• ~されつつ / ~されながら
    in:  | 

    ~されつつ / ~されながら

    ~されつつ / ~されながら

    (BEING+PP)
    $$ It is important that the "break" command should reach the remote DTE as soon as possible, since it usually indicates that unwanted data is being received or the user wishes to terminate the call abruptly. / この「ブレーク」コマンドはできるだけ迅速に遠隔のDTEに到達することが重要である。というのも、それは通常、望まないデータが受信されつつあるときや、ユーザが急に呼を終了させたいことを示すからである。(USP6278696)

    $$ Optionally, the second base unit indicator light 68 can used to indicate that rechargeable battery (70, FIG. 3) in the pen is being charged. / オプションとして、ペン内の再充電可能電池(第3図の70)が充電されつつあることを表示するために、第2基地装置表示灯68が用いられうる。(USP6058304)

    $$ The optional indicator light 68 (e.g., an LED or NEON) is connected to the power control module 72 to indicate when the battery 70 is being charged. / オプションの表示灯68(例えば、LEDまたはネオンランプ)は、電力制御モジュール72に接続され、電池70が充電されつつある時、それを表示する。(USP6058304)

    (OTHERS)
    $$ Alternatively the rivets 50 may be pressed out of the channel 91 and captively held in the release member 112 for transfer to a delivery tube 6. / 代わりに、リベット50は、チャンネル91から押し出されて、解放部材112に保持されつつ分配チューブ6まで運ばれてもよい。(USP6692213): and

    $$ A third time-domain image 34 is provided within the composite image 30 aligned to the horizontal axis of the third spatial-domain image 36. / 第3時間ドメイン画像34は、第3空間ドメイン画像36の水平方向軸に位置合わせされつつ、複合画像30内に提供される。(USP7643670): PP

    $$ This provides and maintains sufficient entangling energy to reach through the web, so that fibres at the grain face entangle with each other while they are effectively moulded against the carrier. / これにより、ウエブを通して到達する十分な絡み込みエネルギーが生成及び維持され、そのため、肌目面の繊維は、キャリア上に効果的に形成されながら、互いに絡み込む。(USP8225469): while

    $$ Each section is electrically insulated from other sections and is connected to a control system to enable the illumination of the whole lamp (all the individual sections of the lamp simultaneously), each section separately or in any combination of sections. / 各セクションはそれぞれ、他のセクションから電気的に絶縁されながら、制御系に接続されて、各セクションが別々に、あるいはセクションの任意の組み合せでランプ全体の照明を可能にする(ランプの個々のセクションをすべて同時に照明する)。(USP8136278): and

    $$ The timing diagram shown in FIGS. 7(a) to (d) illustrate a typical sequence of memory accesses by the ACRTC 24 and the computer 10 as controlled by memory access arbitration unit 23. / 図7(a)から(d)のタイミングの線図は、メモリアクセスアービトレーション23によって制御されながら、ACRTC24とコンピュータ10によってメモリアクセスの典型的なつながりを説明したものである。(USP5559936): as+PP

  • Curious collection of stories on "CBS Sunday Morning" on 23 September 2018
    in: 未分類  | 

    Curious collection of stories on "CBS Sunday Morning" on 23 September 2018

    The cover story on Sandy Hook was sad: A battle currently pits parents still mourning the loss of their children in the Sandy Hook school shooting against purveyors of the most mean-spirited and outlandish of myths. Our Cover Story is reported by Tony Dokoupil

    Kurt Andersen was quoted in the piece, in turn quoting Patrick Moynihan:


    “As Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said 30 years ago, many times, repeatedly, ‘You’re entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts,'” said Kurt Andersen. “He was kind of joking back then. And we’ve come to this place where many, many, many millions of people feel absolutely entitled to their own facts.”

    Although the details of the case against Alex Jones were not enumerated, Floyd Abrams was quoted:


    Floyd Abrams is a respected First Amendment lawyer, famed for defending The New York Times’ publication of the Pentagon Papers. “This is a very tough case for Alex Jones to win,” he said, “because what he has said is so appalling.”

