Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE C

[rickman]

IEEE sponsored Town Hall meeting/lunch/workshop Nov. 5 - Patent Reform
and YOU

Congress has recently enacted sweeping patent reform that is adverse
to small inventors and entrepreneurs. The IEEE National Capital Area
Consultants Network and Baltimore Consultants Network want you to know
what has happened and how patent reform will affect the individual or
small-business entrepreneur. We have put together a Town Hall meeting
with a panel session and workshop. The event is open to the public,
and IEEE student members are especially welcomed to participate.
Lunch and a networking reception are included. IEEE Student members
may bring a guest at no additional cost. Door prizes will be awarded!


The NCACN welcomes IP experts Dr. Lee Hollaar and Dr. Amelia Morani
who will present the current landscape of U.S. patent law and lead the
workshop.


Your admission ticket includes a complimentary lunch and admission to
the networking reception. IEEE members can preregister to attend at a
discounted price of $10, and IEEE student members will receive one
guest admission as part of their $10 ticket price. IEEE discounted
prices are available only by preregistration until 6pm on November 4.
General admission is offered for $20 per person by preregistration and
at the door. All registered attendees will be eligible for door
prizes.


WHERE:

Loyola University Columbia, MD Graduate Campus
8890 MaGaw Road Room 260
Columbia, MD 21045


DIRECTIONS:

http://www.loyola.edu/facilitiesmanagement/columbia/directions.html


WHEN:

Saturday November 5


10am - Panel session, lunch, and discussion
2pm - Networking reception


COST:

$20 - general admission
$10 - IEEE member or guest (expires Nov. 4 6pm)
$10 - IEEE student member with 1 complimentary guest admission
(expires Nov. 4 6pm)


RSVP:

NCACN registration portal: http://www.ieee-consultants.org
OR
IEEE vtools registration link: http://meetings.vtools.ieee.org/meeting_view/list_meeting/8771


Thank you, and we hope to see you there!
Monica Mallini, PE


YOUR HOSTS:

IEEE National Capital Area Consultants Network
IEEE Baltimore Consultants Network
IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology (Wash/NoVA/Balt
Chapter)
IEEE Computer Society (Wash/Nova and Balt Chapters)
IEEE Region 2 Professional Activities Committee

 

[rickman]

You guys missed a really great discussion today. We had to expert
presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. They
discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. I only wish I
had taken better notes. I did get the chance to speak directly with
Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. One is
to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which
would represent prior art. This is attached at an application or even
a granted patent. If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent by
filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good
faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
court. There were other things that can be done and they don't
require you to be a lawyer or use one.

I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
the USPTO representatives. Probably the most useful thing that was
said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
profit. Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.

BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. So it
is just like an election, file early and file often!

Rick


On Oct 24, 3:59 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

Co-sponsored by
IEEE NCA Consultants Network,
Baltimore Consultants Network,
Society on Social Implications of Technology,
Baltimore and NoVA/Wash. Computer Society,
and Region 2 PACE Committee

Congress has enacted sweeping patent reform that is adverse to small
inventors and entrepreneurs. How will this affect you? Let’s explore
what the future holds with our panel of experts. Lunch and networking
reception are included. Student members may bring a guest at no
additional cost. Door prizes! Additional details at the link below.

When: Saturday, November 5 10am-2pm

Where: Loyola University Graduate Centers Room 260
8890 McGaw Road Columbia, MD 21045 USA

Cost: $10 IEEE members (advance), $20 general

Web Page:www.ieee-consultants.org

Registration:http://meetings.vtools.ieee.org/meeting_view/list_meeting/8771

Panelists: Dr. Lee Hollaar, Dr. Amelia Morani

We are still looking for a panelist who is a consultant able to speak
regarding the impact of this new law.  Anyone available in the area?

