• Life Sciences Court Report
    in: Court Report  | 

    Life Sciences Court Report

    By Bryan Helwig — About Court Report: Each week we will report briefly on recently filed biotech and pharma cases, and a few interesting cases will be selected for periodic monitoring. Celgene Corp. v. Synthon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 2:18-cv-10775; filed June 19, 2018 in the District of New Jersey (Newark) • Plaintiffs: Celgene Corp. • Defendants: Alvogen Pine Brook, LLC; Synthon BV; Synthon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Synthon S.R.O Claim: Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.: • 8,198,262: ″Methods for treating multiple myeloma using 4-(amino)-2-(2,6-dioxo(3-piperidyl))-isoindoline-1,3-dione″ • 8,673,939: ″Methods for treating multiple myeloma with 4-(amino)-2-(2,6-dioxo(3-piperidyl))-isoindoline-1,3-dione″ • 8,735,428: ″Methods for treating multiple myeloma with 4-(amino)-2-(2,6-dioxo(3-piperidyl))-isoindoline-1,3-dione″…

  • Conference & CLE Calendar
    in: Conferences & CLE's  | 

    Conference & CLE Calendar

    July 17, 2018 – “Drafting and Defending Software Patents to Survive Section 101 and AIA Challenges — Anticipating and Minimizing the Risk of 101, 103 Rejections, Recent Court Guidance” (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT) July 17, 2018 – Technology Cen…

  • 後述
    in:  | 




    $$ The ion mobility spectrometer or separator 3 may take a number of different forms which will be discussed in more detail below. / イオ…

  • SET IN


    SET IN

    ~(内)に設定される(「設ける」の意味では provide, dispose, etc.)

    $$ The chemically-cured monomers were allowed to set i…

    Continue Reading ...
  • PAABA Event: In the Midst of #AliceStorm: A Report From the Trenches of Abstraction

    On June 3, 2015 I’ll be presenting for the Palo Alto Area Bar Association on the latest developments in #AliceStorm, with a look at what’s happening at the USPTO and in the courts. I’ll be presenting for the first time the results of a detailed analysis of 101 rejections inside the PTO, as well as analysis of the recent Interim Guidance on Patent Eligibility. The presentation will be at Fenwick’s Silicon Valley office. Lunch will be served and MCLE credit is available. Register at the PAABA website.

    Continue Reading ...
  • PTAB reverses indefiniteness rejection of claim using trademark Java

    Takeaway: The Examiner rejected as indefinite the phrase “parsing the at least one Java annotation” on the grounds that Java was a trademark. The Examiner referred to MPEP 2173.05(u) , which directed the Examiner to reject a claim as indefinite when a trademark was used to identify a product. The Applicant appealed and argued that the relevant inquiry was whether a Person of Ordinary Skill In The Art, considering the term Java in context, could “discern the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.” According to the Applicant, the term was not indefinite because Java was understood by a POSITA to refer to “a popular programming language that was originally developed by Sun Microsystems in the early 1990s and released in 1995.” The Board agreed with the Applicant and reversed the indefiniteness rejection.  (Ex parte Nikolov, PTAB 2015.)


    Ex parte Nikolov
    Appeal 20130000274; Appl. No. 12/314,706;  Tech. Center 2100
    Decided:  March 25, 2015

    The application on appeal was directed to web software that manipulated objects in a Service-Oriented Architecture (SoA) registry. The Specification acknowledged the existence of various application programming interfaces (APIs) that allowed programmatic access to an SoA registry. The same section mentioned one of these APIs: “the Java API for XML registries (JAXR). “

    The Examiner rejected independent claim 1 as indefinite because the “trademark / trade name ‘Java’ [was used] to identify a programming language.” The term “Java” appeared in the preamble (“accessible through a Java API for XML registries (JAXR)” and in the body (“parsing the at least one Java annotation”).

    The Examiner cited the (non-precedential) Board decision Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). According to the Examiner, Simpson meant that “when a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.”

