Slashdot Mirror

One last follow-up that I realized I forgot to discuss:

In submitting your pre-September 26, 2002 "prior art," you should also make sure that the "prior art" is at least "prior art" under 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b). For the unfamiliar, this is "102(b)" prior art. "Prior art" that falls under the rubric of 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b) generally cannot be challenged by the Applicant of the application for patent. For example, with "102(a)" prior art, the Applicant for patent can "swear behind" the prior art to show that the the Applicant's "date of invention" is before the "prior art's" earliest effective date.

As an example, I note that the filing date of application is September 26, 2002. In this example, if you were to submit "102(a)" prior art with an earliest effective date of September 27, 2001, the Applicant of the patent may be able to demonstrate that he/she was working on the invention as of September 20, 2001, hence, overcoming the application of this art (there are some legal concerns regarding what constitutes "working on," but I'll save that discussion for a later time). Now, suppose you submit "prior art" with an earliest effective date of September 25, 2001. This is "102(b) prior art" because it's earliest effective date is at least one year prior to the earliest effective filing date of the application (there are some issues when the application claims priority to an earlier filed application, but this is not the case). In this scenario, where the "prior art" applied is "102(b) prior art," the Applicant cannot swear behind the applied "prior art," even if the Applicant was working on the invention before the earliest effective date of the "102(b) prior art."

That being said, you should also consider whether your "102(b) prior art" discloses each and every limitation of all of the claims, not simply the independent claims (in this case claims 1, 3 and 4.) (For a discussion of "what is a limitation," see the various sub-sections of Section 608.01 of the MPEP. However, I will note that you can combine references under 35 U.S.C. 103, but again, that's a discussion for another topic.

So, to recap:

1) Make sure that your reference is before the earliest, effective filing date of the application for patent (i.e. that it is "prior art");
2) Make sure that your "prior art" is "102(b) prior art"; and,
3) Make sure that each and every limitation of each and every claim is disclosed in the application.

These views represent my own and are in no way associated with any government organization or private entity.

One last follow-up that I realized I forgot to discuss:

In submitting your pre-September 26, 2002 "prior art," you should also make sure that the "prior art" is at least "prior art" under 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b). For the unfamiliar, this is "102(b)" prior art. "Prior art" that falls under the rubric of 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b) generally cannot be challenged by the Applicant of the application for patent. For example, with "102(a)" prior art, the Applicant for patent can "swear behind" the prior art to show that the the Applicant's "date of invention" is before the "prior art's" earliest effective date.

As an example, I note that the filing date of application is September 26, 2002. In this example, if you were to submit "102(a)" prior art with an earliest effective date of September 27, 2001, the Applicant of the patent may be able to demonstrate that he/she was working on the invention as of September 20, 2001, hence, overcoming the application of this art (there are some legal concerns regarding what constitutes "working on," but I'll save that discussion for a later time). Now, suppose you submit "prior art" with an earliest effective date of September 25, 2001. This is "102(b) prior art" because it's earliest effective date is at least one year prior to the earliest effective filing date of the application (there are some issues when the application claims priority to an earlier filed application, but this is not the case). In this scenario, where the "prior art" applied is "102(b) prior art," the Applicant cannot swear behind the applied "prior art," even if the Applicant was working on the invention before the earliest effective date of the "102(b) prior art."

That being said, you should also consider whether your "102(b) prior art" discloses each and every limitation of all of the claims, not simply the independent claims (in this case claims 1, 3 and 4.) (For a discussion of "what is a limitation," see the various sub-sections of Section 608.01 of the MPEP. However, I will note that you can combine references under 35 U.S.C. 103, but again, that's a discussion for another topic.

So, to recap:

1) Make sure that your reference is before the earliest, effective filing date of the application for patent (i.e. that it is "prior art");
2) Make sure that your "prior art" is "102(b) prior art"; and,
3) Make sure that each and every limitation of each and every claim is disclosed in the application.

These views represent my own and are in no way associated with any government organization or private entity.

One last follow-up that I realized I forgot to discuss:

In submitting your pre-September 26, 2002 "prior art," you should also make sure that the "prior art" is at least "prior art" under 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b). For the unfamiliar, this is "102(b)" prior art. "Prior art" that falls under the rubric of 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b) generally cannot be challenged by the Applicant of the application for patent. For example, with "102(a)" prior art, the Applicant for patent can "swear behind" the prior art to show that the the Applicant's "date of invention" is before the "prior art's" earliest effective date.

