Analogous Arts Patent Law 3.29.04. Hetherington “Bladder Bags”

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Never so obscure /103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts Patent Law – Professor Merges

Advertisements

Preformed Particle Gel (PPG) for Conformance Control

Proteomics Examination Yvonne (Bonnie) Eyler Technology Center 1600 Art Unit 1646 (703)

Protection of Computer Software and Databases Arkadiusz Kwapisz, Examiner Patent Examination Department Patent Office of the Republic of Poland Software-implemented.

1 1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association Standard for Indefiniteness– Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. Stephen S. Wentsler.

1 Rule 132 Declarations and Unexpected Results Richard E. Schafer Administrative Patent Judge Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

Claim Interpretation By: Michael A. Leonard II and Jared T. Olson.

Design Science and Critical Realism Some Methodological Issue Greg Hill, Monash University CBIDSR Workshop, 20/10/05.

Determining Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex TC3600 Business Methods January 2008.

Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 12, 2007 Patent - Subject Matter.

Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 11, 2009 Patent - Subject Matter, Utility.

Never so obscure /103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts Patent Law – Professor Merges

Vs. Miguel Chan UC Berkeley IEOR 190G March 2009.

ISMT 520 Lecture #6: Protecting Technical and Business Process Innovations Dr. Theodore H. K. Clark Associate Professor and Academic Director of MSc Programs.

102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts Patent Law – Professor Merges

KSR vs. Teleflex IEOR 190G Simon Xu

Chapter 7 Nonobviousness: Outline of Policies and Legal Analysis.

DOE I Patent Law Non-Literal Infringement Rotating handle at end of bar Cutting Element attached to bar Base, with passageway U-shaped bar Claimed.

CONFIDENTIAL PATENTS What You Need To Know Robert Benson Office of Technology Development Harvard University Brandeis University – October 20, 2005.

Intro to Novelty Patent Law Sept. 14, Newsflash!!

Intellectual Property in the Classroom PI Institute – January 16, 2003 Dr. Stephen Boedo Department of Mechanical Engineering

By Paul J. Lee. Disclaimer The opinions and views expressed in these materials are not necessarily those of DexCom and reflect only the personal views.

Patents and trade secrets 6 6 Chapter. Patents  Grant of property rights to inventors  Issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)  Permits.

Nonobviousness II Intro to IP – Prof Merges

Rodolphe Bauer, Frédéric Dedek, Gareth Jenkins, Cristina Margarido

BRIEFING YOUR APPEAL OF AN EXAMINER’S DECISION IN AN INTER PARTES REEXAMINATION Romulo H. Delmendo Administrative Patent Judge Board of Patent Appeals.

February 19, Recent Changes and Developments in USPTO Practice Prepared by: Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA) Robert J. Spar, DirectorJoni.

Subject Matter Patentability for Bioinformatics Patent Applications Principles & Practice Gregory L. Maurer Klarquist Sparkman, LLP AIPLA Spring Meeting.

Professor Peng  Patent Act (2008) ◦ Promulgated in 1984 ◦ Amended in 1992, 2000, and 2008.

Customized assistance in all aspects of IPR IPR – focus on patents and strategy Jens Tellefsen European Patent Attorney Partner Patrade A/S.

Routine Optimization Jean Witz, tQAS, TC

Elementary Progress Report Proposal May Process 18 months of committee work. 3 representatives from each elementary school (at the start at least).

Identify the 4 P’s. Learning Objectives To be able to identify and discuss the different parts of the marketing mix To be able to identify the relevance.

Obviousness II Class Notes: February 11, 2003 Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003 Professor Wagner.

35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph Examination Memorandum Robert Clarke Director, Office of Patent Legal Administration United States Patent and Trademark.

Josiah Hernandez Patentability Requirements. Useful Having utilitarian or commercial value Novel No one else has done it before If someone has done it.

Chapter 5: Patent Protection for Computer Software & Business Methods.

Intellectual Property: Patent Eligible Subject Matter Prof. Peng

1 Drafting Mechanical Claims Glenn M. Massina, Esq. RatnerPrestia, PC August 26, 2010.

102/103 Prior Art and Analogous Arts Patent Law – Professor Merges

Sergey Gromov Yulia Krasilnikova Vladimir Polyakov (NRTU MISIS, Moscow) KNOWLEDGE BASE CREATION FOR NATIONAL NANOTECHNOLOGY NETWORKS «CONSTRUCTIONAL NANOMATERIALS»

Overview Validity of patent hinges on novelty, utility, and non-obviousness Utility generally not an issue Pre-suit investigation focuses on infringement,

1 Demystifying the Examination of Stem Cell-Related Inventions Remy Yucel, Ph.D. Supervisory Patent Examiner Technology Center 1600 United States Patent.