     The Applicant traversed the indefiniteness rejection, and made five separate arguments:

    • Java identifies the product (the programming language) rather than the source of the product
    • the goods associated with the Java mark do not include “programming language”
    • the mark in Ex parte Simpson was indefinite since it did not adequately convey properties of the material, where “here there is no such uncertainty regarding what ‘Java’ conveys”
    • it’s “illogical” to treat Java and C++ differently in a claim simply because the former is trademarked and the latter is not
    • thousands of issued patents include Java in the claims

    In a Final Office Action, the Examiner noted that MPEP 2173.05(u) governed the use of trademarks and trade names in a claim: “if a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” Responding to the Applicant’s mention of C++, the Examiner indicated that an amendment to C or C++ would result in “similar 112 2nd rejections of indefiniteness regarding the use of trademarks or trade names. Responding to another Applicant points, the Examiner considered the “thousands of issued patents with Java in the claims” to be an “interesting statistic,” but noted that applications are examined on a case by case basis. The Examiner therefore invited the Applicant to analyze some of these patents and to “present any common facts that trigger an exception to the rules of trademarks in claims,” then explain “why this case similarly triggers an exception.”

    In the same Final Office Action, the Examiner discussed Ex parte Simpson in further detail:

         [Simpson] specifically provides that questions regarding a well-known meaning / satisfactory definition in the literature are questions that resolve around a 35 USC 112 1st rejection for sufficiency of written description for a “name used in trade” … “We have considered MPEP(v) and note that all address the issue of enablement of a written description under 35 USC, first paragraph.”
         Similar to Ex parte Simpson, no enablement rejection has been made. Similar to the Ex parte Simpson court, the Examiner declines to extend the enablement prong of the test of proper use of a trade name to cover indefiniteness of a registered trademark.

    On Appeal, the Applicant argued that the use of Java in the claim did not render the claims indefinite per se. The inquiry for indefiniteness was whether a person of ordinary skill in the art, considering the term Java in context, could “discern the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.” The Applicant concluded that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is meant by ‘Java annotation’ and . . . ‘Java API for XML registries’”  because Java was “a popular programming language that was originally developed by Sun Microsystems in the early 1990s and released in 1995.”

    The Board agreed with the Applicant and reversed the indefiniteness rejection. The Board found this scenario “closely analogous” to a different non-precedential PTAB decision, Ex Parte O’Farrell (PTAB 2014). The Board explained as follows:

    The O’Farrell panel held that the recitation of the trademark “Java” was not indefinite because “ ‘Java’ is a well-known and widely-used term identifying a particular programming language.” Id. Similarly, we find one of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have understood “Java” in the context of the “Java annotation” and “Java API for XML registries” to refer to the programming language known by that name at the time of Appellants’ invention.

    My two cents: There’s no doubt in my mind that Java is understood by a POSITA. And since that’s the ultimate question when resolving indefiniteness, I say the Board got it right. The name of a programming language is fundamentally different than the name of a chemical composition. Using the trademark of a chemical composition is a problem because the nature of the composition could changes, so you don’t know if you infringe or not. On the other hand, as long as a newer version of Java includes the annotation feature, a POSITA still understands “Java annotation” and is thus put on notice of infringement. And if the annotation feature is removed in a future version of Java, yet a patentee asserted against an infringer using an annotation-less Java, well, the claim could be found indefinite at that later time. 

    Some of the Applicant arguments made during prosecution dug into trademark specifics (product vs source of product, associated goods), and I give some points to the Applicant for getting creative here. On the other hand, the “other patents use this language” argument is weak, and I didn’t find the Java vs. C++ consistency argument to be compelling either. I think both the Applicant and the Examiner got derailed with the lengthy discussion of the MPEP and it’s use of Ex parte Simpson. Responding to every single point made by the Examiner is not always the best strategy. The Appeal Brief would have been stronger if the Applicant had demonstrated that a POSITA understood Java, briefly distinguished Simpson, and stopped there.

    The Board’s finding that the meaning of Java was tied to the time of the invention highlights an interesting issue, because programming languages do change over time. With literal claim scope limited to Java at the time of filing, it would seem Doctrine of Equivalents is needed to expand to future versions of the language. But of course all claim terms are interpreted as of the time of invention, which makes the Board’s finding just a reminder of something we should already know.

