Slashdot Mirror

What changes in moving to a first to file is the removal of interferences (figuring out who invented what, when) and swearing back of a reference. See MPEP 715 and 2300.01 for details.

One minor correction with the parent's post, the open source publisher (or anyone else for that matter) cannot look at unpublished (still kicking around at the USPTO) patent applications. There's usually an 18 month delay between filing and the application (not the patent) to be published. There's no good way I can think of around this situation. The inventor needs time to file his/her applications in other countries, and therefore the patent office can't be immediately publishing those applications.

What changes in moving to a first to file is the removal of interferences (figuring out who invented what, when) and swearing back of a reference. See MPEP 715 and 2300.01 for details.

One minor correction with the parent's post, the open source publisher (or anyone else for that matter) cannot look at unpublished (still kicking around at the USPTO) patent applications. There's usually an 18 month delay between filing and the application (not the patent) to be published. There's no good way I can think of around this situation. The inventor needs time to file his/her applications in other countries, and therefore the patent office can't be immediately publishing those applications.

If you can manage to steal someone's idea, sign the oath saying you invented whatever it is, and obtain the patent, it will probably still fall apart in court when you go to enforce it. 35 U.S.C. 102(f) bars you from obtaining a patent for something you didn't invent.

Moving to a first to file system would do away with the issue of someone publishing an idea into the public domain and less than a year afterwards, another person filing a patent application for the same idea (along with an affidavit establishing prior inventorship. Currently, you may not obtain a patent if

(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.

Now if you want to place something into the public domain (good for you!), make sure it is readily searchable and has a solid date of publishing attached (i.e., the Internet Archive can archive it).

Here's the trademark registration: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=m kfu1u.3.3 Here's an actual instance of CMP/O'reilly threatening a (not even US-based!) non-profit for using it: http://www.tomrafteryit.net/oreilly-trademarks-web -20-and-sets-lawyers-on-itcork/

• 6,729,337
• 6,536,440

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/i ndex.html#model

Models or exhibits are not required in most patent applications since the description of the invention in the specification and the drawings must be sufficiently full, clear, and complete and capable of being understood to disclose the invention without the aid of a model.

A working model, or other physical exhibit, may be required by the Office if deemed necessary. This is not done very often. A working model may be requested in the case of applications for patent for alleged perpetual motion devices.

When the invention relates to a composition of matter, the applicant may be required to furnish specimens of the composition, or of its ingredients or intermediates, for inspection or experiment. If the invention is a microbiological invention, a deposit of the micro-organism involved is required.

Eolas v. Microsoft, 399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Page 24 of the PDF. I quote:

Without question, software code alone qualifies as an invention eligible for patenting under these categories, at least as processes. See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994); AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 1999); MPEP 2106.IV.B.1.a. (8th ed., rev. 2 2001).

The Supreme Court hasn't directly said software alone is patentable, but they've explicitly said they're not ruling it out (until they get a case where they have to decide it to reach a conclusion). In other words, the Federal Circuit's law is correct (for now). Here's the quote from Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981):

Our earlier opinions lend support to our present conclusion that a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula, computer program, or digital computer. In Gottschalk v. Benson we noted: "It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold." 409 U.S., at 71. Similarly, in Parker v. Flook we stated that "a process is not unpatentable simply because it contains a law of nature or a mathematical algorithm." 437 U.S., at 590. It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection. See, e. g., Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127 (1948); Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45 (1923); Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780 (1877); O'Reilly v. Morse, 15 How. 62 (1854); and Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156 (1853).

Until and unless Congress changes their mind or the Supreme Court says otherwise, software IS patentable.

I believe that you are confusing patent examiners with patent agents.

Nonsense. Link to something support your completely wrong claim?
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fee2007 february01.htm#maintain says they charge a pittance to keep a patent going.

It really as broken as people claim it is.

I'm too late, check this crap out.... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=bread&OS=b read&RS=bread looks like we can use yeast to make bread any more.

It's more complicated than that. This is a divisional application of another application which has issued as a patent. Furthermore, they filed another divisional application which also has been published.

