• 中断
    in:  | 

    中断

                            目次はこちら

    中断

    (INTERRUPT)
    $$ The inner surface 7 of the lower plate 2 is interrupted by an array of pillars 10. /下方のシート2の内面7は、柱状体10の列によって中断されている。(USP5408160)

    $$ When the list overflows, either the test sequence must be interrupted or some defect data must be discarded. / リストがオーバーフローすると、試験シーケンスを中断するか、幾つかの欠陥データを廃棄しなければならない。(USP6269455)

    $$ A disconnection arises where a terminating line is interrupted between the local switch and the terminal equipment. / 終端回線がローカル交換機と端末装置間で中断される場合に切断が生じる。(USP7573824)

    (BREAK)
    $$ The tablet is always guaranteed to break at least one beam irrespective of its lateral position. / 錠剤は常に、錠剤の横方向位置に関係なく、少なくとも1つの光線を中断させることが保証される。(USP8984844)

    $$ A release kay message breaks this cycle (STP) and control leaves step 404. / 解放キーメッセージはこのサイクルを中断し(STP)、制御はステップ404 を離れる。(USP5479385)

    $$ If, for any reason, any of the points of entry have been broken, or if the continuous bar codes have become broken or distorted due to fibre tear, it will either be visible to the naked eye, or will be visible by the infra-red scanning device. / 何らかの理由で、開け口のどこかが破られていたり、連続的なバーコードが、繊維の破れにより中断又は歪みを生じている場合は、肉眼での目視でも分かるし、赤外線走査器によっても明らかにできる。(USP5895075)

    $$ The loop 22 is broken at one point 36 and one end of the loop is connected to a first terminal of a capacitor 28 having a second terminal which is connected to a first terminal of capacitors 30,34 respectively. / ループ22を一個所36にて中断させ、このループの一端をコンデンサ28の第1端子に接続し、コンデンサ28の第2端子をコンデンサ30,34の各第1端子にそれぞれ接続する。(USP5422650)

    (DISRUPT)
    $$ This has the advantage of making possible transparent testing with no disruption to normal operation of the communications system. / これは、通信システムの通常動作に対する中断なしに、可能な透過的検査を実行するという利点を有する。(USP8145966)

    $$ Thus a viewer should not be overly disturbed if, for example, the high definition transmission is momentarily disrupted by aircraft flutter. / 従って、例えば、飛行機のフラッタのために、高精細度送信が一時的に中断されても、視聴者には大きな障害とはならない。(USP5313279)

    (PAUSE)
    $$ After a pause for the melted powder to solidify, the roller 92 proceeds to roll another layer of powder over support member 93 in preparation for sintering. / 溶かした粉体を固めるために中断した後、ローラー92は支持部材93上に別の粉体の層を転がして工程を続け、焼結の準備を行う。(USP8752294)

    $$ Additionally or alternatively, the pre-recorded media may comprise audio containing a pause for insertion of live audio. / さらにまたは代りに、予め記録された媒体はライブオーディオのため中断を含んでいるオーディオを含んでいる。(USP7577676)

    (OTHERS)
    $$ The mouse can be clicked on "OK" to redraw the map to the new scale or clicked on "Cancel" to abort. / マウスを「OK」でクリックしてマップを新しいスケールに再び描き直すかまたは「キャンセル」をクリックして中断することができる。(USP6611142): abort

    $$ The filtration method comprises a purging cycle that is configured to punctuate the operation cycle. / この濾過方法は、運転サイクルを中断するように構成されたパージサイクルを含む。(USP8834721): punctuate

    $$ Upon cessation of heating of the wax, the wax in the reservoir cools and the diaphragm sealing the wax reservoir returns to its original position. / ワックスの加熱を中断すると、貯留室内のワックスは冷却され、ワックス貯留室をシールしているダイヤフラムは初期位置に戻る。(USP8048041): cessation

    $$ The time consuming nature of machine down-time and cost of that down-time, as well as the cost of new rollers, etc. means that conventional roller systems do not offer flexibility at low cost. / この機械の中断による時間の消費およびコスト並びに新しいローラーのコストがかかるので、従来のローラーシステムは、低コストでの機械的自由度が制限されてしまう。(USP8397779): down

                            目次はこちら

  • Federal Circuit Makes Wasteful Attempt to Side with Patent Challenger in General Electric v. United Technologies
    in: CAFC, courts, Federal Circuit, Gene Quinn, General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp., Government, Intellectual Property, inter partes review, Inventors Information, IP News, IPR, IPWatchdog Articles, Litigation, Patent Litigation, patent office, patent trial and appeal board, Patently-O, patents, Post Grant Procedures, PTAB, Technology & Innovation, USPTO  | 