    The PTAB decision mentioned in the MPEP and relied on by the Examiner, Ex parte Simpson, doesn’t appear to be freely available online. The 1983 decision date is far too old for the PTAB’s own decision database, and even too old for the BPAI decisions archive maintained by Franklin Pierce School of Law

    Continue Reading ...
  • 租房时需要了解的11个事项

    想租一间房子吗?与购买房屋的决定相比,即使租房的决定看似不太重要,但记住您选择的房产在未来几个月甚至数年成为您的家园。人们决策的时候往往感情用事,但是决策时仍需要请保持理性。查看签署购房合同签需要注意的11个事项。人们有时忘了这些事项,但为避免入住之后的不快,请记住这些注意事项。 押金和租金 押金和租金是老生常谈了,但是您在签署租赁协议时请仔细查看需要支付的押金和租金数额。许多人忘记每周租金乘以四并不一定是一个完成的月份(30天或31天),而因此而遭受损失。 另一个考量因素是业主要求预先支付的押金数额 — — 包括租金及押金。如果你需要支付相当于两个月租金作为押金,这份合同可能不够公平。同样的事情还发生在入住前,业主要求你支付超过一个月的房租,这可能是由于业主在经济上较为窘迫。即使你已经找到梦想的住所,并愿意冒一次险,当请注意业主或其公司是否破产,否则您将在很短时间内收到搬家的通知,从而无家可归。 拖欠房租 除非您要求银行每月按时支付房租,否则即使不打算拖欠房租,你也有可能忘记支付租金。虽然有些业主并介意晚一到两天交房租,但有的业主会在房租到期后按天收取滞纳金。加拿大抵押和住房公司在这方面相当严格: “房租到期后,如果没有按时支付房租;业主可以发出“解除未支付房租房屋租赁协议的通知”。租客如果按月或者按年租房,则有14天时间支付未付房租,如果按日或者按星期租房,则有7天的时间支付未付房租。如果此宽限期内租客仍没有支付房租,业主可以就拖欠房租向业主与租客委员会提出申请。” 显然,业主会因为拖欠房租而神经过敏,因此需要了解他们的期待。  供水和供暖系统 很多人在夏天租房,因此忘了检查供暖系统是否处于良好状态。在搬入新家之前,检查供水和供暖系统是十分必要的,如果供水和供暖系统出现问题,维修起来相当费事费力。 水电费 看似完美的住宅,其水电费往往不够完美,即使房子有罗曼蒂克的旧窗户和高高的天花板。你在与房子坠入爱河前,应计算房间供暖需要花费多少钱。蒙特利尔的汤姆在此外分享他的经验: “当我租第一间公寓的时候,我太激动了,以至于我忘了问水电费。你猜怎么着。我激动的心情随着第一张账单的到来戛然而止。” 为了避免这些不愉快的意外,请一定要澄清,水电费是否已列入租赁价格或是否包含在每月的租金中,而由业主来支付。一些业主希望水电费由租户完全自理,这时租户需要花费额外的时间处理这些事情,但这时你可以了解每月具体的水电费数额。在签署协议前,尝试估算每月的水电费支出,或要求业主提供水电费帐单,也可以直接致电当地水电公司以查询之前水电费用。 维护要求 了解业主负责维修的范围。无论是蚂蚁侵扰,还是破碎的电源插座,您需要在搬入新居前了解谁来支付维修费用。你应该找出其中租户负责维修部分,并为业主维修设立合理的时间。 “如果由于租户的原因损坏了任何物品,租户需要支付物品的维修费用,”  精品户型负责人 Zvi Rudawsky在科罗拉多丹佛接受采访时说,CBS 芝加哥报道。如果物品由于长时间使用而损坏,业主应支付维修费用。 健康检查 检查房屋是否经过危险物质检测,如氡、 铅和石棉等有害物质检测。新建房屋没有这些有害物质,但一些老房子可能含有这些有害物质。一般来说,在这些问题上,业主有义务为你提供详细的信息,但是,最好在搬进新居之前咨询专家,以免对家人的健康造成危害。 重新装修 有些业主喜欢自己重新装修,而有些业主则希望租客将房屋保持原样。你可以为您的新厨房选择美丽颜色,或者在卧室安装全新地板,但您的新房东对此未必开心。在开始装修之前,了解业主是否允许重新装修,以及租约到期后业主计划如何对待您的装修。 Bryan Lee:“厨房” 噪声 看房时需要放慢脚步。放松一会儿,听听这座房子和周围的街道的声音,安静的房子每个人梦寐以求。能听到任何烦人的嗡嗡声和呼呼声吗?无论冰箱、 电路、 供暖系统或从邻居家里飘来的音乐,都有可能影响你以后的生活。想象自己住在房子里,决定是否可以容忍这些分贝的噪声。 吸烟 一些业主不允许租客在房间内吸烟,如果你喜欢在早上喝咖啡时抽烟,请务必提前征得业主同意。好消息是,虽然业主可将禁烟条款包含在合同中(这一点类似于动物条款),但业主不能因你违反禁止吸烟规定而驱逐你。如果驱逐你,业主需要证明租客的吸烟行为侵犯了他人的财产所有权或者有可能破坏别人的财产。但安大略省法律规定,业主可以在签署租约前询问租客是否抽烟,所以在法律上对吸烟行为仍有歧视。  宠物政策 很多租客不知道,根据 住宅租赁法案,尽管签署了“无动物”条款,但是业主仍不能因为你饲养宠物而驱逐你。但是,詹妮弗 · 拉姆齐分析了 Torontoist.com,安大略省人权法律支持中心认为如果你的宠物造成财产损失、 噪声干扰或有过敏反应 ,你可能仍然会被驱逐,谁然这些并不直接与你的宠物所有权相关,但这可能会侵犯其他认的权利。法律站在法律业主一边。另一方面,提前与未来房东讨论宠物问题仍不失为明智之举,这样你就不必担心你的宠物无家可归了。注意:如果你租住的公寓不允许饲养宠物,你必须遵守公寓的规定。  Alexander Danling:“狗” 对违反租约的处罚 你永远不知道将会发生什么。你可能会因为意外的工作调动,或者因为恋爱而需要到西班牙住四个月,而这四个月可能会包含在您的租约中。了解合同到期前解除租约的规定十分必要。了解需要支付的费用,并查看是否还有别的选择。一些业主只要求提前两个月通知,而另一些业主在这些情况下会适用一项特殊政策。 这里有许多对业主和租客有用的信息 ,包括这里的表单。 标题照片来源 Tommerton2010 English WZ00SK

