office, litigation of patents (even in the U.S.) being uncommon.
Instructions are even more important for examiners who are trainees and those who have only recently acquired signatory authority because they are likely to rely chiefly on those instructions and to take some time to achieve a deep understanding of case law.
It is important to teach examiners when to make objections and the appropriate grounds for doing so, but is it not equally important to teach them when applications should be allowed and to show them examples of patents whose validity has been upheld, as the EPO does?
Quality patent examination is not just a matter of ensuring that applications lacking merit are reliably refused but also of ensuring that meritorious applications are reliably granted. ****
It now seems that there is at least a chance that the suggestion that I and apparently others have made will be acted on, and that the possibility is under active consideration in the USPTO. Examples of decisions on new function or result which are contained in my paper include the nineteenth century Supreme Court cases Winans v Denmead and Washburn & Moen Manufacturing, Co. v. Beat’Em All Barbed-Wire Co, these decisions being selected on the basis of their instructive character and accessibility to the widest possible range of readers.
For the most to be made of this opportunity, we as students and users of the patent system can help by suggesting additional positive decisions which it would be good for the USPTO to include in the revised inventive step Guidelines.
Hopefully readers will respond with references to good Board of Appeals, District Court and CAFC cases, and I look forward to reviewing a large number of hopefully constructive suggestions posted here in response."
r
Link to Source and Lots of Discussion on this...
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/12/david-kappos-and-the-impact-of-ksr-a-unique-opportunity-for-our-profession.html?cid=6a00d8341c588553ef0120a71cdd88970b
r
r
"Guest Post by Paul Cole, Visiting Professor,
Intellectual Property Law, Bournemouth University, UK
On Tuesday 24 November, David Kappos
made a posting on the Director’s Forum including the following statement:
Some have suggested that the Office is determining obviousness in a way that stifles innovation by refusing patents for truly inventive subject matter. They’ve asked us to provide examples of non-obvious claims in view of KSR. Such examples would serve as a complement to the examples of obvious claims already in the guidelines.
David Kappos gave a presentation at the AIPLA Annual Meeting in Washington on October, and in a question and answer session that followed there were three questions which concerned KSR, more than any other topic.
The two questioners who preceded me expressed dissatisfaction with seemingly unjust and arbitrary rejections for lack of inventive step. I asked whether the US examination guidelines on inventive step could be brought into line with those of the EPO, where positive and negative examples are carefully balanced, and the suggestion created a burst of applause from the audience.
More detained comments on the suggestion are found in a paper on KSR that was published in the John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law in 2008 [1]. For convenience of reference, the final section is set out here:
*** The USPTO has been accused of having become significantly less applicant-friendly following the KSR decision. This may reflect concerns about “patent quality” and is reflected in the Guidelines given to examiners. A big difference is noticeable between the EPO Examination Guidelines and those of the USPTO.
The EPO Examination Guidelines at Part C Chapter IV give examples relating to the requirement of inventive step. Considerable care has been taken to balance these examples. Examples illustrating the application of known measures in an obvious way and in which inventive step can be ruled out are balanced by further examples showing the application of known measures in a non–obvious way and in which an inventive step is therefore to be recognized.
An example of an obvious and consequently non-inventive combination of features is balanced by an example of a non-obvious and consequently inventive combination of features. Examples of obvious and consequently non-inventive selection are balanced by examples of non-obvious and consequently inventive selection.
The single example relating to overcoming a technical prejudice shows a situation where the application should be allowed, not refused. A reader of these Guidelines is made aware that although many applications are open to objection, there are many others that cover meritorious inventions and should be allowed.
When the USPTO issued its post-KSR Guidelines, from the standpoint of a prosecution attorney they made depressing reading. For example, the first heading which refers to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results gives two examples, one of which is Andersons-Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co. and the other of which is Ruiz v SAB Chance Co. in both of which obviousness was established. There is no balancing example in which inventive character was established.
There follow five other headings illustrated by examples, each and every one of which shows the claimed subject matter to be obvious. The final heading concerns the TSM test which is not illustrated by any example. Under the heading “Consideration of Applicants Rebuttal Evidence” there are cursory indications that an applicant might have something relevant to say in reply, and that, for example, they might argue that the claimed elements in combination do not merely perform the function that each element performs separately.
Might it not have been a good idea to inform the Examining Corps that if an applicant can demonstrate a new and unexpected result, this is strong prima facie evidence of inventive step, that this fact is supported by several opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court and that where such evidence is available an applicant should unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary expect a grant decision to follow?
Experience in the EPO is that where an applicant can demonstrate a credible technical problem that he has solved, he will almost always be granted a patent and that although other objections, e.g. “one–way-street” or “bonus effect” are available, circumstances where such objections succeed are rare, as acknowledged by the U.K. High Court in Haberman.