    He says Jones may have gone beyond the protections of free speech, and the consequences may be severe.

    The Almanac feature touching on “Typhoid Mary” was a bit grim: And now a page from our “Sunday Morning” Almanac: September 23, 1869, 149 years ago today … the day that saw the birth, in rural Ireland, of Mary Mallon – remembered today as “Typhoid Mary.”

    The piece by Dr. Sanjay Gupta somewhat indirectly addressed the Kavanaugh / Ford issue. Although the connection was made clear in the prefatory text –The question of whether alcohol affects memory hangs over the current Supreme Court confirmation battle. Here with some answers is Dr. Sanjay Gupta: –, the indicated conclusion was a bit oblique, with the story ending on a suggestion “to improve your memory”:


    Truth is: When it comes to alcohol and memory, people assume a lot of things – and a lot of those assumptions are wrong.

    (…)

    One study last year showed that in this situation mild- to moderately-intoxicated people had very similar recall as sober people.

    Now, there is a thing known as “blackout drunk.” That is not the same as “passed out drunk.” Someone who is blacked-out drunk may still be talking and walking. But they might be totally amnestic to the event, meaning they have no memory of it.

    The biggest culprit is not necessarily how much you drank, but how quickly they drank it – the binge drinker.

    With memory and alcohol you also have to consider how much time has passed. While a mild- to moderately-intoxicated person can remember things pretty well in the short term, their long term memories are much more difficult to retrieve.

    And to understand why, it helps to understand how memory works. You take in sensory information – see, hear, feel – and that almost immediately gets transferred to short-term memory. From there, short-term memories get encoded into long-term memory.

    It’s this last phase where alcohol seems to have the most impact. For someone who’s intoxicated, that encoding into long-term memory often doesn’t occur very well, or at all. And that is why days later someone may have a hard time remembering something that was so vivid earlier, but can’t retrieve the memory from the long-term stores, because the memories were never there in the first place.

    [Then, the narrative abruptly and oddly switches from absence of long term memory through binge intoxication (related to the viewpoint of the Ford scenario AND why Kavanaugh might not remember) to a recommendation to the general public]

    If you want to improve your memory, the best things you can really do: pay attention when something is happening; that helps a lot. And don’t forget sleep, because it’s when you sleep that your body consolidates and transfers your short-term memories to long-term memoriesm the kind you’ll have for the rest of your life.

    link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dr-sanjay-gupta-on-how-alcohol-affects-memory/

    The viewer was told there was no space for the news events of the coming week. CBS sunday morning calendar | We have it on Downloadsearch‎

    The moment of nature involved dolphins in the Red Sea. Previously, on Jan 21, 2018 , Sunday Morning did sea slugs in the Red Sea.

    ***Merely as background

    Christine Blasey Ford, Kavanaugh accuser, commits to public hearing this Thursday , including


    In a statement on Sunday [23 Sept. 2018], Ford’s lawyers Debra Katz, Lisa Banks and Michael Bromwich said their client “has agreed to move forward” with a public hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Sept. 27, at 10 a.m. on Capitol Hill. The legal team said that “important progress” had been made with committee staffers after a week of negotiations over the format and conditions of her testimony.

    “Despite actual threats to her safety and her life, Dr. Ford believes it is important for Senators to hear directly from her about the sexual assault committed against her,” the attorneys wrote. Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley confirmed the hearing would be taking place on Thursday in a statement late Sunday, calling it a “continuation of the hearing to consider” Kavanaugh’s nomination. Following Ford’s testimony, the statement said, Kavanaugh will then “appear before the committee.”