 

[Eric Jacobsen]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
wrote:

You guys missed a really great discussion today. We had to expert
presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. They
discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. I only wish I
had taken better notes. I did get the chance to speak directly with
Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. One is
to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which
would represent prior art. This is attached at an application or even
a granted patent. If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent by
filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good
faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
court. There were other things that can be done and they don't
require you to be a lawyer or use one.

I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
the USPTO representatives. Probably the most useful thing that was
said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
profit. Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.

BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. So it
is just like an election, file early and file often!

Rick

Thanks for the update. I wish I could have been there.

Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
processed? What's to stop someone from filing something only
marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? Sounds
like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to
kill a good patent.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

 

[rickman]

On Nov 6, 12:28 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com
wrote:









You guys missed a really great discussion today.  We had to expert
presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office.  They
discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here.  I only wish I
had taken better notes.  I did get the chance to speak directly with
Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent.  One is
to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which
would represent prior art.  This is attached at an application or even
a granted patent.  If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent by
filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good
faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
court.  There were other things that can be done and they don't
require you to be a lawyer or use one.

I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
the USPTO representatives.  Probably the most useful thing that was
said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
profit.  Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.

BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year.  So it
is just like an election, file early and file often!

Rick

Thanks for the update.   I wish I could have been there.

Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
processed?   What's to stop someone from filing something only
marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent?  Sounds
like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to
kill a good patent.

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

No, this was a response to my question after the presentation. I
don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent. I
believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need
to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted.

It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called
"provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the
date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full
application. A significant aspect of this is that you have no
obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
art" registered with the USPTO. No one can subsequently apply for a
patent on that same invention.

I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely
broken. I think the problem is that people don't know much about it
and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find. My car
is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go. But I guess
your mileage may vary.

Rick

 

[Eric Jacobsen]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:08:09 -0800 (PST), rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Nov 6, 12:28=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com
wrote:









You guys missed a really great discussion today. =A0We had to expert
presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =A0They
discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =A0I only wish I
had taken better notes. =A0I did get the chance to speak directly with
Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =A0One is
to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which
would represent prior art. =A0This is attached at an application or even
a granted patent. =A0If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent by
filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good
faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
court. =A0There were other things that can be done and they don't
require you to be a lawyer or use one.

I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
the USPTO representatives. =A0Probably the most useful thing that was
said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
profit. =A0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.

BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =A0So it
is just like an election, file early and file often!

Rick

Thanks for the update. =A0 I wish I could have been there.

Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
processed? =A0 What's to stop someone from filing something only
marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =A0Sounds
like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to
kill a good patent.

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

No, this was a response to my question after the presentation. I
don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent. I
believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need
to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted.

It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called
"provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the
date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full
application. A significant aspect of this is that you have no
obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
art" registered with the USPTO. No one can subsequently apply for a
patent on that same invention.

Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw. They're a means to
establish the "priority date" for an invention, in other words the
file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready. There are
some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one
can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't
covered by material in the provisional application.

The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and
doesn't have a specific format. e.g., it is not unusual to file a
draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the
provisional application for any patents that might come out of it.

Establishing the "priority date" by filing a provisional patent may be
more important in the US now that we're moving to a first to file
system.

I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely
broken. I think the problem is that people don't know much about it
and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find. My car
is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go. But I guess
your mileage may vary.

Always.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

 

[Eric Jacobsen]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:13:18 -0800 (PST), rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Nov 7, 2:34=A0pm, fatalist <simfid...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 7, 2:08=A0pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:









On Nov 6, 12:28=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com
wrote:

You guys missed a really great discussion today. =A0We had to expert
presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =A0They
discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =A0I only wish=
I
had taken better notes. =A0I did get the chance to speak directly wi=
th
Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =A0On=
e is
to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication whic=
h
would represent prior art. =A0This is attached at an application or =
even
a granted patent. =A0If the patent holder tries to enforce the paten=
t by
filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in goo=
d
faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
court. =A0There were other things that can be done and they don't
require you to be a lawyer or use one.

