Obama was Informed on the Criminal Who Were involved in the Trillion Dollar Iviewit Stolen Patent

Obama was informed of Foley And Lardner and IBM's role in the Trillion Dollar iviewit stolen patent case and yet in October of 2009 Obama put TWO iviewit stolen patent defendents in to clean up the patent house, the USTPO... are you kidding. So David Kappos formerly of IBM running the Show at the USPTO - and Sharon Barner who formerly was chair of Foley's intellectual property department from the firm's Chicago office... so Foley and Lardner is definately in the Stolen Patent Business, simply look at their record, and Obama puts a Foley and Lardner Attorney in at the USPTO, this really is a SERIOUS Conflict of Interest and bad for inventor's rights and patent holders EVERYWHERE.

Here is the Article I am Yammering about...

""Foley lawyer Barner to help restructure U.S. Patent office

By John Schmid of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: Oct. 5, 2009

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has hired a senior attorney from the Milwaukee-based law firm Foley & Lardner LLP to help restructure the agency.

Sharon Barner, who chairs Foley's intellectual property department from the firm's Chicago office, will become the deputy director of the patent office. Barner steps into the No. 2 role immediately under David Kappos, who previously oversaw IBM's patent portfolio. The Senate confirmed Kappos in August as the Obama administration's nominee as the agency's director.

"I have directed the USPTO to significantly reduce the time it takes to process patent applications," U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said in announcing Barner's appointment.

In a series of stories in August, the Journal Sentinel examined the problems that beset the agency, which lies at the heart of America's innovation economy. Although inventors have relied on the patent system to promote and protect new technologies, the agency has been unable to keep pace with the torrent and complexity of applications it receives.

As it has struggled to keep pace, the office in recent years added hurdles, delays and improper rejections that have handicapped start-ups and entrepreneurs. Locke has said the agency's performance impedes the nation's economic recovery.

The appointment of Barner is important for Foley, which touts its global patent and intellectual property division. Foley and Lardner has nearly 240 attorneys that specialize in patents and intellectual property, ranking the firm among the nation's top 10 patent litigation and patent procurement law firms.

In February, Foley hired Jon Dudas, who ran the patent office under former President George W. Bush and was the immediate predecessor to Kappos in the agency's top position.

In a telephone interview, Barner said she knows President Barack Obama personally, with ties that extend through much of his political career in Illinois. She said she helped him raise funds for an Illinois state senate race; worked on a voter registration effort; and had him speak several times at symposiums that she organized.

While Barner said she has not helped write patent applications, she is an experienced litigator of patent cases. She also helped Foley expand its intellectual property practice in Japan and China.

Over the past 10 years, Barner has been featured as a top intellectual property lawyer in The National Law Journal, Black Enterprise Magazine, Diversity and the Bar and IP Law & Business and was recognized in the Illinois Super Lawyers for her intellectual property litigation work.

Barner plans to "telecommute" and
work from Chicago without moving to Washington. ""

Link to Source of this post..
http://www.jsonline.com/business/63531222.html

Crystal L. Cox
Industry Whistleblower
www.DeniedPatent.com

Crystal Cox Blogger

Smaller inventors Smackdown - David Kappos, USPTO formerly IBM ....the Whining of Billion Dollar Tech Companies

Small Inventors, Millionaire have No Chance as David Kappos is there to Protect the Big Tech Companies from YOU and is NOT even Hiding it. As in the Iviewit Stolen Patent www.DeniedPatent.com and www.Iviewit.TV ~ We see that big law firms, connection in high places such as to the head of the USPTO sure does come in handy hwen you want to Strip Inventors of their Rights.

David Kappos leads the Charge - the Reign of Terror on Small Inventors - you may as well Hide your Technology and Patent it in another Country, the US Patent Office is NOT looking Out for you....

Here is the Story...

From the Article Below we see more Evidence of how David Kappos's IBM connections and his appointment to the USPTO was Deliberat to Shut up those Small Inventors as they try and license their Technology.

$$$$$$

"" IBM veteran gets panel OK to run patent office
Kappos helped run massive patent operation; Full vote expected in Sept.