Divisional applications are made when the examiner determines that more than one invention is claimed in an application and requires the applicant to elect one of the inventions to prosecute on the merits. The claims to a non-elected invention(s) are not examined in that application and must be cancelled if the elected claims are allowed, but may be presented in a new application which will get the benefit of the filing date of the parent application if filed before its issue or abandonment date. Any claims in a patent issuing from a divisional application are immune to an attack of double patenting over the claims of the parent patent if the divisional was filed in response to a requirement made by an examiner.

The disclosures of all the applications/patent here are all the same, since no new matter is added in the divisional application (theoretically they could do so, but such added matter would not be entitled to the filing date of the parent application); the differences among the applications is in what is claimed, and, as with any patent/application, the claims define what the invention is, not the title, abstract, etc. The terms used in the claims are, however, interpreted in light of the description in the specification.

It's more complicated than that. This is a divisional application of another application which has issued as a patent. Furthermore, they filed another divisional application which also has been published.

Divisional applications are made when the examiner determines that more than one invention is claimed in an application and requires the applicant to elect one of the inventions to prosecute on the merits. The claims to a non-elected invention(s) are not examined in that application and must be cancelled if the elected claims are allowed, but may be presented in a new application which will get the benefit of the filing date of the parent application if filed before its issue or abandonment date. Any claims in a patent issuing from a divisional application are immune to an attack of double patenting over the claims of the parent patent if the divisional was filed in response to a requirement made by an examiner.

The disclosures of all the applications/patent here are all the same, since no new matter is added in the divisional application (theoretically they could do so, but such added matter would not be entitled to the filing date of the parent application); the differences among the applications is in what is claimed, and, as with any patent/application, the claims define what the invention is, not the title, abstract, etc. The terms used in the claims are, however, interpreted in light of the description in the specification.

You can see information about any U.S. patent or published patent application using Public PAIR at the Patent Electronic Business Center, which is on the PTO's Web site at http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair/. From there, you can search for application number 90/007,946, which is the serial number assigned to the reexamination proceeding.

Once you see the main page for the patent, select the tab reading "Image File Wrapper". This will give you a list of every document that has been filed in the reexam. You can view and download everything except those items listed as "NPL Documents," which are Non-Patent Literature Documentsthey are references that aren't other patents or applications and are often protected by copyright.

The PTO conducts its business in writing. Normal decisions from a patent examiner are documents called "Office Actions". In this case, the Office Action is actually listed as "Determination -- Reexam Ordered," which was dated May 12, 2006. Page 2 of the decision (which is page 4 of the PDF) is where you'll find a mention of the "single action" thing.

Now, the obligation is not precisely to submit every document that could be relevant. Rather, the applicant and counsel must disclose every reference that they know about. The distinction is that there is no obligation to search for prior art. That's why you don't necessarily get an Everest of documents.

Now, my guess is that someone was searching for something else and stumbled across the Norm! site. Maybe one of the patent lawyers at Fenwick is a big Cheers fan and was looking for fan sites. Having found the Norm! site, maybe he or she thought, "Hey, wouldn't it be funny if Norm could one-click a beer? Hm. Oh, crap."

Whatever the case, having found it, and thinking that it might be material, they had to submit it.

This one seems to cover Microsoft's ADO.NET and parts of ASP.NET, neither of which are covered by the ECMA standard for C#/.NET. There are lots more. The Mono project has admitted that ADO.NET, ASP.NET and Windows.Forms are patented extensions by Microsoft, and that they may have to remove those at some time (which would render Mono basically useless for most Windows developers and even some Linux developers).

Gotcha... I can't say whether they were truly guilty of anything, either. Sometimes in the free software world, we find developers caving to corporations' demands thanks to those corporations' well-funded legal departments (thankfully, the EFF can sometimes help fight back when it's cases of just plain bullying), which is very unfortunate. They could have maybe trademarked GAIM from the start (I *think* that's okay under some open source licenses, as long as it's done properly)... I just think it's unfortunate that they gave in to AOL's wishes when they might not have had to.