I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
the USPTO representatives. =A0Probably the most useful thing that wa=
s
said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
profit. =A0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.

BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =A0So=
it
is just like an election, file early and file often!

Rick

Thanks for the update. =A0 I wish I could have been there.

Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
processed? =A0 What's to stop someone from filing something only
marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =A0Soun=
ds
like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to
kill a good patent.

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

No, this was a response to my question after the presentation. =A0I
don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent. =A0I
believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need
to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted.

It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called
"provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the
date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full
application. =A0A significant aspect of this is that you have no
obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a
patent on that same invention.

I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely
broken. =A0I think the problem is that people don't know much about it
and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find. =A0My ca=
r
is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go. =A0But I guess
your mileage may vary. =A0

Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"A significant aspect of this is that you have no
obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a
patent on that same invention."

Provisional application is not published by USPTO and automatically
expires in one year

It cannot be used as "prior art" by USPTO or anyone else unless it is
followed by a formal non-provisional application that is published and
claims the benefit of a provisional

This issue was discussed by the four member panel and no one disagreed
with the speaker, Dr Hollaar. Remember this included two
representatives from the USPTO. Even if the provisional application
expires, it constitutes prior art because it was filed with the
USPTO. I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was
presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing
fee of only $125. Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his
presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it.

Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art?
I'm not certain whether it is published or not. But the USPTO has the
application so they know it's prior art.

Rick

I suspect you mean "priority date" rather than "prior art".

Otherwise they may have been saying that a provisional can be used as
evidence of "prior art" against competing applications, assuming a
formal application is eventually filed to replace the provisional.

Or something like that...



Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

 

[fatalist]

On Nov 7, 2:08 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 6, 12:28 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:





On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com
wrote:

You guys missed a really great discussion today.  We had to expert
presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office.  They
discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here.  I only wish I
had taken better notes.  I did get the chance to speak directly with
Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent.  One is
to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which
would represent prior art.  This is attached at an application or even
a granted patent.  If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent by
filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good
faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
court.  There were other things that can be done and they don't
require you to be a lawyer or use one.

I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
the USPTO representatives.  Probably the most useful thing that was
said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
profit.  Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.

BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year.  So it
is just like an election, file early and file often!

Rick

Thanks for the update.   I wish I could have been there.

Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
processed?   What's to stop someone from filing something only
marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent?  Sounds
like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to
kill a good patent.

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

No, this was a response to my question after the presentation.  I
don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent.  I
believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need
to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted.

It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called
"provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the
date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full
application.  A significant aspect of this is that you have no
obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
art" registered with the USPTO.  No one can subsequently apply for a
patent on that same invention.

I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely
broken.  I think the problem is that people don't know much about it
and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find.  My car
is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go.  But I guess
your mileage may vary.  

Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"A significant aspect of this is that you have no
obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
art" registered with the USPTO. No one can subsequently apply for a
patent on that same invention."

Provisional application is not published by USPTO and automatically
expires in one year

It cannot be used as "prior art" by USPTO or anyone else unless it is
followed by a formal non-provisional application that is published and
claims the benefit of a provisional

 

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

Eric Jacobsen wrote:

Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw. They're a means to
establish the "priority date" for an invention, in other words the
file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready. There are
some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one
can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't
covered by material in the provisional application.

That means the provisional application should be prepared like full
patent application.

The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and
doesn't have a specific format. e.g., it is not unusual to file a
draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the
provisional application for any patents that might come out of it.

If it comes to a lawsuit regarding priority date, then it would be hard
to prove anything unless the provisional application is identical to the
subsequent patent application.

Establishing the "priority date" by filing a provisional patent may be
more important in the US now that we're moving to a first to file
system.

Provisional applications are pretty much pointless.


