Posts in USPTO

Perhaps the most ridiculous suggestion given (step 8) is to download the free PTO Patent Bar Exam Review Package from CNET. The WikiHow article explains that this free package contains MPEP 8th edition revisions 1 and 2. Why would you ever want to even consider the 8th edition revisions 1 and 2 when you will be tested on the 8th edition revision 9? Revision 9 was published August 2012. Revision 1 was published February 2003 and revision 2 was published May 2004. Why would anyone who is at all serious use materials that are a decade old to take an exam that is constantly being updated and refreshed with new materials? If you study the wrong MPEP edition you have absolutely NO chance to pass the patent bar exam.

With sequestration finally cutting the Republicans don’t seem to be in any rush whatsoever, so the Patent Office which really should be exempt is caught in the cross hairs. Although it is easy to point at Congressman Wolf, a Republican, and say the Republicans are to blame, that would be a mistake. Senator Coburn (R-OK) is a Republican and he fought to fully and fairly fund the USPTO. Furthermore, the reason the USPTO is bound by sequestration is thanks to the interpretation of the Office of Management and Budget. OMB is a part of the Executive Branch, so the President is in no way blameless. He has no trouble ignoring Congress when it suites him (i.e., the health care employer mandate delay) but when an argument could logically be made that the USPTO is not covered by sequestration no such argument was made. Thus, this is less a political issue than it is really bad kabuki theater.

A recent fire onboard a Boeing Dreamliner at London’s Heathrow Airport refocused concerns on the recently developed cruise liner, which was maligned with battery fire issues earlier this year. In early July, a high-profile Asiana Airlines crash in San Francisco involving a Boeing 777 airliner has also troubled the company, although the investigation seems to be focusing on pilot error in that case. Still, when dealing with air transit there is zero margin for error. When errors do occur when an airplane is in use they frequently are catastrophic, so the search for safer technologies is a never ending pursuit. Today in our Companies We Follow series, we’re taking another look at Boeing, especially taking a look at their efforts to develop even safer systems of airborne transportation. Some of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office documents we feature here highlight Boeing’s improvements to emergency systems on aircraft.

Despite the turmoil surround software patent eligibility I believe with great certainty that software will remain patent eligible in the United States. The extreme decisions of the PTAB and viewpoints of those on the Federal Circuit opposed to computer implemented methods will not prevail because they are inconsistent with the Patent Act and long-standing patent law jurisprudence. After all, the Supreme Court itself explicitly found software patent eligible in Diamond v. Diehr. In the meantime, while we wait for the dust to settle, we need to engage in a variety of claiming techniques (i.e., methods, computer readable medium, systems claims, means-plus-function claims and straight device claims). Thus, if you are interested in moving forward with a patent application it will be advisable to file the application with more claims than would have been suggested even a few months ago. Patent attorneys also must spend increased time describing the invention from various viewpoints, which means specifications should increase in size. This all means that there is no such thing as a quick, cheap and easy software patent application – at least if you want to have any hope of obtaining a patent in this climate.

Today at IPWatchdog, we’re taking a closer look at some recent innovations to barbecue cooking. The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has published a number of patent applications, and has issued many patents, dealing with improvements to methods of slow cooking meat. For issued patents, the USPTO has recently decided to award legal protections to a Nebraskan inventor who has devised a power drill attachment useful for shredding, or “pulling,” meats. A second patent we feature here protects an apparatus that allows grill owners to easier clean a grill grate without wearing out arm muscles through repetitive motion or getting liquid cleansers all over their bodies.

A few patent applications give us an insight to some of the intriguing uses of solar energy we might see someday in our own backyards. One application describes an umbrella table capable of storing electricity and sending it to electrical outlets on the table. Another application is for a grill canopy with solar-powered lighting displaying downward from the fabric top. A third application would protect a solar powered outdoor lamp with a more stable base for non-permeable ground settings. The USPTO has also recently issued patents to some individuals and small groups who have devised new ways of utilizing solar power through summer activities or ornaments. One patent protects a surfboard that collects and stores electricity safely for later use. Another patent protects a system of storing electricity from solar energy to light decorative wind chimes at night.