My understanding of trademark law is that whoever registers a trademark gets to own it, even if someone else was using the name first, with the exception of the original user being very well-known and taking action against the trademark-filer as soon as possible (if they don't fight the party which was granted the trademark immediately, I believe this effectively forfeits their right to do so); after someone trademarks something, they are required to notify anyone else in their market with an identical or nearly-identical name that the name infringes on the trademark. I'm not sure to what extent the trademark owner has to legally pursue other parties with an infringing name. (For example, if Xerox took offense to a photocopier named SIRex ('simply, instantaneous, reproduxion'), is Xerox obligated to file suit, send a C&D letter, or just notify me that they have a trademark for a similar product and that I should tread carefully? If my product advertisements say "SIRex is not affiliated and Xerox, and SIRex machines are not produced by Xerox," would Xerox be okay enough with that?) a useful FAQ from the USPTO and FAQ about filing trademarks

All you had to do was google trademark and you'd find USPTO which explains how trademarks work. Corporations need trademarks, otherwise I could register a company say i'm releasing gmail before gmail is released and, uh oh, now i'm the trademark holder for gmail. Life doesn't work that way. I for one am quite pleased with the trademark process (this coming from somone having his own company and trademarked name).

Gaim has no right to keep the name if they don't want to fight it. So goes life. Maybe I'm biased because I retain a high profile lawyer and fights like this would not last more than two certified letters.. but if they really thought they weren't breaking AOL's trademark, they could easily find lawyers willing to fight for them. But, I know the gaim team and they are quick to run away with their tails tucked between their legs

remember when AOL threatened about the smiley faces? "upper management" forced the smiley removal from cvs and iirc from a few releases (it was later readded when other projects defied AOL and included smiley faces in their aim-compatible products). that was about that time when i quit the gaim team. adium x seems to be better managed, alas they're strictly OS X :(

Not over the internet, or using intetnet protocol, so it's not VOIP

The actual patent says "internet OR computer network", although I give you that the claim indeed explicitly mentions "an internet protocol".

But note that the set of statements in a patent claim can be invalidated by a wider type of prior art. So a claim of using internet for some purpose is invalidated by prior art that does exactly the same thing on a computer network, since internet is just one type of computer network.

So if HAM radio can be considered a computer network, and someone connected HAM radio on both ends to regular phone lines, that would invalidate the patent. Unfortunately, unless it was packet radio (ethernet-like data transfer over radio), it wouldn't be a computer network.

The actual patent reads like a maths paper with lots of buzzwords. Sorry I try not to to read too much of the patent since the Legal Jargon actually gives me a headache. Maybe that is intentional for all patents. What annoys me is this patent is not really an invention since it defines how their software does something which is not even physical. I suppose the physical aspect occurs when someone is taken to court.

Please note I am against software patents in general although I am not against closed source or copyright and trademarks although these can also be a "can of worms". As far as I am concerned this should never be granted as a patent since it is another thing that takes away freedom in programming or even the basic human thinking process. Still if you have money and Patent lawyers on retention I suppose you could patent anything like http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2F srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220040230959%22.PGN R.&OS=DN/20040230959&RS=DN/20040230959

"...ideas the person of average skill in the relevant field could not reasonably be expected to use."

That is not true.
"...to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.""

about obvious:
" Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the invention. For example, the substitution of one color for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable.
"

That is what obvious means within the context of the USPTO.

refereces from:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/i ndex.html#patent

The Slashdot submitter got it wrong. The patent says "Filed: September 5, 2006". That is, 2006.

Go read for yourself. Come on, you know you want to.

In this case, the application was filed September 5, 2006. Thus, the application filing date is September 5, 2006. However, the application claims priority to a provisional application filed September 6, 2005. Thus, the application has a priority date of September 6, 2005. This difference is important for 35 U.S.C. 102(e) purposes.

Under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), a prior filed U.S. patent or application can be used as "prior art" against a currently filed application. As an example, suppose Application A was filed on March 1, 2006 that discloses each and every limitation of claim 1 of the current application. Application A could then be used under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as "prior art" to reject claim 1 because it has an earlier filing date (application date) than the current application. However, the Applicant of the current application could then rely on the priority date of the provisional application, which is September 6, 2005, to overcome the rejection. In this case, the Examiner would then have to go back to the provisional application to which the current application claims priority, and determine, whether, in fact, the provisional application discloses the subject-matter claimed by claim 1. As an additional comment to 35 U.S.C. 102(e), I briefly add that it is common for an Examiner to reject a claim in view of a reference that qualifies as "prior art" under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), where the reference is used with other art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).