    Continue Reading ...
  • 找到你的梦想家园

    如果此时此刻是你“寻找梦中理想家园”的绝佳时机,我愿助你一臂之力!如果你想要第一时间内接收到最新的最快的上市房产名录,那么请填写下表,你将被列入我们的“特急优先级”客户名单…… 无需任何责任义务……最新上市房产名录将会在第一时间内被送至你的电子邮箱。 也许你会在其中找到……你的梦中理想家园 WZ00SK

    Continue Reading ...
  • 吸引中国人的眼球

    中国亿万富翁的数目可以是152或358,这取决于您看到是哪一个排行榜。 这两数字分别被公布在福布斯和胡润全球富豪榜。计算个人财富有很多种方式,很难说清楚究竟是什么原因导致了两个数字之间的差距,但是,无论怎样,有一点很明确:中国资金需要投资。 大约一年前,中国政府放宽了中国公民海外置业的限制。仅去年一年,从中国进入海外物业的金额达到18.3亿美金。随着加元价值的继续滑落,让非居民在加拿大置业更具有吸引力。 “在过去一段时间,加币的价值相对于人民币大幅下滑,人民币的坚挺,致使中国人的购买力增强。过去的一两个月,在中国人看来,加拿大每一栋的房子都打折20%。” 来自Oriana Financial 的合伙人,David Smith 告诉我们。 很多人认为,海外投资者在这个时机买入多伦多的置业,尤其在公寓市场,闲置这些物业,等着加币升值获利。David Smith 却不这样认为。 “很多人认为中国人在炒作多伦多公寓的市场,这个推测在我认为是被夸大其词了。” 这个观点已经被大家讨论了很长时间了, 当然也是有情可原,尤其是当在多伦多成立了北美第一个人民币兑换中心。 “这对金融界来讲有举足轻重的意义” Smith 先生说。 在未成立之前,人民币必须换成美金,再由美金兑换成加币。兑换中心的成立让中加之间的贸易往来更容易。 这将带来大量的资金兑换,我已经看到,兑换中心的成立会带给多伦多更多的来自中国的投资。对于很多海外居民来讲,在加拿大置业有很多好处,但不是每一个人的出发点都是增值。 “有一些人是为了申请长期签证置业,还有一些父母购买学区房为自己的孩子留学提供方便。” Smith 先生说。 所以吸引中国人的眼球,对业主来讲是一个获利的好机会。目前有很多方式可以使我们更好的在中国当地推广我们代理的房产。juwai.com 是一个非常好的开始。我们代理的每一个房产都会出现在juwai.com。她是中国当地最大的推广海外物业的专业网站。 在今年秋天,我和我的同事 Jim Burtnick,Tracy An,作为加拿大苏富比国际地产贸易代表团去访问香港,北京,上海,台湾。目前,我们正在与这些地区房地产经纪人取得联系,为我们的行程做准备.. 照片的摄影师:H4vok_13 English TA00SK

    Continue Reading ...
  • PTO takes 7 years to process Petition to Make Special (or Why you should use e-Petitions)

    Takeaway: The PTO took seven years to process a Petition to Make Special Based on Age. The Petition Decision indicated that “the delay in rendering a decision is regretted.” (Application of Dressler, Appl. No. 11/733,605, available on Public PAIR.) 