Instructions to examiners are of general importance to the public because they are the main tool used during examination and the important event for most applicants is grant or refusal by the patent office, litigation of patents (even in the U.S.) being uncommon.
Instructions are even more important for examiners who are trainees and those who have only recently acquired signatory authority because they are likely to rely chiefly on those instructions and to take some time to achieve a deep understanding of case law.
It is important to teach examiners when to make objections and the appropriate grounds for doing so, but is it not equally important to teach them when applications should be allowed and to show them examples of patents whose validity has been upheld, as the EPO does?
Quality patent examination is not just a matter of ensuring that applications lacking merit are reliably refused but also of ensuring that meritorious applications are reliably granted. ****
It now seems that there is at least a chance that the suggestion that I and apparently others have made will be acted on, and that the possibility is under active consideration in the USPTO. Examples of decisions on new function or result which are contained in my paper include the nineteenth century Supreme Court cases Winans v Denmead and Washburn & Moen Manufacturing, Co. v. Beat’Em All Barbed-Wire Co, these decisions being selected on the basis of their instructive character and accessibility to the widest possible range of readers.
For the most to be made of this opportunity, we as students and users of the patent system can help by suggesting additional positive decisions which it would be good for the USPTO to include in the revised inventive step Guidelines.
Hopefully readers will respond with references to good Board of Appeals, District Court and CAFC cases, and I look forward to reviewing a large number of hopefully constructive suggestions posted here in response."
r
Link to Source and Lots of Discussion on this...
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/12/david-kappos-and-the-impact-of-ksr-a-unique-opportunity-for-our-profession.html?cid=6a00d8341c588553ef0120a71cdd88970b
r
Monday, December 7, 2009
Join us - Stand Against InJustice to Inventors by the Attorneys, the Patent System that Takes them Down.
People just like you are inventing Amazing Life Changing Technology, inventions large and small and their inventions are being stolen, lied about, denied as the reign of corruption with Patent Attorneys and within our Great US Patent Office is looking the other way while serious injustice is being served up to the hard working, tax payin American People.
You invent something in your Home, you spend your time and energy - all your money... time away from your family, from ball games, recitals and family time, you give your every breath year after year and then WoW you have got it, the most amazing invention.
An Invention that will not only change your life but change all our lives and Well, make you a nice chunk of change along the way. Something to be proud of for you and yours for generations to come.
And then come to find out your Patent Attorney has betrayed you for hand over fist... really big money and YOU get NONE. Not only do you get no money, but your harassed, denied credit for your invention, your life is threatened and in some cases folks are imprisoned - beaten and have had their cars bombed, all for Greed.... all for Money and Control.
Is this what really want our "We The People" society to be? Is this the Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free?
Stand with the Little Guy, Stand with the Men and Woman who think outside the box, and Stand with the inventors that are denied rights and compensation for their inventions.
Make a Stand Against inJustice on Our Watch.
Stand Against Corrupt Patent Attorneys that Steal Inventions whereby the little guys and gals don't have the money to fight and most of these cases are not even heard. Stand behind Eliot Bernstein in his fight to bring justice to all who have ever lost a patent due to corruption, bullying, government fraud, patent office fraud, patent attorney fraud... you may not have been able to do anything about the injustice served to you, but you can make a stand and say Enough is Enough.
Stand up to STOP the Hiding and Stealing of amazing Technology that would have changed our lives decades ago if they were not allowed to be suppressed. You could be next, Set Precedence lend your voice now to this incredible injustice.
This Stealing of Patents has happened to thousands over decades and most just get washed away by time, big money, people getting wore out from the fight or shear lack of follow through. The IViewit Technology Stolen Patent case is so big, so factual and with such a clear paper trail that it will serve justice up to all who have ever been wronged in this same way no matter how small your invention may have been.
We the People will NOT stand for guys like Eliot Bernstein to be Ignored, Silenced, Threatened, Bombed, and Betrayed. And we the People will see that shareholder are rewarded, why? Because those folks took their hard earned money, family money, company money.. profits and they believed in the little guy with a BIG idea.
And with this Stolen Technology they also lose. This will make them think twice when others come to them with Great Ideas, this will shut down a part of Venture Capital money, and Investors investing in the Dream I may build, you may build in your home or within your company. .. Why Can't people just do the Right Thing?
If the IviewIt Stolen Technology Story is not heard round the world and Right NOW then we use a Great Chance to EXPOSE this issues that REALLY is happening and has for decades if not centuries. Time to STOP the Dirty Deeds, Corruption, Silencing, and Coverups with the Inventions of Technology - with inventions large and small and do right by the inventors and by the people who have a right to this technology.
Take a Stand, Join Us and Clean up the Corruption in the US Patent Office that allows for such disgrace to happen, join us and Say Enough is Enough. You the People are Brilliant, Amazing and Create such wonderful - awesome - innovative ideas.. products only to be squashed by the Greed and Ignorance of those who, with the stroke of a pen and the slam of a door Crush Your Dreams, take your Money, and Ruin your Life.