As an example, I note that the filing date of application is September 26, 2002. In this example, if you were to submit "102(a)" prior art with an earliest effective date of September 27, 2001, the Applicant of the patent may be able to demonstrate that he/she was working on the invention as of September 20, 2001, hence, overcoming the application of this art (there are some legal concerns regarding what constitutes "working on," but I'll save that discussion for a later time). Now, suppose you submit "prior art" with an earliest effective date of September 25, 2001. This is "102(b) prior art" because it's earliest effective date is at least one year prior to the earliest effective filing date of the application (there are some issues when the application claims priority to an earlier filed application, but this is not the case). In this scenario, where the "prior art" applied is "102(b) prior art," the Applicant cannot swear behind the applied "prior art," even if the Applicant was working on the invention before the earliest effective date of the "102(b) prior art."

That being said, you should also consider whether your "102(b) prior art" discloses each and every limitation of all of the claims, not simply the independent claims (in this case claims 1, 3 and 4.) (For a discussion of "what is a limitation," see the various sub-sections of Section 608.01 of the MPEP. However, I will note that you can combine references under 35 U.S.C. 103, but again, that's a discussion for another topic.

So, to recap:

1) Make sure that your reference is before the earliest, effective filing date of the application for patent (i.e. that it is "prior art");
2) Make sure that your "prior art" is "102(b) prior art"; and,
3) Make sure that each and every limitation of each and every claim is disclosed in the application.

These views represent my own and are in no way associated with any government organization or private entity.

OK, so where do I go to submit prior art?

You would go straight to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. To request a reexamination, fill out this form and send it in along with the ex parte reexamination fee (currently $2,520, which isn't too much if you got people or businesses to chip in) and the appropriate statements.

Don't rush off and send some text books that discuss linked lists though. If you do a search for patent number 7028023 in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system and review the history of the application (or just read the claims of the issued patent), you'll see this patent does not cover basic linked lists, that the examiner was well-aware of linked lists, and that the examiner made a solid effort to find something that fully anticipated the claims of this invention. Sending in a basic linked list reference would be a waste of time and money.

That being said, I think these claims are anticipated somewhere. Being able to traverse a set of data in different ways based on different sorting criteria is not an uncommon requirement. And I think I saw *something* that suggested keeping a list with multiple pointers that allowed sorting by various methods.

However, thinking that there is evidence of anticipation is not the same thing as producing evidence of anticipation. Showing evidence of something broader that has already been considered is not enough to defeat a patent either. If you find something solid, submit it to slashdot along with a request for PayPal donations to cover the reexamination request filing fee. If they pick up the story and if you found something stronger than the irrelevant argument of you can't patent the linked list," then I'd donate.

OK, so where do I go to submit prior art?

You would go straight to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. To request a reexamination, fill out this form and send it in along with the ex parte reexamination fee (currently $2,520, which isn't too much if you got people or businesses to chip in) and the appropriate statements.

Don't rush off and send some text books that discuss linked lists though. If you do a search for patent number 7028023 in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system and review the history of the application (or just read the claims of the issued patent), you'll see this patent does not cover basic linked lists, that the examiner was well-aware of linked lists, and that the examiner made a solid effort to find something that fully anticipated the claims of this invention. Sending in a basic linked list reference would be a waste of time and money.

That being said, I think these claims are anticipated somewhere. Being able to traverse a set of data in different ways based on different sorting criteria is not an uncommon requirement. And I think I saw *something* that suggested keeping a list with multiple pointers that allowed sorting by various methods.

However, thinking that there is evidence of anticipation is not the same thing as producing evidence of anticipation. Showing evidence of something broader that has already been considered is not enough to defeat a patent either. If you find something solid, submit it to slashdot along with a request for PayPal donations to cover the reexamination request filing fee. If they pick up the story and if you found something stronger than the irrelevant argument of you can't patent the linked list," then I'd donate.

OK, so where do I go to submit prior art?

You would go straight to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. To request a reexamination, fill out this form and send it in along with the ex parte reexamination fee (currently $2,520, which isn't too much if you got people or businesses to chip in) and the appropriate statements.

Don't rush off and send some text books that discuss linked lists though. If you do a search for patent number 7028023 in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system and review the history of the application (or just read the claims of the issued patent), you'll see this patent does not cover basic linked lists, that the examiner was well-aware of linked lists, and that the examiner made a solid effort to find something that fully anticipated the claims of this invention. Sending in a basic linked list reference would be a waste of time and money.

That being said, I think these claims are anticipated somewhere. Being able to traverse a set of data in different ways based on different sorting criteria is not an uncommon requirement. And I think I saw *something* that suggested keeping a list with multiple pointers that allowed sorting by various methods.