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) - David Kappos, a former IBM Corp. executive who spent years helping Big Blue amass a forbidding warchest of intellectual property, was approved by a Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday to become the next director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

A full vote on Kappos' nomination is expected after the Senate's summer recess.

David Kappos is expected to lend the perspective of large technology firms, while shaking up an embattled institution.

Technology companies have long complained that the patent office isn't sufficiently exacting, and awards too many dubious legal protections. Smaller inventors and patent holding firms, however, rely on winning a wide range of patents originated at the office to elbow their way into markets and win licensing fees.

The patent office "has not been able to keep pace with the avalanche of applications it has received in recent years," David Kappos said in testimony delivered on behalf of IBM to the Senate Judiciary Committee in March. That in turn, Kappos complained, has contributed to "increased speculation" and a surplus of lawsuits.

While that echoed the sentiments of many other large technology companies, IBM has a somewhat unique perspective. It has historically developed and acquired patents at an exhaustive pace, setting a standard aspired to by peers such as Microsoft Corp.

Indeed, Microsoft hired Marshall Phelps, Kappos' former colleague at IBM, to head its intellectual property licensing efforts in 2003. The companies' approach has blurred the lines, some say, between simply protecting business lines and seeking to bulk up on legal claims and licensing.

In 2008, IBM topped the list of U.S. technology companies winning patents for the 16th year in a row, with over 4,000. As Kappos noted in his March testimony, IBM became the first company ever to amass that many patents in a single year.

Microsoft ranked fourth, with 2,030 patents - behind Samsung and Canon, and one notch ahead of Intel Corp. IBM, along with many other large technology companies, has supported proposed patent reform legislation on Capitol Hill. That legislation seeks to improve the quality of patents, and cut down on the numerous lawsuits and significant jury awards regularly faced by large companies. ""

Full Article and Source
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ibm-veteran-gets-panel-ok-to-run-patent-office-2009-08-06
David Kappos, IBM and Kappos,

The present invention relates to how patents that are estimated to be worth billions are stolen for 5 million. Iviewit Patent Theft

"The present invention relates to how patents that are estimated to be worth billions are stolen for 5 million. More specifically, how to steal from inventors, investors, the IRS, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)"

Title of invention

System and Method for Patent Stealing, Fraud on the US Patent Office, Postal Fraud, Business and Commerce Fraud

Cross Reference Applications

None like it, although it will not be the first time that inventors have been frauded by bad promoters and attorneys. It will be a new twist that the patent attorney’s have frauded the USPTO, the Postal Services, the IRS, the Department of Commerce and several others.

Field of invention

The present invention relates to how patents that are estimated to be worth billions are stolen for 5 million. More specifically, how to steal from inventors, investors, the IRS, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Three inventions with an estimated value in the billions annually, per invention, initially determined by leading engineers from Intel, Lockheed, SGI and many others. These items were called "holy grail" inventions and it now appears to have blinded a few. I still believe that these patents are gifts from G-d that come in dreams that oft speak to inventors.These inventions were created in the pursuit of helping children fix the world we are breaking.

Following is a method for trying to steal a gift from g-d to help children, and if you are capable of that, anything is possible. Following are the steps used in the preferred embodiment although some will have to remain trade secrets a bit longer until a further investigation into these claims arises.

It is known in the field of patent fraud that the proprietors, so called promoters or patent attorney’s, try to take advantage of innocent inventors and the choice of promoter versus attorney is one of crapshoot versus supposed guaranteed success, if you overcome the prior art. It is supposed to be tantamount to trust your patent attorneys and the attorney client privileges should be upheld here to the highest ethical standards, especially when you have picked the best lawyers and paid in triplicate and it’s regarding something our forefathers took special note for. Further, these were not just our attorneys but in some instances shareholders and advisors to the company.

Once a bad promoter or attorney is identified, it is well known that they will attempt to change title out of the inventors name, try to steal patent ideas by filing with others or themselves or just bury the idea and use it.