The Supreme Court on June 24, 2013, called for the views of the Solicitor General on petitions to review the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision on joint infringement of process patents. That decision held that induced infringement of a process patent claim may be found even though no single entity performed all of the claimed steps as long as claim steps are performed collectively by multiple parties

For patent prosecutors and their clients, restriction requirements represent a significant cost increase as splitting one patent application into several new applications results in the multiplication of fees and, often, loss of protection due to expense limitations. The issuance of restriction requirements by patent examiners at the USPTO seems to be somewhat random and inconsistent.

On June 24, 2013, 17 Members of Congress wrote a letter to Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA) and Congressman Chaka Fattah (D-PA), who are respectively the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science of the House Appropriations Committee. The letter to Congressmen Wolf and Fattah was short and to the point, saying: “We write to request your assistance in addressing the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) recent decision to sequester user fees which fund the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). As a result, almost $150 million in inventors’ fees in Fiscal Year 2013 have been locked in USPTO’s general fund. We request that the Approrpiations Committee allow USPTO to access the sequestered user fee funds.”

Earlier today Congressman Mike Honda (D-San Jose), Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) and Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo (D-Palo Alto) introduced the Patents And Trademarks Encourage New Technology (PATENT) Jobs Act to exempt the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) from the what they sponsors called debilitating cuts imposed by budget sequestration. Indeed, those who have followed this issue know that during the debate and ultimate passage of the America Invents Act (AIA) much was made of the ability of the USPTO to keep its fees and use them to support ongoing business operations. Written promises were made, no binding promises were enacted as part of the legislation, and few could have anticipated that so soon after the USPTO would once again be facing a budget shortfall. See Lack of Commitment to PTO Funding.

This week at IPWatchdog’s Companies We Follow series, we decide to leave the private sector and check out the recent patent applications and issued patents assigned to the University of California. This academic research system is involved with the research and development of computer, medical and energy technologies, among others.

What’s regrettable is that the White House didn’t wait for such empirical data on patent litigation and instead rehashed the findings of discredited studies of PAE-related lawsuits and their purported economic consequences. Specifically, I mean the infamous $29 billion victims are said to have paid to patent trolls in 2011, a number that has echoed around the Internet and made it into congressional debate despite its dubious origins. The number was produced by a study that failed to adequately define just what a troll is – even universities and many manufacturers were included – and then harvested its data not from a reputable polling or academic institution but from a company that has a dog in the patent fight and profits from fueling fears about infringement lawsuits.

A number of interesting patent applications deal with Google’s efforts to improve online mapping applications. One such application would protect a system of downloading map tiles for offline routing. An issued patent assigned to Google protects a system of depicting multi-level buildings three-dimensionally so that browsers can view flooring plans. Other USPTO activity showcases Google’s focus on creating better media systems for mobile devices. One patent application would protect a system of synchronizing magazine content on apps for better layout among different devices. Another patent application allows users to selectively view images to conserve data usage. Finally, we look at a patent application filed to protect a system of ranking news articles based on the source publication’s quality.

As a major developer of electronics, Sony Corporation often files patent applications and is awarded patents from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. This week at IPWatchdog’s series Companies We Follow, we take a closer look at some interesting patent documents assigned to Sony which the USPTO has released this month.

A few of the patent applications we profile here offer better methods of providing professional software services to electronic device users. One patent application improves the ability for amateur videographers to render 3D graphics while editing video. Another application would protect a new system of user camera settings that analyzes prior photos to determine user preferences for lighting and more.

Other applications we feature here would protect some very interesting improvements to electronic devices. For example, one application we look at would protect a remote control that can also help a user interact with their home’s telephone system. One final patent application we feature makes it easier for smart phone users to take pictures without their hands getting in the way of the display screen. We also look at one patent that allows users to build personal libraries of DRM-protected digital content that are accessible across multiple devices.