Hence, there is a difference between filing dates and priority dates, and these two dates need not always be the same. So, to say that these application has a filing date of September 5, 2006 would be correct, but then to say that this application has a priority date of September 6, 2005 would also be correct.

The opinion expressed herein does not represent the views of any government or private organization.

In this case, the application was filed September 5, 2006. Thus, the application filing date is September 5, 2006. However, the application claims priority to a provisional application filed September 6, 2005. Thus, the application has a priority date of September 6, 2005. This difference is important for 35 U.S.C. 102(e) purposes.

Under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), a prior filed U.S. patent or application can be used as "prior art" against a currently filed application. As an example, suppose Application A was filed on March 1, 2006 that discloses each and every limitation of claim 1 of the current application. Application A could then be used under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as "prior art" to reject claim 1 because it has an earlier filing date (application date) than the current application. However, the Applicant of the current application could then rely on the priority date of the provisional application, which is September 6, 2005, to overcome the rejection. In this case, the Examiner would then have to go back to the provisional application to which the current application claims priority, and determine, whether, in fact, the provisional application discloses the subject-matter claimed by claim 1. As an additional comment to 35 U.S.C. 102(e), I briefly add that it is common for an Examiner to reject a claim in view of a reference that qualifies as "prior art" under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), where the reference is used with other art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).

Hence, there is a difference between filing dates and priority dates, and these two dates need not always be the same. So, to say that these application has a filing date of September 5, 2006 would be correct, but then to say that this application has a priority date of September 6, 2005 would also be correct.

The opinion expressed herein does not represent the views of any government or private organization.

In this case, the application was filed September 5, 2006. Thus, the application filing date is September 5, 2006. However, the application claims priority to a provisional application filed September 6, 2005. Thus, the application has a priority date of September 6, 2005. This difference is important for 35 U.S.C. 102(e) purposes.

Under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), a prior filed U.S. patent or application can be used as "prior art" against a currently filed application. As an example, suppose Application A was filed on March 1, 2006 that discloses each and every limitation of claim 1 of the current application. Application A could then be used under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as "prior art" to reject claim 1 because it has an earlier filing date (application date) than the current application. However, the Applicant of the current application could then rely on the priority date of the provisional application, which is September 6, 2005, to overcome the rejection. In this case, the Examiner would then have to go back to the provisional application to which the current application claims priority, and determine, whether, in fact, the provisional application discloses the subject-matter claimed by claim 1. As an additional comment to 35 U.S.C. 102(e), I briefly add that it is common for an Examiner to reject a claim in view of a reference that qualifies as "prior art" under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), where the reference is used with other art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).

Hence, there is a difference between filing dates and priority dates, and these two dates need not always be the same. So, to say that these application has a filing date of September 5, 2006 would be correct, but then to say that this application has a priority date of September 6, 2005 would also be correct.

The opinion expressed herein does not represent the views of any government or private organization.

is here.

Regards,
Kilgore Trout

My first thought was that this is an APPLICATION! NOT an issued patent. It says so on the first line of text. /.ers need to use their eyes and brain before their fingers.

A good place to start using their eyes would be http://www.patentbarbri.com/ to buy the patent bar review course.
You do not have to be an attorney to become a patent agent, you only need an Bachelor of Science from an accredited university. Read the application for here for more details: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/oed/exa mregist.htm

I did it (with only a BS in Comp Eng) so can you, and then we can all have intellegent conversations instead of FUD. And we can file Section 1900 Protests (learn more in the review course)

Mods in the future please refuse submissions of patent related stories unless the submitter includes his Patent Agent registration number in the submission (but don't post that on /.)

It's okay. Apparently today Wizards of the Coast announced that they are suing SquareEnix over FF's use of tabs in games as well. WotC argues that when they bought TSR, they acquired the rights to different sections (referred to as "tabs" internally) for different parts of the DND character sheet.

Avid players of FF will note that since FF1, the UI for the character information has also divided the data into sections that they refer to as "tabs" internally as well. SquareEnix has been infringing on their patent since 1987.

I'm glad someone's finally taking a stand against SquareEnix!