It is also well known that your lawyer Kenneth Rubenstein and Christopher Wheeler would recommend a patent attorney out of NY (Raymond Joao) who we think is part of Proskauer originally. Then we are told Joao is transferring with Rubenstein to Proskauer and then that Rubenstein might not even be with Proskauer.

Anyhoots, we would have to put up some big retainer and start flying this guy out from NY and all this was doing was giving Christopher and Raymond time to file around I View It perhaps. Had the inventions been able to be designed around I am sure they would have taken that approach (Zeosync) and when that failed to procure a result, the only option left was to steal.

Why did Proskauer not do the filings?

Why do they make us use this expensive guy way away from us who needs upfront cash, etc, we think originally he works under Ken at Proskauer. We are a start-up with very little cash and we are already giving Proskauer a great stock deal to boot, Wheeler lies, I think, and said he does not have a department to handle patent filings at the time.

You will see how they keep making us pay up front for Ray’s services trying to delay the filings while Wheeler is billing/gauging us with frivolous legal expenses like corporate restructures of restructures of restructures and trademarks on things like my mother’s maiden name.

All of these initial delays in the filings are caused by Wheeler/Joao delays and while these delays are occurring patents from others, like Joao are being filed.

Kenneth Rubenstein and Raymond Joao commit major fraud on US Patent office when they knowingly file patents with missing inventors telling us foreigners could not be listed. They also lose patent file 5865-2 of Joao’s file folders and Joao claims to have destroyed all I View It notes when he is requested by Foley and Larder to procure these items, and further claims to have done this “to protect I View It”?

The frauds include; leaving out inventors knowingly, not filing patents timely on the Company’s behalf, then losing priority dates for such inventions and finally filing patents with missing parts.

These missing parts later show up in patents filed personally by Raymond Joao.

Other missing parts later show up filed personally at Brian Nutley’s home address with himself as sole inventor. This appears felonious, furthermore false information was promulgated to the Board and finally they submitted such frauded documents to the USPTO through the US Mail.

Chris Wheeler and Ken Rubenstein when questioned regarding the missing patents Joao lost, they guaranteed that the 3 patents Ray came to Florida to document and took information on, on his first trip, were filed or merged into one.

Turns out that by the time he files our second set of patents it is 3 months later and when you look at what he filed it is criminal in that it completely fails to describe the inventions (as determined by now 3 other law firms and finally some are abandoned), this is a direct attempt to sabotage our pool.

Chris Wheeler has been scheduling meetings with players like R3D, Hollywood.com, Visual Data, Huizenga (Web Cast) lying to everyone that the video patent is already filed. Then on the 3 hour drive to R3D, we tried to locate Joao as he was supposed to be scheduled to be available for questions, as this was IView It’s biggest meeting 20 engineers spawning Intel, Silicon Graphics and Lockheed we were sweating, if they had seen it we would pack up and go home. Ray Joao has disappeared and is unavailable for the meeting and Chris Wheeler guarantees us all for three hours on the way up that we are ok as we enter R3D, mind you we try calling Ray several hundred times.

At the meeting we present, review and disclose the full imaging process provisional patent 5865-1, sure enough at the meeting our biggest fears come true, when they ask us to disclose the video concept and we won’t without checking with Joao for confirmation of filing, Joao’s still MIA. I refuse to disclose and we decide not to proceed and set a time to reconvene. Chris later at his office cannot find 5865-2.

After the meeting, Joao becomes available only to tell us that in fact he had never filed a video patent at all. Eliot one of the inventors, throws a huge rage that it appears to be criminal, what happened, where is 5865-2 are they all merged into one? What is going on, calls ensue for Rubenstein to opine.

Huge panacea follows. I would check phone records of everyone that day if I had my dithers. On the other hand, I would look at what happened at R3D with a microscope from that point, sequester all people for testimony and start to follow the technology to the chip and into the camera and into space telescopes and simulators and VR and Cable, TV, etc… and all the other ideas we discussed that magical day.

Source and Full ARticle
http://iviewit.tv/CompanyDocs/patentforfraud.htm

Proskauer Rose

www.Iviewit.TV

Kenneth Rubenstein

www.DeniedPatent.com

David Kappos, Patent Fraud

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