    Federal Circuit Makes Wasteful Attempt to Side with Patent Challenger in General Electric v. United Technologies

    Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp., which continued the trend that a losing inter partes review petitioner who has not been sued by the patent owner will not have standing to appeal to the Federal Circuit. Still, the case is noteworthy for several reasons. In this case, United Technologies Corporation (UTC) was the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 8,511,605 (“the ’605 patent). The ’605 patent is…

  • U.S. Mayors have become President
    in: 未分類  | 

    U.S. Mayors have become President

    Within a post on JFK, Jr. at PEOPLE magazine:


    Once we were in a meeting with Sen. Al D’Amato, who said John should run for mayor of New York City.
    After we left, I asked him, “Would you ever run for mayor?” and he said no. I asked him why, and he said,
    “Well, Rosie, how many mayors do you know that become President?”

    link: The JFK Jr. We Loved: Close Friends Look Back at the (Ridiculously) Handsome but Down-To-Earth First Son

    Although one might guess the answer is zero, the correct answer is three, with the most notable being Grover Cleveland who had been the mayor of Buffalo, New York. More mayors became president than senators from Massachusetts. Cleveland’s VP mate was Thomas Andrews Hendricks of Indiana. Hendricks died on November 25, 1885, after serving less than a year as VP. After Hendricks died, Cleveland had no vice-president for the duration of his first term.

    Related to “Mayor Pete” of South Bend, U.S. Grant’s first vice-president was Schuyler Colfax of South Bend, Indiana, who was the first person to have served as Vice-President and Speaker of the House of Representatives.

    So, mayors can become president and people from South Bend, Indiana can be powerful.

Dominic Basulto: just because you have a lot of highly cited patents doesn’t immediately mean that you can create valuable products from those patents

Although Basulto’s statement is true, it misses the more basic issue that patent citation analysis is gibberish. Having highly cited patents does not really mean much.

See the work of Edlyn Simmons and some previous IPBiz posts, for example

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2010/08/citations-found-in-patents-do.html, with the text:


Edlyn S. Simmons and Nancy Lambert. “Patent Statistics: Comparing Grapes and Watermelons” In Recent Advances in Chemical Information, Proceedings of the 1991 Montreux International Chemical Information Conference & Exhibition, H. Collier, Ed, (Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge; CRC Press) pp 33-78 (1992).

Simmons, Edlyn S.; Lambert, Nancy. “Comparing grapes and watermelons.” ChemTech 23 (6), 1993, p. 51-59. ]

Separately, the link by Basulto to Harvard is to a working paper by Tom Nicholas. Reference 9 of the working paper is to Jaffe/Lerner. Reference 28 is to Bessen/Meurer. Reference 45 is Lemley/Shapiro on the Wright Brothers. The discussion of the Wright Brothers patent from reference 44 is inane, especially because the patent had nothing to do with controlled sustained flight, and was filed months BEFORE December 1903. As to foreign patents, the Germans did not allow the Wright patent, the French did; both countries did well in early aviation. The U.S. was behind because the War Department could not envision the benefits of the Wright’s work. Nothing to do with patents.

As to Basulto’s text:

Instead of viewing patents as we once did — as a way to encourage inventiveness and innovation, we may be better suited to see them for what they have become: an economic drag and an attractive target for patent trolls, who see them as a way to exact tributes from deep-pocketed tech companies.

The political drumbeat against trolls is the “exacting of tributes” from smaller enterprises, not from deep pocket companies. The reality of the drumbeat may be that deep pocket companies don’t want to be bothered by little guy inventors.

As to “victims”, for example, note the post on 15 July 2015:

Small and independent hotel owners today are facing their ultimate nightmare: an infestation. But the risk to their livelihoods isn’t of the traditional critter-type variety, it’s a 21st century pest: the patent troll.


link: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/247867-patent-trolls-are-infesting-small-hotels

Basulto seems to be a futurist who doesn’t know the past (or the present), and is doomed by the pronouncement of George Santayana.

link to Basulto article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2015/07/14/patents-are-a-terrible-way-to-measure-innovation/

Continue Reading ...
  • Wednesday whimsies

    Looking for a position. It’s tough out there in the jobs market.  While the position of the market economies have definitely improved considerably since the dark, dark days of sub-prime mortgages, failing banks and doom-and-gloom prophecies, the supply of talented folk seeking gainful employment still seems to exceed the number of folk who are out there looking for someone. That’s why the IPKat is happy to make his weblog available from time to time as a means of trying to match people up with those who may best appreciate their skill and labour.  Anyway, right now an imaginative correspondent of the IPKat, currently seeking a position within the wonderful world of IP, has written this short summary of her attitude to the topic:

    “There exists a certain similarity between multi-sport competitions and working in the field of patent assets. Science, patenting, defence and enforcement, as well as various strategic considerations, all contribute towards defining the value of patent IP. I’m looking to find an application for my multi-sport skills in the field of patents. Who knows, new developments and IP records might be just around the corner in the triathlon of science, patents and law”.