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

 

[rickman]

On Nov 7, 2:34 pm, fatalist <simfid...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 7, 2:08 pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:









On Nov 6, 12:28 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com
wrote:

You guys missed a really great discussion today.  We had to expert
presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office.  They
discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here.  I only wish I
had taken better notes.  I did get the chance to speak directly with
Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent.  One is
to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which
would represent prior art.  This is attached at an application or even
a granted patent.  If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent by
filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good
faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
court.  There were other things that can be done and they don't
require you to be a lawyer or use one.

I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
the USPTO representatives.  Probably the most useful thing that was
said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
profit.  Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.

BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year.  So it
is just like an election, file early and file often!

Rick

Thanks for the update.   I wish I could have been there.

Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
processed?   What's to stop someone from filing something only
marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent?  Sounds
like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to
kill a good patent.

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

No, this was a response to my question after the presentation.  I
don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent.  I
believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need
to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted.

It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called
"provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the
date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full
application.  A significant aspect of this is that you have no
obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
art" registered with the USPTO.  No one can subsequently apply for a
patent on that same invention.

I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely
broken.  I think the problem is that people don't know much about it
and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find.  My car
is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go.  But I guess
your mileage may vary.  

Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"A significant aspect of this is that you have no
obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
art" registered with the USPTO.  No one can subsequently apply for a
patent on that same invention."

Provisional application is not published by USPTO and automatically
expires in one year

It cannot be used as "prior art" by USPTO or anyone else unless it is
followed by a formal non-provisional application that is published and
claims the benefit of a provisional

This issue was discussed by the four member panel and no one disagreed
with the speaker, Dr Hollaar. Remember this included two
representatives from the USPTO. Even if the provisional application
expires, it constitutes prior art because it was filed with the
USPTO. I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was
presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing
fee of only $125. Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his
presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it.

Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art?
I'm not certain whether it is published or not. But the USPTO has the
application so they know it's prior art.

Rick

 

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

In comp.arch.fpga rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
(snip)

It cannot be used as "prior art" by USPTO or anyone else unless it is
followed by a formal non-provisional application that is published and
claims the benefit of a provisional

This issue was discussed by the four member panel and no one disagreed
with the speaker, Dr Hollaar. Remember this included two
representatives from the USPTO. Even if the provisional application
expires, it constitutes prior art because it was filed with the
USPTO. I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was
presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing
fee of only $125. Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his
presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it.

Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art?
I'm not certain whether it is published or not. But the USPTO has the
application so they know it's prior art.

My interpretation from the above statements (and not from any other)
is that it could be used to claim prior art by the original filer, or,
I suppose, by an agent of the filer. Even if the USPTO doesn't
publish it, the original filer could, and that should be usable
to claim prior art if someone else tried to patent it.

As usual, IANAL and don't even pretend to be one on TV.

-- glen

 

[rickman]

On Nov 7, 3:30 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:13:18 -0800 (PST), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com
wrote:









On Nov 7, 2:34=A0pm, fatalist <simfid...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 7, 2:08=A0pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 6, 12:28=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com
wrote:

You guys missed a really great discussion today. =A0We had to expert
presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =A0They
discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =A0I only wish> > I
had taken better notes. =A0I did get the chance to speak directly wi> >th
Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =A0On> >e is
to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication whic> >h
would represent prior art. =A0This is attached at an application or > >even
a granted patent. =A0If the patent holder tries to enforce the paten> >t by
filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in goo> >d
faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
court. =A0There were other things that can be done and they don't
require you to be a lawyer or use one.

I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
the USPTO representatives. =A0Probably the most useful thing that wa> >s
said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
profit. =A0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.

BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =A0So> > it
is just like an election, file early and file often!

Rick

Thanks for the update. =A0 I wish I could have been there.

Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
processed? =A0 What's to stop someone from filing something only
marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =A0Soun> >ds
like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to
kill a good patent.

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

No, this was a response to my question after the presentation. =A0I
don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent. =A0I
believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need
to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted.