Thought it was an April's Fool.
Wrong.
The fools sit - as so often - in the USPTO. They have granted, I repeat *granted* the following claim 1 of US7,027,311:

"1. An apparatus for a wireless power supply comprising: means for receiving a range of RF radiation across a collection of frequencies; and means for converting the RF radiation across the collection of frequencies into DC, the converting means includes an absorbing mechanism which is resonant for a desired band of RF spectrum."

http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2F srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7027311.PN.&OS=PN/7027 311&RS=PN/7027311

What a fscking invention !

Congratulations, Nguyen; Matthew V., for a witty examination !

http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat& pat=7027311

  Total Assignments: 2
Patent #:7027311
Issue Dt: 04/11/2006
Application #: 10966880
Filing Dt: 10/15/2004
Publication #:US20050104453
Pub Dt:05/19/2005
Inventors:Timm A. Vanderelli, John G. Shearer, John R. Shearer
Title:

METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR A WIRELESS POWER SUPPLY

Ah.

"Presumptively patentable" vs. "presumptively valid."

I see it now. Thanks.

And actually, in view of the previous comment by theantipop, I don't know why this statement is in the news brief.

"Any invention that is new, useful, non-obvious, and which is accompanied by a written description disclosing how to make and use it can be patented. Applicants' submissions enjoy a presumption of patentability. Thus, to reject an application the USPTO is responsible for ensuring that any evidence indicating that the invention is not new or is obvious (known as "prior art") is identified and explaining why the invention is not patentable in view of the evidence.

I checked the Accelerated Examination website, and I couldn't find anything in there about applications being presumptively patentable. As I have access to the USPQ online, I also did a quick search in the U.S.P.Q. 2d. (brief description of what the USPQ is here) for Fed. Cir. decisions holding that applications are "presumptively patentable." Nothing there either.

So, unless the release is discussing 35 U.S.C. 101 or the language of 35 U.S.C. 102, I don't know why this statement was even made.

Any thoughts?

Ah.

"Presumptively patentable" vs. "presumptively valid."

I see it now. Thanks.

And actually, in view of the previous comment by theantipop, I don't know why this statement is in the news brief.

"Any invention that is new, useful, non-obvious, and which is accompanied by a written description disclosing how to make and use it can be patented. Applicants' submissions enjoy a presumption of patentability. Thus, to reject an application the USPTO is responsible for ensuring that any evidence indicating that the invention is not new or is obvious (known as "prior art") is identified and explaining why the invention is not patentable in view of the evidence.

I checked the Accelerated Examination website, and I couldn't find anything in there about applications being presumptively patentable. As I have access to the USPQ online, I also did a quick search in the U.S.P.Q. 2d. (brief description of what the USPQ is here) for Fed. Cir. decisions holding that applications are "presumptively patentable." Nothing there either.

So, unless the release is discussing 35 U.S.C. 101 or the language of 35 U.S.C. 102, I don't know why this statement was even made.

Any thoughts?

Ah.

"Presumptively patentable" vs. "presumptively valid."

I see it now. Thanks.

And actually, in view of the previous comment by theantipop, I don't know why this statement is in the news brief.

"Any invention that is new, useful, non-obvious, and which is accompanied by a written description disclosing how to make and use it can be patented. Applicants' submissions enjoy a presumption of patentability. Thus, to reject an application the USPTO is responsible for ensuring that any evidence indicating that the invention is not new or is obvious (known as "prior art") is identified and explaining why the invention is not patentable in view of the evidence.

I checked the Accelerated Examination website, and I couldn't find anything in there about applications being presumptively patentable. As I have access to the USPQ online, I also did a quick search in the U.S.P.Q. 2d. (brief description of what the USPQ is here) for Fed. Cir. decisions holding that applications are "presumptively patentable." Nothing there either.

So, unless the release is discussing 35 U.S.C. 101 or the language of 35 U.S.C. 102, I don't know why this statement was even made.

Any thoughts?

The following is the actual patent. http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=P TO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch- bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%22warp+d rive%22.TTL.&OS=TTL/

A comment on the above. http://www.lot49.com/2005/11/patent_issued_for_war p_drive.shtml

The following link is when the patent was denied. Hopefully until someone can actually demonstrate a real working drive. http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2006/02/oh_ darn_warp_dr.html

Wow. Simply wow. You are so far from the mark.

