2009 - Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 08 1 Agenda Talks 5,556,071 7,170,050 7,498,015 More on Prosecution, and more TOAs Simulations.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Examination Process
Advertisements

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION OFFICE OF PATENT COUNSEL March 16, 2001.
Director’s Meeting Legislation and Case Law Update by Dave Risley July 29, 2011.
EPO RULE CHANGES 2010 Nicholas Fox. EPO Rule Changes Changes in search procedures Changes to divisional practice Changes to examination procedure.
Utility and Written Description Steve Kunin Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy Esther Kepplinger Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations.
More on Restriction Practice Jim Housel SPE, Art Unit 1648 (703)
BLAW 2010 Patent Project Part 1I. Why do we have patent laws?
Double Patenting Simplified
PROSECUTION APPEALS Presented at: Webb & Co. Rehovot, Israel Date: February 14, 2013 Presented by: Roy D. Gross Associate St. Onge Steward Johnston & Reens.
The America Invents Act (AIA) - Rules and Implications of First to File, Prior Art, and Non-obviousness -
September 14, U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Public Law ) Enacted December.
Appeal Practice Before Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
Filing Compliant Reexam Requests Andy Kashnikow SPE, Central Reexamination Unit Andy Kashnikow SPE, Central Reexamination Unit June, 2010.
1 Principles in Restriction Practice TC 1600 Anthony Caputa TC Practice Specialist (571)
Enhanced First Action Interview (EFAI) Pilot Program Wendy Garber Tech Center Director, 2100 United States Patent & Trademark Office.
In re Bilski (Fed Cir. 2008) Patentable subject matter In re Bilski (Fed Cir. 2008) Patentable subject matter December 2, 2008 John King Ron Schoenbaum.
by Eugene Li Summary of Part 3 – Chapters 8, 9, and 10
Patents 101 April 1, 2002 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.
Full First Action Interview (FFAI) Pilot Program Wendy Garber Tech Center Director, 2100 United States Patent & Trademark Office.
Information Disclosure Statements
PCT Search & Publication. PCT Timetable Months from Earliest Priority DateDeadline/Action 16 th MonthInternational Searching Authority (ISA) Prepares.
February 19, Recent Changes and Developments in USPTO Practice Prepared by: Office of Patent Legal Administration (OPLA) Robert J. Spar, DirectorJoni.
2 23,503 hours in FY 2013, compared with 21,273 hours in FY ,651 interview hours in FY 13 have been charged through the AFCP program. Interview.
Contents of US Patent Applications & Filing Requirements
Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 01 1 Scientific Evidence and Expert Testimony: Patent Litigation LAW 343 / GENETICS 243 Prof. Roberta J. Morris Room 208 Crown.
Notice of Proposed Rule Making Affecting Claims That Recite Alternatives 1 Robert Clarke, Director Office of Patent Legal Administration (571)
The Patent Process. Protection of Ideas or Inventions An idea/know how Generally speaking, we would like to protect inventions that have significant commercial.
Restriction & Double Patenting Mojdeh Bahar, J.D., M.A., CLP Chief, Cancer Branch Office of Technology Transfer National Institutes of Health U.S. Department.
A Practical Guide For Prosecutors Patent Prosecution Under The AIA William R. Childs, Ph.D., J.D. August 22, 2013.
Introduction to IP Ellen Monson Director Intellectual Property Office University of Cincinnati.
1 LAW DIVISION PATENT DIVISION TRADEMARK & DESIGN DIVISION ACCOUNTING & AUDITING DIVISION YUASA AND HARA LAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING.
1 INTERVIEWING AND ADVISING. 2 OVERVIEW An interview is a conversation designed to achieve a purpose. The client wants advice from the lawyer. The lawyer.
To Restrict or Not To Restrict That Is The Question? Divided We Stand! Or Undivided We Stand!! By Joseph K. McKane SPE, Art Unit 1626.
1 Restriction Practice Updates Julie Burke TC1600 Quality Assurance Specialist