    This particular petition was filed in 2007, before electronic processing of petitions was available. However, the PTO put such a system in place for Make Special – Age back in early 2008. The PTO expanded the system again in 2011. As of 2015, the “e-Petition” system handles seven different petitions. See the PTO’s e-Petition Resource page for details.

    With e-Petition, the petition is automatically granted as long as you fill out the form correctly and attach supporting documentation. Applicants should certainly be using e-Petition whenever possible. Doing so will prevent unbelievable delays like the one in the Dressler application.


    Application of Dressler, Appl. No. 11/733,605 (available on Public PAIR)

    An application was filed in April 2007, along with a Petition to Make Special based on age. The inventor was 67. Prosecution started in 2010. The Applicant appealed and jurisdiction finally passed to the PTAB in August 2012. The Board issued a Decision in March 2015.

    The above pattern of prosecution is pretty typical. Several rounds of back and forth with the Examiner. IDSes filed along the way. A long wait at the Board. But what about the Petition to Make Special? Looks like prosecution was humming along, while the petition was, what … stuck in limbo?

    The Petitions Office finally granted the Petition to Make Special in January 2014. That’s seven years after the Petition was filed. The Petitions Examiner apologized, noting in the decision that  “the delay in rendering a decision is regretted.”

    My two cents: So what’s the best practice in scenarios like this one?

    E-petition wasn’t available at the time of filing (2007), so you can’t fault the Applicant for the initial petition filing. But an early rudimentary e-petition became available in early 2008 for just this type of petition. Not having received a Decision on the earlier petition, this Applicant could have refiled using e-Petition. Fill out the special PDF fillable form made available by the PTO, upload it via EFS, and get an instantaneous Petition Decision. That would have meant Special status in 2008 when prosecution was still in progress, not in 2014 when it’s too late because the application is on appeal.

    The PTO revamped and expanded the e-Petition program in 2011. In this expanded program, several types of Petitions are handled by entering information directly into EFS rather than uploading special forms. Make Special – Age is still supported the old way, with the PDF fillable form. Still, all these  e-Petitions are automatically granted or denied. No more waiting on the Petitions Office. If this Applicant had availed himself of this program in 2011, the application would have been granted Special status during prosecution, when it still mattered. More info on the PTO’s e-Petition Resource page.

    Without an e-Petition, you’re left with the unsatisfactory option of periodically checking status with the Petitions Office. Here, no query to the Petitions Office showed up in PAIR, ever. Perhaps phone calls were made – this wouldn’t show up in the written record.

    As all patent prosecutors are painfully aware, an Applicant has no real power to force the PTO to do anything. But if this Petition was simply “lost” or “stuck” somewhere in the PTO’s workflow processing, I suspect a query would do the trick. So as a last resort, docket a periodic reminder every time a petition is filed outside of e-Petitions, and send a status inquiry and/or make a phone call to the Petitions Office (or Examiner, depending on the type of petition).

    Continue Reading ...
  • Study in Nigeria Finds 1 in 10 Malaria Drugs Are Poor Quality – Drug Discovery & Development

    Drug Discovery & Development
    Study in Nigeria Finds 1 in 10 Malaria Drugs Are Poor Quality
    Drug Discovery & Development
    Lead author Dr Harparkash Kaur, Lecturer of Pharmacology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said: “Although these results raise concerns, they are reassuring in comparison with previous reports that found that more than 35% of

    Continue Reading ...
  • USPTO Collaborates With Korea and Japan Patent Offices on Patent Search

    The United States Patent and Trademark Office has signed two separate Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) and the Japan Patent Office (JPO) for a new pilot program designed to share prior art search information with patent applicants before the actual examination of the patent application begins. The MOCs were signed at a bilateral […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • 加拿大移民的按揭贷款