However, thinking that there is evidence of anticipation is not the same thing as producing evidence of anticipation. Showing evidence of something broader that has already been considered is not enough to defeat a patent either. If you find something solid, submit it to slashdot along with a request for PayPal donations to cover the reexamination request filing fee. If they pick up the story and if you found something stronger than the irrelevant argument of you can't patent the linked list," then I'd donate.

OK, so where do I go to submit prior art?

You would go straight to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. To request a reexamination, fill out this form and send it in along with the ex parte reexamination fee (currently $2,520, which isn't too much if you got people or businesses to chip in) and the appropriate statements.

Don't rush off and send some text books that discuss linked lists though. If you do a search for patent number 7028023 in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system and review the history of the application (or just read the claims of the issued patent), you'll see this patent does not cover basic linked lists, that the examiner was well-aware of linked lists, and that the examiner made a solid effort to find something that fully anticipated the claims of this invention. Sending in a basic linked list reference would be a waste of time and money.

That being said, I think these claims are anticipated somewhere. Being able to traverse a set of data in different ways based on different sorting criteria is not an uncommon requirement. And I think I saw *something* that suggested keeping a list with multiple pointers that allowed sorting by various methods.

However, thinking that there is evidence of anticipation is not the same thing as producing evidence of anticipation. Showing evidence of something broader that has already been considered is not enough to defeat a patent either. If you find something solid, submit it to slashdot along with a request for PayPal donations to cover the reexamination request filing fee. If they pick up the story and if you found something stronger than the irrelevant argument of you can't patent the linked list," then I'd donate.

I'll make a couple of quick comments:

First, claim 1 may be invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming unpatentable subject matter. It has been my experience that a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection will issue against a "software patent" where the claim is not directed to something that produces a "useful, tangible, and concrete" result (see, State Street Bank v. Signature). More often, this type of rejection will issue against a claim (not an application), where the claim is directed to purely mathematical operations with no tie-in to hardware to perform that operation. In reading claim 1, there appears to be no claimed hardware that performs the algorithm recited, and hence, I would argue that the claim is invalid. For a more thorough discussion of patentable subject-matter, please see Section 2106.1 of the Manual of Patent Examination and Procedure. However, without looking at the image file wrapper, I don't know what rejections were applied to this application to determine whether claim 1 was amended to overcome this specific rejection.

Now, that being said, if you are concerned about invalidating this patent (which I'll note issued in April 2006, almost one year ago), you should first find "prior art" before the earliest filing date of the application. In this case, that date appears to be September 26, 2002. I say "appears to be" because the application does not claim priority to an earlier filed foreign application or U.S. provisional application. Next, after gathering your pre-September 26, 2002, you should follow the re-examination procedures for submission. See Section 2200 of the MPEP. Keep in mind, that when a third-party submits prior art for a re-examination proceeding, the prior art should present a new question of patentability. After submission of the "prior art," that third-party is generally not allowed to make comments during the re-examination proceeding. Hence, if the USPTO finds that the "prior art" does not present a new question of patentability, you may have inadvertently made the patent "stronger" and less likely to be invalidated during litigation. Accordingly, you should consider whether infringing this patent may be better procedure, and thus filing a motion that the patent is, in fact, invalid.

This views represent my own and are in no way affiliated with any government organization or private entity.

I'll make a couple of quick comments:

First, claim 1 may be invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming unpatentable subject matter. It has been my experience that a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection will issue against a "software patent" where the claim is not directed to something that produces a "useful, tangible, and concrete" result (see, State Street Bank v. Signature). More often, this type of rejection will issue against a claim (not an application), where the claim is directed to purely mathematical operations with no tie-in to hardware to perform that operation. In reading claim 1, there appears to be no claimed hardware that performs the algorithm recited, and hence, I would argue that the claim is invalid. For a more thorough discussion of patentable subject-matter, please see Section 2106.1 of the Manual of Patent Examination and Procedure. However, without looking at the image file wrapper, I don't know what rejections were applied to this application to determine whether claim 1 was amended to overcome this specific rejection.

Now, that being said, if you are concerned about invalidating this patent (which I'll note issued in April 2006, almost one year ago), you should first find "prior art" before the earliest filing date of the application. In this case, that date appears to be September 26, 2002. I say "appears to be" because the application does not claim priority to an earlier filed foreign application or U.S. provisional application. Next, after gathering your pre-September 26, 2002, you should follow the re-examination procedures for submission. See Section 2200 of the MPEP. Keep in mind, that when a third-party submits prior art for a re-examination proceeding, the prior art should present a new question of patentability. After submission of the "prior art," that third-party is generally not allowed to make comments during the re-examination proceeding. Hence, if the USPTO finds that the "prior art" does not present a new question of patentability, you may have inadvertently made the patent "stronger" and less likely to be invalidated during litigation. Accordingly, you should consider whether infringing this patent may be better procedure, and thus filing a motion that the patent is, in fact, invalid.

