Posts in IPWatchdog Articles

The USPTO issued 37 different patents to Apple Inc. on Tuesday, January 8, to protect different devices and computer systems developed by the electronics manufacturer. Some of these protect earlier generations of iPod and iPhone devices that have been sold for a few years. Others protect systems of transferring documents or advertisements among mobile device users. Some of these patent issuances are bittersweet for the company as former CEO Steve Jobs is listed as an inventor on a few of them.

Starting in the fall of 2013, the Nielsen Twitter TV Rating will chart the conversations that take place on Twitter about television shows. It will measure the total audience for each show’s social activity. According to a representative at Nielsen, this new rating system will provide the “precise size of the audience and effect of social TV to TV programming.”

The unfortunate thing is that all of these individuals were getting this question incorrect and anyone who relied on this information moving forward would get the question incorrect. The MPEP section that points to one answer as correct cites an old version of the Rule. The Rule was modified in a Federal Register Notice, which is a testable document and supersedes the MPEP. The new language of the Rule has not yet made it into the MPEP section. The moral of the story is that you have to be very careful when you rely on these forum sites and take advice from someone who is either studying or just passed the exam. They may be giving you good information, but they may be leading you astray.

The substantial new question of patentability standard is lower than the prima facie case of unpatentability standard needed for a patent examiner to make a valid rejection. In other words, just because a prior art patent or printed publication raises a substantial new question of patentability does not necessarily mean that the prior art patent or printed publication can be used either alone or in combination with the other art of record to reject the claims. Nevertheless, it is most common that a reexamination when ordered will result in the claims all being rejected. Thus, in the clear majority of cases a reexamination request is granted if the request will support a prima facie case of unpatentability.

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today opened a new Patent and Trademark Resource Center (PTRC) in Smithtown, New York, at the Smithtown Library to better serve the intellectual property (IP) needs of the public.

David Gaudio was not a registered patent practitioner, but this was not a case where OED went after someone who was only engaged in trademark representation via a reciprocal discipline proceeding. The Law Office of David P. Gaudio, P.C. formed The Inventors Network, Inc. Gaudio was alleged to have engaged in the unauthorized practice of patent law. Gaudio knew that the representation of inventors without being a registered patent practitioner violated USPTO regulations. This case seems significant because it could well signal new USPTO interest in preventing those who are not registered practitioners from preying on unsuspecting inventors.

In the first week of 2013, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s published patent applications feature a number of intriguing Apple patents related to laptop design and data transmission systems. MacBook users could find themselves buying a new generation of wedge-shaped laptops, complete with a new lithium ion battery designed to reduce damaging corrosion. Apple also delves into the publishing world with a series of patents meant to improve electronic book design. All of these patent applications were published on Jan. 3, 2013.

U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton while there are similarities in the names of the digital application storefronts, Apple has not proved that Amazon has in fact tried to pass itself off as an official Apple app store. In her order to dismiss the claim, Hamilton wrote, “There is no evidence that a consumer who accesses the Amazon Appstore would expect that it would be identical to the Apple App Store, particularly given that the Apple App Store sells apps solely for Apple devices, while the Amazon Appstore sells apps solely for Android and Kindle devices. Further, the integration of Apple devices has more to do with Apple’s technology than it does with the nature, characteristics, or qualities of the App Store.”

If I were a patent examiner that hadn’t issued patents for years I wouldn’t want anyone to know that either. Similarly, if I were a Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) in an Art Unit that routinely only issued patents after a long drawn out appeal process that resulted in the Board overturning the rejections I wouldn’t want the public to know about that either. Sadly, this type of gaming exists at the Patent Office. There are examiners who only rarely issue patents and Art Units that openly tell patent attorneys that they don’t issue patents unless ordered to do so by the Board. Knowing that this happens, which is supported by hard data, makes it impossible to tolerate the anti-patent zealots who routinely opine about just how easy it is to get a software or business method patent issued. Really? You have to be kidding!

The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences did something fascinating in Ex Parte Yudoovsky. The Board sua sponte declined to consider an unauthorized new ground of rejection—even though the appellant never filed a petition. In other words, the Board refused to consider a new ground of rejection, because the Examiner failed to designate the ground as “new.”

The dispute at issue here regarding Qimonda arose when the company went bankrupt and seven licensees invoked the protection of § 365(n) to retain patent rights. This became an issue because there is no similar provision on German law, thus there is an attempt to nullify the patent licenses. This would force the seven licensees to open fresh negotiations or face expensive patent infringement litigation which they could not hope to prevail in since they are almost certainly infringing.

The report ignores actual practice. Universities rarely have multiple companies fighting to license their inventions. They’re lucky to find one. The rule of thumb is that a promising university technology requires 5-7 years of private sector development to turn into a product. For a drug, double the time and add a billion dollars in costs. Exclusive licenses are often essential to justify such risks.

Vice-Chief Judge Moore: “The statute requires that each of the judges have scientific ability.  It doesn’t actually require particularized training in any one individual specific area.  Permit me to key off of what the Chief said earlier — we do use that to advantage in some instances.  For example, imagine a software controlled electro-mechanical device which is useful in a biotechnology operation.  I could throw four different judges with four different specialties – biotech, electrical, mechanical, and software – on that so that that panel as a whole could understand it better and help each other through the process.  And that is a huge advantage.  We have at least one team here at the Board that’s truly multidisciplinary.  They handle all types of cases from all types of disciplines without regard as to their own personal technical training aspects.”

In the late 1970s patents for devices which would accommodate the self-care and mobility needs of the aging and handicapped began to be filed. But it wasn’t until 1990 that the filings increased, numbering about 20 a year. By 2005, they totaled about 50 annually. The current trend in patent applications is now focused on humanoids, that is robots resembling and making movements like human beings. That is exactly the kind of story which attracts considerable media attention, creating the illusion that this robotics niche is taking off.

Each week, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office publishes patent applications, and computer and electronics developer Apple Inc. always has at least a few published patent applications. In this column, we’ll look at some of these published applications, looking for hints as to what new devices or features Apple may have in store for users in the future. In this edition we explore published patent applications relating to a graphical user interface that will assist users with special needs, such as vision or hearing problems, an ambitious system for generating electricity from stored wind energy, as well as various devices, systems and software more commonly associated with Apple’s various portable electronic devices.