    如果你决定移居到一个新的国家。经过深思熟虑,你搬到了加拿大这个雪和枫糖浆的国度。 人们搬到加拿大有各种原因。加拿大的经济富有弹性,对外来投资持宽容态度,还有稳定的政府和银行体系。如果你热衷在加拿大生根发芽,购买房产将是你最大的投资。但仍有许多监管障碍,可以给你购房带来问题。 Oh Canada by ankakay 深思熟虑 买房时,你有许多因素需要考虑。 你想要什么样的房子?公寓能否满足你的需要,或者购买空间更大的房子? 你在购房上打算支付多少钱?除了购房费用之外,还有许多附加费用,如暖气、财产税、上门维修费用、翻修费用,都应该被考虑在内。 你想住在哪里?加拿大是一个多样性的国家,这反映在它的社区中。多伦多或温哥华这样的大城市,有活跃的文化中心,还有中国城和小意大利。你想和来自同一文化背景的人做邻居还是有别的打算? 回答了这些问题,就可以开始找房了。网络上有许多资源,可以用来购买房产。 加拿大按揭和住房公司(CMHC)提供8种语言服务;Realtor.ca提供全国房产清单。 Oriana Financial的抵押贷款经济人David Smith说:“我的第一条建议是找到一个专业的房产经纪人。”你刚刚来到加拿大,你为谁工作?房地产经纪人信誉怎么样?你希望和什么样的认做邻居?你对房子的长期规划是什么? 获得按揭贷款 大多数有意于在加拿大购房的人来自英国和美国,但越来越多地购房者来自中国和其他东亚国家。但无论你来自哪个国家,这都不如在加拿大的长期规划来的重要。 “你来自哪个国家并不重要,但是你在这个国家的社会地位很重要,”David Smith说到。“例如,如果你有工作许可,就可以有更大的机会获得按揭。”  如果你在加拿大有一份工作或者是公司内的工作调动,获得按揭贷款就更容易。 “如果你具备这些条件,你就可以通过按揭获得房产价值的95%,最高可以达到100万美元。” 如果你在加拿大没有工作,获得按揭贷款的机会就困难重重。许多贷款人要求购房者具备移民资质,并且在加拿大的全职工作时间超过3个月。任何通过企业搬迁规定来到加拿大的人,可以不受这条规定限制。 “[抵押贷款] 对来自收取个人所得税国家的购房者都很友好,可以享受按揭贷款,从而减少购房时的压力,”David Smith说到。 许多公司为新加拿大公民或移民提供特别补贴,如果他们想在加拿大买房,将得到贷款,房地产经纪人将全程协助。 获得抵押打款的批准申请很不错。批准申请表明放款人愿意根据特定条款和条件,为购房者提供指定数额的抵押贷款(含利率)。此外,你需要和贷款人或者经济人一起讨论你的需求。该承诺只在有效时间内有效,通常为90天内。 批准申请并不需要你承担按揭贷款。你可以免费查其他的安排,但是这样会知道你将在房产上花费多少钱,会给你带来压力。 加拿大按揭和住房公司列出了银行、 信托公司、 信用合作社和其他金融机构,可以支付按揭贷款。 Rogers Pass British Columbia by Mike   建立信用 想要获得按揭贷款,信用和工作历史非常重要。这会对刚来到加拿大的购房者带来不便,加拿大的放款人无法获得这些信用历史。 尽快建立新的信用历史非常重要。任何一家银行都将乐于为你建立信用历史记录。经常使用的银行账户需要积累很长时间。记住始终按时支付你的账单,如租金、 公用事业费、 电费和保险费。只要你能证明你可以及时偿还并申请一张信用卡,可以尝试从银行借贷小额贷款。长时间为同一位雇主工作也可以增加获得贷款的可能。 买保险 新卖家应该考虑或的按揭贷款保险。如果不能支付大多数银行要求的20%的首付,这些优惠措施可以帮助你买房。 根据 加拿大政府的规定,“该保险保护放款人并帮助购房人,购房人只需要支付5%的首付就可以购房。” Magog Lake Sunrise by Jeff P  

    Continue Reading ...
  • 多伦多地产:买家房屋贷款!