  • MBHB & Patent Docs Program on Biopharma Patent Law
    in: Conferences & CLE's  | 

    MBHB & Patent Docs Program on Biopharma Patent Law

    McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP and Patent Docs will be hosting a CLE program on Biopharma Patent Law from 10:00 am to 1:00 pm on October 24, 2018 at the Boston Marriott Cambridge in Cambridge, MA. MBHB attorneys and Patent Docs authors Kevin Noonan and Donald Zuhn, and MBHB attorneys Josh Rich, Lisa Hillman, Sarah Fendrick, John Conour, and Nate Chongsiriwatana will provide presentations on the following topics: • Updates on Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis • Patenting Repurposed Drugs • Antibody Patenting after Amgen v. Sanofi • The State of Biotech Patenting: Challenges • Maximizing Patent Term for Products…

AcclaimIP Adds Patent Agent Normalization

AcclaimIP recently announced that it is normalizing patent agent names across its international patent data collections, making it easier for researchers to answer questions like “what law firms are working for specific companies?” or “which technology area does this law firm focus on?”. In a blog post, AcclaimIP noted that patent agent names have always been […]

Continue Reading ...
  • EPO Still In Turmoil As Supervisory Body Backs Dismissal Of High-Level Staff

    The European Patent Organisation has been in turmoil for years facing serious staff dissent and complaints aimed at EPO President Benoît Battistelli of France. The EPO’s effort appears to have intensified in recent months, and on Friday the EPO Administrative Council, the agency’s supervisory body, announced an action to back Battistelli and endorsed a request for the dismissal of a high-level staff member. The action sent critics to new levels of criticism.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Institution Denied Where Petitioner Impermissibly Relied Upon the Teachings of the Challenged Patent IPR2015-00802

    Takeaway: Motivation to combine in the face of an express teaching away must be found in the prior art itself; reliance on the teachings of the challenged patent to find a motivation to combine is impermissible hindsight. In its Decision, … Continue reading

    The post Institution Denied Where Petitioner Impermissibly Relied Upon the Teachings of the Challenged Patent IPR2015-00802 appeared first on PTAB Trial Blog.

    Continue Reading ...
  • The dissent of Judge Newman in In re Morsa: the majority decision was precedent defying

    Judge Newman’s dissent


    I write to attempt to stabilize the law of “anticipation,”
    for the court confuses the laws of anticipation and
    obviousness, and the role of enablement as applied to
    prior art references.

    “Anticipation” in patent law means that the claimed
    subject matter is not new; that is, that it was already
    known. To “anticipate” in patent law requires that a
    single reference contains all of the elements and limitations
    of the claim at issue, explicitly or inherently. If the
    single reference is not enabled with respect to the subject
    matter under examination, “anticipation” cannot be
    found; it is not permissible to go outside the single reference
    in order to find “anticipation,” unlike the protocols by
    which references are combined to show “obviousness.”

    These simple rules have provided the foundation for
    examination of patentability; they have been explored and
    refined and applied without challenge to their foundation.
    This distinction between sections 102 and 103 of the
    Patent Act should not now be blurred. This court should
    not ratify the shortcut the PTO Board took here. From
    this and other errors and imprecision, I respectfully
    dissent.

    PTAB’s statement incomprehensible?


    The Board’s statement that Mr. Morsa waived the issue
    of anticipation before the Board is not comprehensible,
    for Mr. Morsa’s appeal brief to the Board states:
    Independent claims 271-272 and 181, 203, 225,
    and 247 are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious
    by the alleged PMA . . . .
    Board Brief 12 (emphasis in original). In re Morsa, 713
    F.3d 104 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (Morsa I) included the issue of
    anticipation; that was the sole issue on remand, and now
    the subject of this appeal.

    Of anticipation by a press release:


    Claims 271 and 272 had been rejected by the Board on
    the ground of “anticipation” by a third person’s press
    release. The press release was short on detail, and in
    Morsa I this court remanded for a determination of
    whether the disclosure in the press release was enabled.
    On remand, the Board reaffirmed its rejection for anticipation,
    and Mr. Morsa again appeals.

    The claims demonstrate the issue, for the press release
    does not mention all of the steps and limitations of
    the claims:

    (…)

    The Board recognized that some of the claim steps are not
    described in the press release. The Board solved this
    dilemma by taking what it called “Official Notice” of the
    missing subject matter. And my colleagues solve this
    dilemma by finding the missing subject matter in the
    Morsa specification by stating that since the specification
    states that a person skilled in the art would know how to
    “implement” the claimed system, that person would have
    “knowledge” to fill the gaps in the prior art. However, we
    are directed to no disclosure in the prior art of all the
    claim elements and steps. “Anticipation” is not established
    in accordance with law.