The reason why this accelerated program is not being used as much, is because it requires the attorney to make affirmative statements that distinguish the Applicant's invention over the prior art. Under the "non-accelerated" system, an attorney does not HAVE to do a search, and may submit an application with no prior art of record. The onus is then on the Examiner to find relevant art that alone, or in combination, discloses each of the limitations of all of the claims of the Applicant's patent application.

With this accelerated program, the onus is on the Attorney (or Agent) to disclose to the USPTO exactly what the differences are between the Applicant's invention and the currently available prior art. This has severe impacts on litigation purposes, which you somewhat touched on, but its greatest impact will be on litigating equivalency (the Doctrine of Equivalents) and whether the attorney's indication of what is disclosed in the prior art constitutes prosecution history estoppel.

If anything, for examination purposes (not litigation purposes), this is a HUGE benefit for Examiners. It allows them to determine more quickly whether an application is actually disclosing a new invention. As an extreme example, under the current system, if I disclose a 4,000 page reference to the Examiner, I did not have to point out in the reference whether it discloses any or all of the limitations claimed by my application. If the Examiner determines that this 4,000 page reference does not disclose the claimed invention of my application and grants it, then I enjoy a presumption that my patent is valid in view of this reference even if it discloses in some way, shape, or form, my invention. It's then up to the litigators to make the invalidity argument. In contrast, with the accelerated program, if I submit this 4,000 page reference, I'm the one that has to show the Examiner exactly where in the reference the relevant portions to my application are.

As for this presumption that patent applications are presumptively valid, I have no idea where that comes from. PATENTS, not applications, are presumed valid. 35 U.S.C. 282.

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

the written description and any drawing(s) of the provisional application must adequately support the subject matter claimed in the later-filed non-provisional application in order for the later-filed non-provisional application to benefit from the provisional application filing date. Therefore, care should be taken to ensure that the disclosure filed as the provisional application adequately provides a written description of the full scope of the subject matter regarded as the invention and desired to be claimed in the later filed non-provisional application. There is no requirement that the written description and any drawings filed in a provisional application and a later-filed non-provisional application be identical, however, the later-filed non-provisional application is only entitled to the benefit of the common subject matter disclosed in the corresponding non-provisional application filed not later than 12 months after the provisional application filing date. Additionally the specification shall disclose the manner and process of making and using the invention, in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which the invention pertains to make and use the invention and set forth the best mode contemplated for carrying out the invention. See 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st paragraph.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6282574.PN.&OS=PN/62825 74&RS=PN/6282574

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6104711.PN.&OS=PN/61047 11&RS=PN/6104711

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6359880.PN.&OS=PN/63598 80&RS=PN/6359880

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6137869.PN.&OS=PN/61378 69&RS=PN/6137869

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6430275.PN.&OS=PN/64302 75&RS=PN/6430275

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6282574.PN.&OS=PN/62825 74&RS=PN/6282574

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6104711.PN.&OS=PN/61047 11&RS=PN/6104711

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6359880.PN.&OS=PN/63598 80&RS=PN/6359880

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6137869.PN.&OS=PN/61378 69&RS=PN/6137869

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6430275.PN.&OS=PN/64302 75&RS=PN/6430275

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6282574.PN.&OS=PN/62825 74&RS=PN/6282574

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6104711.PN.&OS=PN/61047 11&RS=PN/6104711

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6359880.PN.&OS=PN/63598 80&RS=PN/6359880

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6137869.PN.&OS=PN/61378 69&RS=PN/6137869

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6430275.PN.&OS=PN/64302 75&RS=PN/6430275

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6282574.PN.&OS=PN/62825 74&RS=PN/6282574

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6104711.PN.&OS=PN/61047 11&RS=PN/6104711

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6359880.PN.&OS=PN/63598 80&RS=PN/6359880

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6137869.PN.&OS=PN/61378 69&RS=PN/6137869

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6430275.PN.&OS=PN/64302 75&RS=PN/6430275

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6282574.PN.&OS=PN/62825 74&RS=PN/6282574

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6104711.PN.&OS=PN/61047 11&RS=PN/6104711

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6359880.PN.&OS=PN/63598 80&RS=PN/6359880

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6137869.PN.&OS=PN/61378 69&RS=PN/6137869

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fs rchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6430275.PN.&OS=PN/64302 75&RS=PN/6430275

Here's the original 7 patents... #6,430,275, #6,137,869, #6,104,711, #6,282,574, #6,128,304, #6,298,062, and #6,359,880.