    以下是多伦多市内完成居住房屋购买行为时通常产生的费用清单。 法律费用:居住房产税率在购买价格的0.25%到5%之间,不超过1,450.00加币。律师会对价格进行商谈,提供个人需要的相关配额。 土地转换税 — 省级&市政 省级土地转换税:购买价格 土地转换税 55,000加币 – 250,000加币 (购买价格 x 1%) 减去 275.00加币 250,000加币- 400,000加币 (购买价格 x 1.5%) 减去 1,525,00加币 400,000加币- 更多 (购买价格 x 2%) 减去3,525.00加币 市政土地转换税(仅限多伦多市)购买价格 土地转换税 000加币- 55,000加币 (购买价格 x 0.5%) 56,000加币- 400,000加币 (购买价格 x 1%) 401,000加币- 更多 (购买价格 x 2%) 调查。 如果卖家不具备“可接受的”调查,那么第一承按人必须要求卖家提供调查。费用:750.00加币- 1100.00加币 付款 — 标准付款清单如下: 依法社会交易费 50.00加币 税认证费 65.00加币 建筑清扫费 105.00加币

    Continue Reading ...
  • 为何选择我们的团队

    Richard Silver 文谈团队: 多年以来,我一直四处寻找和我一样志同道合的热爱房地产生意的朋友……终于,我找到了三个。 我们四人都具有非常强烈的职业操守,并且还都是风风火火的A型人格。我们每个人都各有所长,无间协作,确保客户利益大于一切。 Tania 和 Richard 有出色的组织管理技能,充分施展他们的市场天赋来确保上市的每一项房产都能够获得最大的受众面。Sherille 和 Kimberley 的业务技能更是出色,总能够为新买家和新售房的“转换买家”寻觅到最适宜房产。 当日暮西沉,我们仍蓄势待发。为满足您的每一个需求和每一份期待,我们孜孜不倦,乐于奔忙。我们的幸福莫过于亲历您的成功。人生变幻几何,我们庆幸与您一同度过。 我们意在经营长期客户,静待您的垂询! 为何选择我们? • 我们笃信房屋售前整修美化的重大意义,所以我们向每一名客户提供书面整修美化解决方案,费用全部由我们来承担。 • 房屋建筑平面图能够让你买家去想象房产中的家具陈设 ,所以我们出资来对待售房屋进行测绘。买家也有理由询问每平方英尺单价。 • 在当今的房产市场中,房产照片的重要性不言而喻。所以,我们所有的上市房产都会由我们出资聘请专业摄影团队进行拍摄,并且提供特色“虚拟看房之旅”服务。 • 你的上市房产不仅会被TorontoMLS数据库和REALTOR.ca网站收录,还会被做成一个至少由21张专业摄影照片和专业房屋建筑平面图组成的“虚拟看房之旅”,供广大房产中介和顾客浏览。 • 我们还会不时举办“开放日”活动,期间将有免费餐食供应。这能够让房产中介商们融聚一堂,四处观摩,在舒适的环境中增加合作往来。“开放日”的具体日期请留意我们的Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn以及其它社交媒体。 • 经营多年,我们经常为“邻里营销”的强大力量所震撼,所以我们将“新上市房产名录”和“开放日”邀请卡广发遍布周边2000多户家庭,费用仍然由我们来承担。 • 我们深谙互联网的重要性,所以我们的所有上市房产不仅被录入TorontoMLS数据系统、REALTOR.ca网站、加拿大地产中介委员会互联网交互数据(简称IDX),还会被多家网站收录,包括http://www.torontoism.com/, http://www.downtowntorontonews.com/,以及我公司官网 http://sothebysrealty.ca/en。 上面所有被列出的网站都经过专业优化处理,在搜索引擎中位列“多伦多房产”关键词下30种搜索类别的首页。 • 我们知道今天的买家会改变消费方式,所以我们几乎每周末都会举行公众“开放日”活动。 • 我们非常乐于为你的房产与其它中介商增进互惠,为你争取当今市场上最靓的售价。 WZ00SK

    Continue Reading ...
  • PTAB affirms indefiniteness when CRM claim recites human action (“subscribe”)

    Takeaway: In an application for a computerized valuation platform, the Examiner rejected a computer-readable medium claim as indefinite. The Examiner took issue with the phrase “subscribing to the web-based valuation service,” asserting that the word “subscribe” implied a human action, which conflicted with the claim’s recital of a method performed by computer instructions. The Applicant argued that the action was done through computer instructions, at the request of a user. In support of this argument, the Applicant presented a dictionary definition (“to obtain a subscription”) which did not mention performance by a human. The Board found that the definition offered by the Applicant did involve human activity, and thus affirmed the rejection. (Ex parte Allaway, PTAB 2014.)