It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called
"provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the
date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full
application. =A0A significant aspect of this is that you have no
obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a
patent on that same invention.

I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely
broken. =A0I think the problem is that people don't know much about it
and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find. =A0My ca> >r
is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go. =A0But I guess
your mileage may vary. =A0

Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"A significant aspect of this is that you have no
obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a
patent on that same invention."

Provisional application is not published by USPTO and automatically
expires in one year

It cannot be used as "prior art" by USPTO or anyone else unless it is
followed by a formal non-provisional application that is published and
claims the benefit of a provisional

This issue was discussed by the four member panel and no one disagreed
with the speaker, Dr Hollaar.  Remember this included two
representatives from the USPTO.  Even if the provisional application
expires, it constitutes prior art because it was filed with the
USPTO.  I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was
presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing
fee of only $125.  Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his
presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it.

Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art?
I'm not certain whether it is published or not.  But the USPTO has the
application so they know it's prior art.

Rick

I suspect you mean "priority date" rather than "prior art".

Otherwise they may have been saying that a provisional can be used as
evidence of "prior art" against competing applications, assuming a
formal application is eventually filed to replace the provisional.

Or something like that...

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

Nope, he said the purpose of the provisional app is to establish a
priority date, but it also establishes the date of prior art. He was
very clear about this point. He said that once you file a provisional
patent application that establishes prior art and even if you never
follow up with the patent application the prior art forever locks out
anyone from filing on this invention. He actually introduced the
subject with a bullet that said how to establish prior art for only
$125. No need to get something published in a journal or offer a
product for sale. Just file with the USPTO.

Rick

 

[rickman]

On Nov 7, 3:18 pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:08:09 -0800 (PST), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Nov 6, 12:28=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com
wrote:

You guys missed a really great discussion today. =A0We had to expert
presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =A0They
discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =A0I only wish I
had taken better notes. =A0I did get the chance to speak directly with
Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =A0One is
to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which
would represent prior art. =A0This is attached at an application or even
a granted patent. =A0If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent by
filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good
faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
court. =A0There were other things that can be done and they don't
require you to be a lawyer or use one.

I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
the USPTO representatives. =A0Probably the most useful thing that was
said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
profit. =A0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.

BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =A0So it
is just like an election, file early and file often!

Rick

Thanks for the update. =A0 I wish I could have been there.

Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
processed? =A0 What's to stop someone from filing something only
marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =A0Sounds
like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to
kill a good patent.

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

No, this was a response to my question after the presentation.  I
don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent.  I
believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need
to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted.
It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called
"provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the
date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full
application.  A significant aspect of this is that you have no
obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
art" registered with the USPTO.  No one can subsequently apply for a
patent on that same invention.

Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw.   They're a means to
establish the "priority date" for an invention,  in other words the
file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready.   There are
some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one
can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't
covered by material in the provisional application.

The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and
doesn't have a specific format.  e.g., it is not unusual to file a
draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the
provisional application for any patents that might come out of it.

Establishing the "priority date" by filing a provisional patent may be
more important in the US now that we're moving to a first to file
system.

You seem to understand the provisional application well. Yes,
provisional applications are not new. But they can be used to your
benefit.

I liked how Dr. Hollaar started his presentation by introducing the
new law and how many are not happy with it. He then said that those
who learn the new law and how best to use it are the ones who will
benefit the most. Just like the rest of patent law.

I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely
broken.  I think the problem is that people don't know much about it
and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find.  My car
is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go.  But I guess
your mileage may vary.  

Always.  

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

 

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

In comp.arch.fpga rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)

I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was
presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing
fee of only $125. Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his
presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it.

Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art?
I'm not certain whether it is published or not. But the USPTO has the
application so they know it's prior art.