    Our correspondent has a scientific background spanning maths, physics and chemistry, a legal education and a facility for modern languages (she has two native tongues and is fluent in another two).  She also has some years of experience in-house in developing patent portfolios — oh, and she also has a sense of humour, as you can tell from the accompanying illustrations.  If you think you might have a role for her, email the IPKat at theipkat@gmail.com with the subject line “Triathlon” and he will forward your expression of interest to her.

    New blog on the block. From Italian IP enthusiast Marco Pisana comes The IPizza Blog which, as readers might guess, seeks to run a pizza theme through its content in much the same way as this blog does with cats.  The text is in Italian — as is new blog’s the clean, bright style. Marco’s first post is on the Pink Lady decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union [noted by the IPKat here]. This Kat will be watching this blog with interest; Merpel is sure that it’s a recipe for success and hope it will give her lots of food for thought …

    That 20%: is it here …?

    Around the weblogs.  After last week’s frenetic activity the 1709 Blog has continued to be busy. Andy Johnstone gives an update on 19 Recordings’ US litigation against Sony as to whether the latter’s taking a stake in Spotify was done in bad faith: this litigation looks as though it’s getting bogged down in procedural niceties that are about as much fun as the small print an ISP’s terms and conditions, while IPKat blogmeister Jeremy asks questions – so far unanswered by that blog’s large and well-informed readership — as to whether there is any current news of the “20%  Fund” which some performers hope to enjoy, or at least get to make decisions about, before they die. And let’s not forget the jiplp weblog, which is hosting a very serious piece by the Herbert Smith Freehills pairing of Sebastian Moore and Grace Pead on how the patent for the Exelon Alzheimer’s patch came to be invalidated/

    Bye-laws — or bye-bye trainees? Gilman Grundy (Senior IP Specialist, Kenwood) wrote to the Kats the other day to ask them: “have you had a chance to peruse the CIPA [that’s the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys in the UK] Bye-Laws Working Group Report that was emailed to CIPA members early last month for comment?” Well, no, we hadn’t. But Gilman had a reason for asking. As he explained to us:

    “The report includes proposals to amend the definition of Associate membership of CIPA so that it is limited to part-qualified trainee patent attorneys – all well and good (and boring), you no doubt think – but the definition of who can become an associate member (and is therefore a “part qualified trainee”) is somewhat odd:
    “Persons of good repute not eligible for Fellowship or European Patent Attorney Membership who have studied for qualification as Patent Attorneys under the supervision of a Fellow or a European Patent Attorney Member of the Institute for a period of at least one year and who have passed such examinations relating to qualification as a Patent Attorney as are determined by Council as being appropriate for Associate Membership shall be eligible for election as Associates of the Institute” (my underlining).

    That is, no-one who has not undergone training supervised by a UK or EP-qualified patent attorney will be recognised as part-qualified by CIPA. The report goes on to say that this is to ensure that the people in this membership class are

    “undertaking the period of supervised practice . . . required in order to become a Registered or European Patent Attorney.”

    Surely qualification
    demands enough jumping
    through hoops already?

    The thing is, supervision is not, and (as far as I know) never has been, an absolute requirement for becoming a UK or European Patent Attorney. Both IPReg and the EPO allow for unsupervised qualification (see 4.2c here for IPReg, and here for the EPO). Admittedly the number of people qualifying by this route every year is likely quite small, but we do exist. Logically, someone who has passed some (or all) or the qualification exams, or at least the finals exams, and who fits the criteria for unsupervised qualification, should surely be regarded as a part-qualified patent attorney, but not according to the CIPA Bye-Laws Working Group! Does this signal an intention on the part of CIPA finally to close every other route to qualification as a patent attorney, other than the supervised route? What, then, of CIPA’s much vaunted attempts to increase the diversity of the UK patent profession? Surely the surest way of promoting the diversity of the profession is at least to maintain more than one path to qualification?”

    Comments, anyone?

    Continue Reading ...
  • 徳島県と知財支援協定を締結

                  日本弁理士会 伊丹勝会長            徳島県 飯泉嘉門知事     平成27年7月14日、徳島県と日本弁理士会は「知的財産の活用による地域の活性化と産業の振興のための協力に […]

    Continue Reading ...