    Ex parte Allaway
    Appeal 2012-006215; Appl. No. 11/009,547; Tech. Center 3600
    Decided:  December 15, 2014

    The application on appeal described a computerized valuation platform for intellectual property assets. During prosecution, the Applicant presented a system claim and a comupter-readable medium (CRM) claim. The CRM claim on appeal read:

         35. A computer-readable medium encoded with computer executable instructions …. , the instructions perform a method comprising:
          publishing at least one portable formula module defining one or more valuation formulas associated with an intellectual property asset at a network server that offers a web-based valuation service;
          subscribing to the web-based valuation service from a client device to access the at least one portable formula module;
          acquiring one or more values associated with variables of the one or more valuation formulas from a network database utilizing an automated acquisition that pulls information from the network database in response to a subscriber request;
          determining one or more valuation results associated with the intellectual property asset by executing the one or more valuation formulas using the acquired values; and
          displaying the determined one or more valuation results of the intellectual property asset valuation on an information presentation interface of the client device.
    (Emphasis added.)

    The Examiner rejected all claims under § 101 and § 103. The Examiner also rejected CRM claims 35 and 37 as indefinite. The Examiner explained that independent claim 35 was indefinite since “it is unclear how [a CRM] subscribes to a web-based valuation service (a human user activity).” (Emphasis added.) The Examiner used the same rationale for dependent claim 37, which recited “the client device further subscribing to …”

    During prosecution the Applicant argued against the indefiniteness rejection of independent claim 35. The Applicant first noted that the Examiner seemed “seem[ed] to rely on the notion that ‘subscribing’ is a human activity by its very definition.” But according to the Applicant, the term was not given this meaning by the Applicant’s disclosure, by the prior art, or by a POSITA (citing MPEP 2173.02). The Applicant also introduced a definition (“to obtain a subscription,” from Dictionary.com), which did not mention performance by a human. Thus, the Applicant concluded that the indefiniteness rejection was improper.

    The Applicant also addressed the indefiniteness rejection of dependent claim 37 by explaining that the ” ‘subscribing’ is done at the behest of a user (presumably human) through a computer-readable medium encoded with computer-executable instructions.” The Applicant asserted that the term was consistent with usage by a POSITA, and gave a specific example (“digital video recording device subscribing to a show at the behest of the user or having a server push content to a user’s device or computer at the behest of a user.”) The Applicant also referenced a portion of the Specification to support this interpretation.

    In the next Office Action, the Examiner did not address the dictionary definition proffered by the Applicant. The Examiner did respond to the arguments for dependent claim 37 by commenting on the portion of the Specification mentioned by the Applicant. According to the Examiner, the Specification taught that “the subscribing is not directed to a system or set of computer instructions, but rather to actions of the individual user. This creates confusion as to when direct infringement or the claim limits occurs.”

    The Board affirmed the indefiniteness rejection. The Board first explained the requirements of a prima facie case of indefiniteness, as explained by the Federal Circuit’s In re Packard decision:

    When the USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded rejection that identifies ways in which language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention, and thereafter the applicant fails to provide a satisfactory response, the USPTO can properly reject the claim as failing to meet the statutory requirements of § 112(b) 

    The Board noted that all of the meanings in the Applicant’s proffered dictionary definition (from Dictionary.com) involved human activity, as did the Applicant’s own examples offered in the Appeal Brief (TiVo and iTunes). The Board then found that the Examiner had presented a “well-grounded rejection” which the Applicant’s arguments had not overcome, and thus ffirmed.

    My two cents: The Board got this one wrong. When read in the context of the claim, publish and subscribe are not human actions. A POSITA would recognize these as computer actions that are part a well-known design pattern. (See this Wikipedia entry for “Publish-subscribe pattern“.)

    The CRM claim at issue recited “publishing” as well as “subscribing.” Interestingly, the Examiner did not assert that “publish” was indefinite. Whatever led the Examiner to conclude that “publish” was
    understood by a POSITA should also apply to “subscribe.”

    To make a much stronger case, the Applicant should have offered evidence of the technology-specific meaning of “subscribe.” I did a cursory web search and found a Wikipedia entry as well as several technical articles discussing the Publish-Subscribe pattern (e.g., Oracle® Database Application Developer’s Guide, Microsoft Patterns and Practices).

    Continue Reading ...