This reminds me of something I was interested in some time ago,
though never got into researching it more. That is, the ability
to search encrypted text. If one could have a file if encrypted,
but not published, text, and the appropriate search algorithm, one
could determine, for example, the possible existance of prior art
without being able to actually read it. One might be able to find
that some unpublished provisional contained wording that might
cause it to be prior art.

I believe that there are other uses for such ability, and some
might even be patentable.

-- glen

 

[rickman]

On Nov 7, 3:41 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:

Eric Jacobsen wrote:
Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw.   They're a means to
establish the "priority date" for an invention,  in other words the
file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready.   There are
some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one
can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't
covered by material in the provisional application.

That means the provisional application should be prepared like full
patent application.

I don't recall the details of the full presentation. This was
discussed but I seem to recall that the provisional doesn't need to be
the same as the full application. In fact, I want to say the
provisional doesn't need to have claims at all.

The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and
doesn't have a specific format.  e.g., it is not unusual to file a
draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the
provisional application for any patents that might come out of it.

If it comes to a lawsuit regarding priority date, then it would be hard
to prove anything unless the provisional application is identical to the
subsequent patent application.

I'm pretty sure Dr. Hollaar said the full patent application can be
expanded beyond the provisional app, but the details are fuzzy.

Establishing the "priority date" by filing a provisional patent may be
more important in the US now that we're moving to a first to file
system.

Provisional applications are pretty much pointless.

Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultanthttp://www.abvolt.com

Yes, and how long have you been practicing patent law?

Rick

 

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

rickman wrote:

On Nov 7, 3:41 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:

Eric Jacobsen wrote:

Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw. They're a means to
establish the "priority date" for an invention, in other words the
file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready. There are
some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one
can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't
covered by material in the provisional application.

That means the provisional application should be prepared like full
patent application.

I don't recall the details of the full presentation.

Refer to the original law, not to somebody's comments.

This was
discussed but I seem to recall that the provisional doesn't need to be
the same as the full application. In fact, I want to say the
provisional doesn't need to have claims at all.

Yes, it isn't required for provisional applications to have claims or
anything. However, if it comes to actual lawsuit, the improperly
prepared provisional application could be very much useless.
If provisional application should be prepared like patent, then why
provisional applications at all?

The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and
doesn't have a specific format. e.g., it is not unusual to file a
draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the
provisional application for any patents that might come out of it.

If it comes to a lawsuit regarding priority date, then it would be hard
to prove anything unless the provisional application is identical to the
subsequent patent application.

I'm pretty sure Dr. Hollaar said the full patent application can be
expanded beyond the provisional app, but the details are fuzzy.

Read the laws.

USPTO doesn't give any consideration to provisional apps. It is your
burden to prove the priority date or claim prior art using a provisional
application as the argument. Which means that the provisional app must
contain a clear and legally unambiguous definition of the invention;
i.e. essentially the same as a patent app.



Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

 

[Eric Jacobsen]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:04:13 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

rickman wrote:

On Nov 7, 3:41 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:

Eric Jacobsen wrote:

Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw. They're a means to
establish the "priority date" for an invention, in other words the
file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready. There are
some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one
can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't
covered by material in the provisional application.

That means the provisional application should be prepared like full
patent application.

I don't recall the details of the full presentation.

Refer to the original law, not to somebody's comments.

This was
discussed but I seem to recall that the provisional doesn't need to be
the same as the full application. In fact, I want to say the
provisional doesn't need to have claims at all.

Yes, it isn't required for provisional applications to have claims or
anything. However, if it comes to actual lawsuit, the improperly
prepared provisional application could be very much useless.
If provisional application should be prepared like patent, then why
provisional applications at all?

You misunderstand provisional filing pretty thoroughly.


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

 

[fatalist]

On Nov 7, 4:08 pm, glen herrmannsfeldt <g...@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:

In comp.arch.fpga rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)

I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was
presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing
fee of only $125.  Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his
presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it.
Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art?
I'm not certain whether it is published or not.  But the USPTO has the
application so they know it's prior art.

