Introduction: I very recently published a post entitled Stolen Invention! The post discusses the USPTO Derivation Proceedings. Derivation Proceedings are the mechanism for invention ownership dispute resolution between conflicting parties are resolved. My post urged two things: First, I recommended patience if you are unfortunate and have to initiate such an action and second,…
disclosure of invention
Stolen Invention!
Introduction: Derivation Proceeding: You conceive of a new invention. You disclose it to a trusted party. Perhaps the trusted party helped you on the invention. You belatedly find out the trusted third party filed a patent application on the invention without listing you as an inventor. A stolen invention. What do you do? …
Overcoming Obviousness Rejections
Introduction This article addresses overcoming obviousness rejections. This is sometimes referenced as a Section 103 rejection. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are the most common basis for an examiner refusing to allow issuance of a patent. Section 103 states that an improvement or modification that would be obvious to a hypothetical person of ordinary skill…
What NOT To Do Before You File
Introduction This is an update of my previously published WARNING. If you have made an innovation, you don’t want to lose the right to ownership of your invention and the opportunity to exploit it for possible income. The easiest way to lose your rights is to make a public disclosure of the innovation. Public disclosure…
Patent Goulash For Engineers
INTRODUCTION: I wrote an article in October 2019 for mechanical engineers (and others) warning that the Section 101 morass, i.e., Patent Goulash, was not limited to computer software business methods or medical diagnostic procedures. The long twisted arm of unpatentable “natural law” and “abstract ideas” was extending to patent applications for improved mechanical structures. See Mechanical Engineering and…
“Groundbreaking” But Not Patentable?
INTRODUCTION: It is clear abstract ideas are not patentable. However the topic is much more complex. I have written a number of articles regarding the fog shrouded abyss related to patenting computer business methods and medical diagnostic procedures. The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (commonly known as the “Federal Circuit”) continue to…
Patent Classification Review
Introduction Crafting the specification, and particularly the claims, of a patent application can be critical to the chances of ultimate allowance of the application into a legally enforceable patent. This applies not only to distinguishing your invention over the prior art or confirming that your invention is eligible for patent protection, e.g., not merely an abstract…
Avoiding the “Un-patentable Abstract Idea”
INTRODUCTION: I have written many times of the ambiguity created by the courts in the Alice and Mayo decisions regarding what is patentable subject matter. I am today suggesting a method of “avoiding the un-patentable abstract idea”. What I am referring to is the rejection of patentable innovations on the basis that the patent is merely claiming an abstract idea. An abstract idea…
When is Computer Software Patentable?
Software is patentable when and if it can meet the following two part test: Does the claim recite (expressly state or inherently infer) that the software pertains to a method of organizing human activity (including satisfying legal obligations), mathematical formulas or mental processes? If no, then the software claim is patent eligible. If yes, then go to the second part…
Patenting Software – Another Wrinkle
Introduction If you have followed my past postings, you will know I am often trying to explain issues involved in patenting software or computer business methods. Much of the controversy of the last several years has been whether the software or business method is actually patentable subject matter. This has involved discussions of Section 101 and whether…