    “Official Notice” is not anticipation

    The Board took “Official Notice” that the claim steps
    missing from the press release must have been performed.
    However, the law of patent “anticipation” is not so permissive.
    The law “requires the presence in a single prior
    art disclosure of all elements of a claimed invention
    arranged as in the claim.” SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Technologies,
    Inc., 709 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2013). This
    presence must be found as fact, and when missing elements
    are stated to be “necessarily present, or inherent,
    in the single anticipating reference,” Schering Corp. v.
    Geneva Pharm., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2003), “the
    mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set
    of circumstances is not sufficient to establish inherency.”
    Scaltech Inc. v. Retec/Tetra, L.L.C., 178 F.3d 1378, 1384
    (Fed. Cir. 1999).

    The Board’s “Official Notice” of the existence of undisclosed
    steps and claim elements is not an acceptable
    substitute for examination and citations of prior art and
    reasoning, in the rigors and high stakes of innovation and
    patenting. The Board failed, for example, to show that
    the undisclosed features were inherently present in the
    database referred to in the cited press release. Instead,
    the Board took “Official Notice” of how “databases” function
    without showing that the database in the press
    release necessarily was the same as the database in the
    Morsa claims or even the same as “databases” generally.
    This is insufficient to establish either inherent description
    or inherent enablement of the explicitly claimed subject
    matter.

    The majority compounds the Board’s error by rewriting
    the claims to match the reference. Maj. Op. at 5. The
    press release does not say how the system operates, only
    the final result. The Board called it “Official Notice” of
    how databases work. Such an assumptio

    Can what an inventor says in the specification come back
    to hurt the inventor?

    An inventor’s statement in the patent application that
    a particular step may be performed by procedures known
    to persons of skill in the field of computer programming
    does not place that step in the context in which the inventor
    used it into the prior art.

    The panel majority fills the gaps in the press release
    by referring to Morsa’s statement that various steps of his
    invention may be conducted by procedures known to
    persons of skill in computer-implemented methods. The
    issue on remand was not whether Morsa enabled his
    invention, indeed, that was not challenged by the PTO.
    However, Morsa’s enablement of his invention does not
    enable the prior art press release, or fill gaps needed to
    anticipate the Morsa system. “The standard for what
    constitutes proper enablement of a prior art reference for
    purposes of anticipation under section 102, however,
    differs from the enablement standard under section 112”
    whereby the claimed invention must be enabled by the
    disclosure in the specification. Rasmusson v. SmithKline
    Beecham Corp., 413 F.3d 1318, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

    Can the inventor’s specification enable prior art?


    “[A] patent claim ‘cannot be anticipated by a prior art
    reference if the allegedly anticipatory disclosures cited as
    prior art are not enabled.’” Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Cox
    Fibernet Va., Inc., 602 F.3d 1325, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
    (quoting Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314
    F.3d 1313, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).

    The question on the Morsa I remand was whether the
    subject matter of the press release is enabled by the
    description in the press release: “[The] reference must . . .
    enable one skilled in the art to make the anticipating
    subject matter.” PPG Indus., Inc. v. Guardian Indus.
    Corp., 75 F.3d 1558, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996). My colleagues
    use the information in the Morsa specification to enable
    the press release. That is improper. The gaps in the prior
    art cannot be filled by the invention at issue; it is improper
    to transfer Mr. Morsa’s teachings into the press release
    in order to enable the press release.
    These flaws confound the laws of anticipation and obviousness
    and enablement, defying precedent, and adding
    to the complexities of patenting. The issues should be
    decided on the correct law. Thus I respectfully dissent.

    The majority deemed statements in the specification to
    be admissions:


    Here, the Board
    properly held that the application’s specification made
    numerous admissions as to what one skilled in the art at
    the time of the invention would have known. For example,
    the Board found that the specification discussed that
    central processing units and memories were “well known
    to those skilled in the art,” that central processing units
    and memories were “used in conventional ways to process
    requests for benefit information in accordance with stored
    instructions,” that the system as described in the patent
    “can be implemented by any programmer of ordinary skill
    in the art using commercially available development tools
    . . . ,” and that “search routines for accomplishing this
    purpose are well within the knowledge of those of ordinary
    skill in the art.” Appellee’s App. 38, 40.