This reminds me of something I was interested in some time ago,
though never got into researching it more.  That is, the ability
to search encrypted text.  If one could have a file if encrypted,
but not published, text, and the appropriate search algorithm, one
could determine, for example, the possible existance of prior art
without being able to actually read it.  One might be able to find
that some unpublished provisional contained wording that might
cause it to be prior art.

I believe that there are other uses for such ability, and some
might even be patentable.

-- glen

........................

Good joke, I hope you are joking, right ?

Trained patent examiners with education in the field and years of
experience quite often (actually all the time) get confused by the
wording in purported "prior art" documents and produce some
unbelievably stupid office actions
The question which comes to mind when reading those office actions is
"did examiner read this particular patent application or some other
random application ?"
Software to find relevant "prior art" in encrypted files ?
How about flying to Andromeda ?

Unpublished documents can never ever be used as "prior art". Period.

(This would destroy the whole premise on which patent system is based)

 

[Vladimir Vassilevsky]

Eric Jacobsen wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:04:13 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky
nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

Yes, it isn't required for provisional applications to have claims or
anything. However, if it comes to actual lawsuit, the improperly
prepared provisional application could be very much useless.
If provisional application should be prepared like patent, then why
provisional applications at all?


You misunderstand provisional filing pretty thoroughly.

Would you please enlighten me in which particular way are you planning
on using a provisional application?


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com

 

[Eric Jacobsen]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:10:29 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

Eric Jacobsen wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:04:13 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky
nospam@nowhere.com> wrote:

Yes, it isn't required for provisional applications to have claims or
anything. However, if it comes to actual lawsuit, the improperly
prepared provisional application could be very much useless.
If provisional application should be prepared like patent, then why
provisional applications at all?


You misunderstand provisional filing pretty thoroughly.


Would you please enlighten me in which particular way are you planning
on using a provisional application?

I'm not planning on it, but I'd certainly do it if I needed to. Some
of the patents I've had granted were preceded by a provisional
application. It's pretty common practice and a very useful mechanism
when properly used.




Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com

 

[Eric Jacobsen]

Rick and all,

Ran across this the other day and thought it might be useful. I
haven't had a chance to go through much of the material (because
there's a lot!), but it looks to be along the same lines as what you
had pulled together.

Presentation materials are available in the links as well.

http://www.ieeeusa.org/calendar/seminars/AIA-seminar/default.asp


On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com>
wrote:

You guys missed a really great discussion today. We had to expert
presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. They
discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. I only wish I
had taken better notes. I did get the chance to speak directly with
Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. One is
to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which
would represent prior art. This is attached at an application or even
a granted patent. If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent by
filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good
faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
court. There were other things that can be done and they don't
require you to be a lawyer or use one.

I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
the USPTO representatives. Probably the most useful thing that was
said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
profit. Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.

BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. So it
is just like an election, file early and file often!

Rick


On Oct 24, 3:59=A0pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Co-sponsored by
IEEE NCA Consultants Network,
Baltimore Consultants Network,
Society on Social Implications of Technology,
Baltimore and NoVA/Wash. Computer Society,
and Region 2 PACE Committee

Congress has enacted sweeping patent reform that is adverse to small
inventors and entrepreneurs. How will this affect you? Let=92s explore
what the future holds with our panel of experts. Lunch and networking
reception are included. Student members may bring a guest at no
additional cost. Door prizes! Additional details at the link below.

When: Saturday, November 5 10am-2pm

Where: Loyola University Graduate Centers Room 260
8890 McGaw Road Columbia, MD 21045 USA

Cost: $10 IEEE members (advance), $20 general

Web Page:www.ieee-consultants.org

Registration:http://meetings.vtools.ieee.org/meeting_view/list_meeting/87=
71

Panelists: Dr. Lee Hollaar, Dr. Amelia Morani

We are still looking for a panelist who is a consultant able to speak
regarding the impact of this new law. =A0Anyone available in the area?

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com