Time to Hold Politicians, Lawmakers, Patent Attorneys, Judges, and ALL who lie, cover up, cheat and steal at the expense of great minds like yours.. time to hold them Accountable for their actions.. and your Just the One to Make Them Accountable.
If the "We the People" do not know this stuff is going on how can they make important changes?
It is Time to start Talking about it and to Stop this Injustice for All.
We don't want your Money, we are not asking anything from you that will take your precious time. We simply want you to join us to say YES we want this Corruption to STOP, do not ignore Corruption in the US Court System, STOP Cover ups, STOP stealing from guys and gals like us just because you have more money and political connections.. we want you to join us at the links below to Give your Voice, to Share your Story if you Like, to Discuss this With Us or to Simply Say Not On Our Watch, Not in Our Time.
stolen patent
Join Us on FaceBook Click Here
denied patent
You invent something in your Home, you spend your time and energy - all your money... time away from your family, from ball games, recitals and family time, you give your every breath year after year and then WoW you have got it, the most amazing invention.
An Invention that will not only change your life but change all our lives and Well, make you a nice chunk of change along the way. Something to be proud of for you and yours for generations to come.
And then come to find out your Patent Attorney has betrayed you for hand over fist... really big money and YOU get NONE. Not only do you get no money, but your harassed, denied credit for your invention, your life is threatened and in some cases folks are imprisoned - beaten and have had their cars bombed, all for Greed.... all for Money and Control.
Is this what really want our "We The People" society to be? Is this the Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free?
Stand with the Little Guy, Stand with the Men and Woman who think outside the box, and Stand with the inventors that are denied rights and compensation for their inventions.
Make a Stand Against inJustice on Our Watch.
Stand Against Corrupt Patent Attorneys that Steal Inventions whereby the little guys and gals don't have the money to fight and most of these cases are not even heard. Stand behind Eliot Bernstein in his fight to bring justice to all who have ever lost a patent due to corruption, bullying, government fraud, patent office fraud, patent attorney fraud... you may not have been able to do anything about the injustice served to you, but you can make a stand and say Enough is Enough.
Stand up to STOP the Hiding and Stealing of amazing Technology that would have changed our lives decades ago if they were not allowed to be suppressed. You could be next, Set Precedence lend your voice now to this incredible injustice.
This Stealing of Patents has happened to thousands over decades and most just get washed away by time, big money, people getting wore out from the fight or shear lack of follow through. The IViewit Technology Stolen Patent case is so big, so factual and with such a clear paper trail that it will serve justice up to all who have ever been wronged in this same way no matter how small your invention may have been.
Now is the Time to Say Enough is Enough.
We the People will NOT stand for guys like Eliot Bernstein to be Ignored, Silenced, Threatened, Bombed, and Betrayed. And we the People will see that shareholder are rewarded, why? Because those folks took their hard earned money, family money, company money.. profits and they believed in the little guy with a BIG idea.
And with this Stolen Technology they also lose. This will make them think twice when others come to them with Great Ideas, this will shut down a part of Venture Capital money, and Investors investing in the Dream I may build, you may build in your home or within your company. .. Why Can't people just do the Right Thing?
If the IviewIt Stolen Technology Story is not heard round the world and Right NOW then we use a Great Chance to EXPOSE this issues that REALLY is happening and has for decades if not centuries. Time to STOP the Dirty Deeds, Corruption, Silencing, and Coverups with the Inventions of Technology - with inventions large and small and do right by the inventors and by the people who have a right to this technology.
Take a Stand, Join Us and Clean up the Corruption in the US Patent Office that allows for such disgrace to happen, join us and Say Enough is Enough. You the People are Brilliant, Amazing and Create such wonderful - awesome - innovative ideas.. products only to be squashed by the Greed and Ignorance of those who, with the stroke of a pen and the slam of a door Crush Your Dreams, take your Money, and Ruin your Life.
Time to Hold Politicians, Lawmakers, Patent Attorneys, Judges, and ALL who lie, cover up, cheat and steal at the expense of great minds like yours.. time to hold them Accountable for their actions.. and your Just the One to Make Them Accountable.
If the "We the People" do not know this stuff is going on how can they make important changes?
It is Time to start Talking about it and to Stop this Injustice for All.
We don't want your Money, we are not asking anything from you that will take your precious time. We simply want you to join us to say YES we want this Corruption to STOP, do not ignore Corruption in the US Court System, STOP Cover ups, STOP stealing from guys and gals like us just because you have more money and political connections.. we want you to join us at the links below to Give your Voice, to Share your Story if you Like, to Discuss this With Us or to Simply Say Not On Our Watch, Not in Our Time.
stolen patent
Join Us on FaceBook Click Here
denied patent
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)