    AND the majority noted


    Mr. Morsa additionally argues that the information
    provided by PMA is not sufficient to make the claimed
    invention and thus would require undue experimentation.
    We disagree. As discussed above, the specification made
    clear that a skilled computer artisan would readily know
    how to use conventional computer equipment and how to
    program it; thus, only ordinary experimentation would be
    needed to make the claimed program.

    Finally, we do not use portions of the patent specification
    as prior art, but instead affirm the Board’s use of one
    section in the specification solely as it relates to the
    knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art. There
    is a crucial difference between using the patent’s specification
    for filling in gaps in the prior art, and using it to
    determine the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in
    the art. Here, the Board did only the latter. Mr. Morsa,
    amongst other things, admitted in the specification that
    the system as described in the patent “can be implemented
    by any programmer of ordinary skill . . . ,” thus allowing
    him to avoid having to teach the public this very
    concept. Therefore, by using Mr. Morsa’s admissions, the
    Board simply held him to the statements he made in
    attempting to procure the patent.

    Descriptive arguments are not new arguments:


    Mr. Morsa’s principal argument is that the statements
    made by the Board appearing before the enablement
    analysis show reversible error as they constitute
    undesignated new grounds of rejection. We disagree.
    These statements—such as the statement that databasesearching
    is old and well known and thus the focus on the
    present application is not on searching databases generally,
    but on the specific type of data used and the specific
    searches performed—were merely descriptive.

    One commenter at PatentlyO wrote:


    I do feel as if Judge Newman’s understanding of how computer-implementers game the system has improved slightly over the years but she spectactularly misses the boat here. She’s plainly suffering from a bad case of “I Was Born Yesterday” syndrome, that a devastating illness that afflicts susceptible individuals whenever they see “computers” mentioned in a patent claim.

    my colleagues solve this dilemma by finding the missing subject matter in the Morsa specification by stating that since the specification states that a person skilled in the art would know how to “implement” the claimed system, that person would have “knowledge” to fill the gaps in the prior art.

    That’s 100% correct. When the claim describes a pear butter and quince jam sandwich and the applicant’s specification teaches (and nobody disputes) that “making and eating butter and jam sandwiches is popular and easy for the whole family”, the PTO doesn’t need to find a reference that expressly teaches you how to open a cupboard. The PTO also doesn’t need to find a reference that teaches you how get out of bed and put your clothes on. The PTO doesn’t need to find a reference that teaches you how to open up a cupboard. The PTO doesn’t need to find a reference that teaches you how to open the refrigerator door. The PTO doesn’t need to find a reference that teaches how to identify the jar you’re looking for and pick it up off the shelf. The PTO doesn’t need to find a reference that teaches how to move the jar from the shelf to the counter. The PTO doesn’t to need a reference that expressly teaches you how to open a jar. The PTO doesn’t need to find a reference teaching how to find a loaf of bread and identify whether it needs slicing, or how to slice it. The PTO doesn’t need to find a reference that teaches putting butter or jam on a knife and spreading it onto slices bread without destroying bread. The PTO doesn’t need to find a reference telling you how to put the slices of bread together to make a sandwich.

    link: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/10/applicant-admissions-application.html

    Continue Reading ...
  • Federal Circuit Finds Anticipating Printed Publication Enabled After Looking to Applicant’s Own Specification

    Authored by Mark Chapman and Eric S. Lucas Digest of In re Morsa, No. 2015-1107 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2015) (precedential). On appeal from P.T.A.B. Before Prost, Newman, and O’Malley. Procedural Posture: In a previous appeal, the CAFC vacated and remanded … Continue reading

    The post Federal Circuit Finds Anticipating Printed Publication Enabled After Looking to Applicant’s Own Specification appeared first on CAFCBlog.com.

    Continue Reading ...