It sounds like #6,430,275 (tiff, pdf, text/png) is the one that's the VOIP/POTS bit.

The inventor/applicant must file the patent application no later than exactly 1 year from the first disclosure of the invention (i.e. printed publication, patent, public use, or offered for sale). It's a statutory bar, meaning that you can't get around it.

According to 35 U.S.C. 102 (b):

A person should be entitled to a patent unless--
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States

Head on over to USPTO.gov, and show me the invention that solves the energy crisis.

How about this?

You just need to find a way to harness the cat's kinetic energy in a usable form.

A company should not consider $7000 over the span of 11.5 years as being "dramatically" expensive. Again, I suspect the cost to them of chasing down all of the required information to confirm that the patent is indeed dead-weight (including eliminating the possibility of risk from the competition) would be substatially more.

Besides, the marketing department would also have to take a blow, lowering the "registered patents" count on all of their brochures and boxes... :-)

As has already been pointed out, companies who don't want their patents can just fail to pay maintenance fees. These are normally due at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years from the date of issue. Also, companies will never do this if there's money to be made. It costs nothing to sit on a patent that might eventually turn into license revenue, but you give up that potential revenue by making a donation. The only conceivable reason a company might do this would be as a tax write-off, which saves them money. Of course, it probably isn't enough to justify the initial investment in obtaining the patent in the first place...

Anyhow, what is really missing in all of this discussion is a response from the patent submitter or the persons in charge of accepting the patent; we never get this on Slashdot nor the stories referred to. Since the patent appears to be so unbelievable, I am very curious as to what their official response would be. Perhaps some IT journalist can get one?

It's really unfair to suggest that the patent examiner responsible for allowing this patent should respond to criticisms given that the examiner's reasoning is already publicly available. Just go to the USPTO Patent Application Information Retrieval system and search for patent number 7028023. You can see what the patent examiner reviewed, what was argued, what the response was, etc.

After reading through these documents, then it is fair to argue that there was a better approach to analyzing the patent application. For example, the examiner relied heavily on the argument that this patent anticipated the claimed invention when rejecting the claims. This patent was not closely related to the claimed invention (it involves a linked list paired with an array pointing into various places in the list). A sorted double-linked list may very well have formed a better basis for an argument because it is at least more closely related. Also, the examiner did not make any obviousness claim. Perhaps it was too difficult to find some teaching or suggestion that would have made the claimed invention obvious in light of the prior art, but perhaps the examiner would have been able to find something had the examiner spent less time writing out an argument that the claimed invention was not patentable art (not because of obviousness or novelty, but because of subject matter).

Anyhow, what is really missing in all of this discussion is a response from the patent submitter or the persons in charge of accepting the patent; we never get this on Slashdot nor the stories referred to. Since the patent appears to be so unbelievable, I am very curious as to what their official response would be. Perhaps some IT journalist can get one?

It's really unfair to suggest that the patent examiner responsible for allowing this patent should respond to criticisms given that the examiner's reasoning is already publicly available. Just go to the USPTO Patent Application Information Retrieval system and search for patent number 7028023. You can see what the patent examiner reviewed, what was argued, what the response was, etc.

After reading through these documents, then it is fair to argue that there was a better approach to analyzing the patent application. For example, the examiner relied heavily on the argument that this patent anticipated the claimed invention when rejecting the claims. This patent was not closely related to the claimed invention (it involves a linked list paired with an array pointing into various places in the list). A sorted double-linked list may very well have formed a better basis for an argument because it is at least more closely related. Also, the examiner did not make any obviousness claim. Perhaps it was too difficult to find some teaching or suggestion that would have made the claimed invention obvious in light of the prior art, but perhaps the examiner would have been able to find something had the examiner spent less time writing out an argument that the claimed invention was not patentable art (not because of obviousness or novelty, but because of subject matter).

I was wondering what I was gonna do with my peanut-butter-powered horse launcher.

Well, I've got a fart-powered bottle rocket launcher laying around that I'm sure is worth something... Maybe we should join forces.

They have specialists already: Technology Center 2100.

Forgot the proper link format.

37 C.F.R. 1.20 (e)-(h)