Sci.Ev rjm Week /31/07 1 (White (Glass BoardWall) Wall) Today’s Seating Plan Door Screen Mice* Drives* Strips* Hoods* Genes* Latest Team Information.
Post-Grant & Inter Partes Review Procedures Presented to AIPPI, Italy February 10, 2012 By Joerg-Uwe Szipl Griffin & Szipl, P.C.
Practice Before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
Election of Species Joseph K. McKane SPE, Art Unit 1626 April 27, 2004.
Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 03 1 Today’s Agenda (Last week we worked on reformatting Hologic claim 1. Guillaume posted the result as a final reply to Week.
1 When is it NOT Appropriate to Restrict? Julie Burke TC1600 QAS
Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 01 1 Scientific Evidence and Expert Testimony: Patent Litigation LAW 343 Prof. Roberta J Morris Room 208 Crown Quad
Claims and Continuations Final Rule Overview Briefing for Examiners 1.
New Ex Parte Appeal Rules Patent and Trademark Practice Group Meeting January 26, 2012.
Sci.Ev rjm Week 3 - 9/26/07 1 LAW Scientific Evidence and Expert Testimony: Patent Litigation Today’s Agenda  The Arrival of the Graduate.
Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 04 1 Seating Assignments Door Screen Warner- Jenkinson Ben, BumQ, Guillaume, Tiffany Graver Tank Aaron, Riti, Ryan KSR Matt T,
QualityDefinition.PPACMeeting AdlerDraft 1 1 Improving the Quality of Patents Marc Adler PPAC meeting June 18, 2009.
FY09 Restriction Petition Update; Comparison of US and National Stage Restriction Practice Julie Burke TC1600 Quality Assurance Specialist
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.
LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY FALL 2015 © 2015 MICHAEL I. SHAMOS Patents Michael I. Shamos, Ph.D., J.D. Institute for Software Research School of Computer.
James Toupin – General Counsel February 1, Summary of Proposed Rule Changes to Continuations, Double Patenting, and Claims.
Claims Proposed Rulemaking Main Purposes É Applicant Assistance to Improve Focus of Examination n Narrow scope of initial examination so the examiner is.
Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 06 1 Agenda 4:15 – 5:15 Guest: Harry Bims, Ph.D., Expert Witness 5:30- 6:30 Questions that were not addressed to Bims’ expertise.
2007 Revisions to Japanese Patent Law. 2 #1 Period for Filing Divisional Applications (A) BeforeBefore AfterAfter Notice of Allowance Divisional Application.
Double Patenting Deborah Reynolds SPE Art Unit 1632 Detailee, TC1600 Practice Specialist
Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 05 1 Seating Assignments Door Screen One more MATT Sanofi Matthew, Dmitry, (Denise), Prosen Obviousness.
01/26/2012 RJM - IP: Sci Ev in Pat Lit - Winter IP: Scientific Evidence in Patent Litigation Week 3 Amy Sam Patrick Nicolaj Waqas Ram Tim Jamie.
10/11/10 RJM - Sci Ev Seminar - Fall Today’s Agenda – 10/11/10 Housekeeping Simulations Teams Patent Explorations Finishing up – 9/27 slide, VNUS.
10/18/10 RJM - Sci Ev Seminar - Fall Today’s Agenda Warner-Jenkinson 1. tosinDKTS aka Dockets 2. janeJMNJ aka Jumanji 3. joshJMNJ 4. li(ZL) 2 aka.
The Impact of Patent Reform on Independent Inventors and Start-up Companies Mark Nowotarski (Patent Agent)
1 FY08 Restriction Petition Update and Burden Julie Burke Quality Assurance Specialist Technology Center 1600.
1 TOPIC III - PATENT INVALIDATION PROCEDURES EU-CHINA WORKSHOP ON THE CHINESE PATENT LAW HARBIN, SEPTEMBER 2008 Dr. Gillian Davies.
Sci.Ev. - rjm Week Sci.Ev. - rjm 1 Scientific Evidence and Expert Testimony: Patent Litigation LAW 343 / GENETICS 243 Prof. Roberta.
BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
PATENT OFFICE PROSECUTION
IP: Scientific Evidence in Patent Litigation Week 3
Claims and Continuations Final Rule
Properties of the Real Numbers Part I
Week 03 - Answers Interferences: Concept?
Back of the Room: Anyone who is not performing in the simulations.
PATC Module 2 – Infringement/Validity
Presentation transcript:

Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 08 1 Agenda Talks 5,556,071 7,170,050 7,498,015 More on Prosecution, and more TOAs Simulations

Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 08 2 THIS Week First Hour: ~15 minutes per team = ~ 3 minutes per person = ~ 1-4 slides per person, covering The CLAIM and the particular word or phrase to which your arguments pertain. THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF THE CLAIM must be the first slide(s). It should be reformatted as needed. A handout (15 copies) with the whole claim, reformatted, with an indication of the key word/phrase, is strongly advised, too. Information about the claimed invention Information about the prior art, or what the motivation for the invention was, or other helpful background. (This can be before or after you tell about the claimed invention.) Information about the design around or invalidating prior art (which ever you have chosen) Summary of what (else) you will present You can provide other handouts if you like. Divide the work however you like. Do not worry about PO/AI or Lawyer/Expert status for this. Second Hour: More team meetings / discussion with me.

Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 08 3 Prosecution and TOAs I asked: For each restriction requirement, how many claims were cancelled? If there were NO restriction requirements, then how can ANY claims be CANCELLED because of them?? A RESTRICTION requirement is different from a REjection or an OBjection. All 3 are mentioned in 35 USC 132(a) (see next slide) as possible ways the Patent Office can respond to an application.35 USC 132(a) (I explained this in June 2001 in "An Open Letter to the Supreme Court Concerning Patent Law," Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society (83 JPTOS 438; errata 83 JPTOS 683), so that’s where I go when I want to remind myself about it.)

Sci.Ev. - rjm Week U.S.C. 132 Notice of rejection; reexamination. (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; and if after receiving such notice, the applicant persists in his claim for a patent, with or without amendment, the application shall be reexamined. No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. Prosecution and TOAs aka prior art You can overcome a new matter REJECTION by filing a continuation-in-part

Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 08 5 REjection, OBjection, Requirement Claims may also be cancelled because either - the applicants canNOT figure out a way to amend them to overcome the rejection, or - the applicants CAN figure out a way, but it requires so much amending that instead they cancel them and substitute a new claim. In the latter case, you may want to make a visual display, aka claim chart: Original Claim (different language) Common LanguageNew Claim (different language) A widget comprising: a large yellow-green whosits... an enormous chartreuse

Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 08 6 Restrictions, Elections, Divisionals -1 Examiners make a restriction requirement if they find that you claim two different kinds of inventions aka ‘species.’ The rationale is that this will require two separate searches. The filing fee only entitles you to one. Two different inventions? Examples: A method and a composition, or a system including everything and a subsystem including less. Distinguish between counting inventions and counting CLAIMED inventions. Distinguish between genus/species and species in restriction requirements. Get confused twice.

Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 08 7 Restrictions, Elections, Divisionals -2 Applicants are told that they must ELECT a “species”in order to have the examiner commence a search and examination on the merits. What if the applicants want to pursue all the original claims, both the method claims (we’ll call them 1 to 5), and the system claims (6 to 9)? They cancel 6 to 9, and proceed with prosecution of 1 to 5 in the original application, and then file a DIVISIONAL, which is identical to the original application, including all 9 claims, and by preliminary amendment they cancel 1 to 5.

Sci.Ev. - rjm Week 08 8 Simulations Tuesday, 11/30 or 12/1, 7 to 8:20* -- 7,498,015, Kunze et al., METHOD OF MAKING SILANE COMPOSITIONS Dmitry Emily Guillaume MattB Riti critiqued** by [Aaron Ben Denise MattT __] Judges: Rob Goldman (Ropes & Gray), Paul Grewal (Howrie), Craig Allison (Dechert) Wednesday, 12/2, 7 to 8:20* -- 5,556,771, Shen et al., STABILIZED COMPOSITIONS OF REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE AND RNA POLYMERASE FOR NUCLEIC ACID AMPLIFICATION BumQ (David) MattP Ryan Tiffany critiqued** by [Dmitry Emily Guillaume MattB ?Riti?] Judges: Irvin Tyan (retired at 30~), Lisa Silverman (3L), ______ Wednesday, 12/2, 8:40* to ,170,050, Turner et al., APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR OPTICAL ANALYSIS OF MOLECULES Aaron Ben Denise MattT critiqued** by [BumQ MattP Ryan Tiffany] Judges: Norm Beamer (Ropes & Gray), _____, _______ * Refreshments: 8:20 to 8:40 ** Specific critique assignments TBA And please do not ask questions about critiquing unless you know the answers cannot be found in the document How the Course Will Work, which you promised me you read and understood at the start of the quarter.