AL-MAAREFA COLLEGE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INFO 232: DATABASE SYSTEMS CHAPTER 1 DATABASE SYSTEMS Instructor Ms. Arwa Binsaleh.

Examining Claims for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a): Part II – Enablement Focus on Electrical/Mechanical and Computer/Software-related Claims August.

Vector Claims in Gene Therapy Applications: In vivo vs. In vitro Utilities Deborah Reynolds SPE GAU

Patents IV Nonobviousness

Limits, Alternatives and Choices Economics is about wants and means. Society has the resources to make goods and services that satisfy our many desires.

Chris Fildes FILDES & OUTLAND, P.C. IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting AIPLA Annual Meeting, October 20, 2015 USPTO PILOT PROGRAMS 1 © AIPLA 2015.

Data Governance Patents, Security and Privacy Duke University, November 9, 2015 Ryan Vinelli.

Patent Application – Invention name here Inventor: Your Name Assignee: Your Name Filed: Today’s date References Cited: Use Google Patent search to find.

Total # of Patent Applications226 Total # of Registered Reviewers279 Total # of Prior Art References Submitted603 Total # of Prior Art References.

Unocal vs. Valero: Patent Infringement on Cleaner Burning Gasoline Adriana Winfield UC Berkeley, Chemical Engineer November 3, 2008 IEOR 190G.

Nonobviousness II: More on Nonobviousness The Scope & Content of the Prior Art Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2002 Administrative: (1)reminder: Federal.

PATENTS, INTEGRATED CIRCUITS, AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS Presented By: Navdeep World Trade Organization.

(c) 2004, David Schnapf, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP 1 Examiner Use of Background Statements David Schnapf Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Processing of a well bottom zone Integrated physicochemical effect presentation (cracks formation methods using pulsed-wave force)

Introduction to Patent Law Class Notes: January 14, 2003 Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003 Professor Wagner.

Introduction to Intellectual Property Class of Sept

Patents in Russia Vladimir Biriulin, Partner Gorodissky and Partners Law Firm, Moscow, Russia.

Media Technologies v. Upper Deck Obviousness Rulings Justin Woo IEOR 190G Spring 2010.

Internship experience

PATENTS IT.CAN Annual Meeting

The Novelty Requirement I

In the medical and biotechnology companies Jack Kavanaugh is respected and well-known doctor and business leader. With a focus on medical and science.

Patents IV Nonobviousness

Ch8 Ethics, law and e-commerce

FCA DECISIONS – CONSTRUCTION AND THE SKILLED PERSON

(Outmoded) “Point of Novelty” Test

Presentation transcript:

Analogous Arts Patent Law

Hetherington “Bladder Bags”

United States Patent 4,683,949 Sydansk, et al. August 4, 1987 Conformance improvement in a subterranean hydrocarbon-bearing formation using a polymer gel Conformance improvement is achieved in a subterranean hydrocarbon-bearing formation using a gel. The gel components are combined at the surface and injected into the desired treatment zone via a wellbore Inventors: Sydansk; Robert D. (Littleton, CO); Argabright; Perry A. (Larkspur, CO) Assignee: Marathon Oil Company (Findlay, OH)

Analogous arts: tests From same field? Pertinent to problem solved? P. 800

Sydansk reference Board of Appeals: same field (oil extraction) Federal Circuit: wrong! –Storage vs extraction –P. 801

Sydansk: Same Problem? Differences in conditions governing problem to be solved –Underground conditions different from storage tanks –P 802; PHOSITA faced with Clay’s problem would not look in oil extraction art – AGREE?

Counterpoint: In re Paulsen Pp : Hinge in laptop computer claim Other mechanical arts relevant; “problem not unique to portable computers...” –Importance of problem focus

“General Principles” In re Mariani, 177 F.2d 293 Cust. & Pat.App Application was properly rejected with respect to certain claims for patent for fruit juice extractor, where features claimed to be novel were not in fact novel, but were scientific necessities, or, at least, scientifically desirable and well known to those skilled in the art, and had been used in a fishing reel and in automobile jacks.