This views represent my own and are in no way affiliated with any government organization or private entity.

I'll make a couple of quick comments:

First, claim 1 may be invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming unpatentable subject matter. It has been my experience that a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection will issue against a "software patent" where the claim is not directed to something that produces a "useful, tangible, and concrete" result (see, State Street Bank v. Signature). More often, this type of rejection will issue against a claim (not an application), where the claim is directed to purely mathematical operations with no tie-in to hardware to perform that operation. In reading claim 1, there appears to be no claimed hardware that performs the algorithm recited, and hence, I would argue that the claim is invalid. For a more thorough discussion of patentable subject-matter, please see Section 2106.1 of the Manual of Patent Examination and Procedure. However, without looking at the image file wrapper, I don't know what rejections were applied to this application to determine whether claim 1 was amended to overcome this specific rejection.

Now, that being said, if you are concerned about invalidating this patent (which I'll note issued in April 2006, almost one year ago), you should first find "prior art" before the earliest filing date of the application. In this case, that date appears to be September 26, 2002. I say "appears to be" because the application does not claim priority to an earlier filed foreign application or U.S. provisional application. Next, after gathering your pre-September 26, 2002, you should follow the re-examination procedures for submission. See Section 2200 of the MPEP. Keep in mind, that when a third-party submits prior art for a re-examination proceeding, the prior art should present a new question of patentability. After submission of the "prior art," that third-party is generally not allowed to make comments during the re-examination proceeding. Hence, if the USPTO finds that the "prior art" does not present a new question of patentability, you may have inadvertently made the patent "stronger" and less likely to be invalidated during litigation. Accordingly, you should consider whether infringing this patent may be better procedure, and thus filing a motion that the patent is, in fact, invalid.

This views represent my own and are in no way affiliated with any government organization or private entity.

I'll make a couple of quick comments:

First, claim 1 may be invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming unpatentable subject matter. It has been my experience that a 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection will issue against a "software patent" where the claim is not directed to something that produces a "useful, tangible, and concrete" result (see, State Street Bank v. Signature). More often, this type of rejection will issue against a claim (not an application), where the claim is directed to purely mathematical operations with no tie-in to hardware to perform that operation. In reading claim 1, there appears to be no claimed hardware that performs the algorithm recited, and hence, I would argue that the claim is invalid. For a more thorough discussion of patentable subject-matter, please see Section 2106.1 of the Manual of Patent Examination and Procedure. However, without looking at the image file wrapper, I don't know what rejections were applied to this application to determine whether claim 1 was amended to overcome this specific rejection.

Now, that being said, if you are concerned about invalidating this patent (which I'll note issued in April 2006, almost one year ago), you should first find "prior art" before the earliest filing date of the application. In this case, that date appears to be September 26, 2002. I say "appears to be" because the application does not claim priority to an earlier filed foreign application or U.S. provisional application. Next, after gathering your pre-September 26, 2002, you should follow the re-examination procedures for submission. See Section 2200 of the MPEP. Keep in mind, that when a third-party submits prior art for a re-examination proceeding, the prior art should present a new question of patentability. After submission of the "prior art," that third-party is generally not allowed to make comments during the re-examination proceeding. Hence, if the USPTO finds that the "prior art" does not present a new question of patentability, you may have inadvertently made the patent "stronger" and less likely to be invalidated during litigation. Accordingly, you should consider whether infringing this patent may be better procedure, and thus filing a motion that the patent is, in fact, invalid.

This views represent my own and are in no way affiliated with any government organization or private entity.

It is a patent. The submitter is just dumb.

linky

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/iip/complaint s.htm Complaints should be mailed to the following address: Mail Stop 24 Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

See: http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/_s.7 _0_A/7_0_CH/.cmd/ad/.ar/sa.getBib/.ps/N/.c/6_0_69/ .ce/7_0_3AB/.p/5_0_341

No idea whether that link will work persistently..but the relevent details are:

Yes, this is an Application Number: 10/260,471.

However, unfortunately, the patent itself was granted on April 11, its patent number is 7,028,023.

We should start a pool to pay for reexamination fees on some of these patents.

There is no US patent #10260471. It looks like a patent application number.

Check out the result of a search at the USPTO on that number.

Currently we are in the low seven millions in US patent numbers.

For all of that, this is the stupidest patent application I have ever seen.

Abstract A system for generating hydrogen gas for use in a fuel cell includes a powder metal hydride source, a water source, a mixing device and a catalytic hydrogen generating chamber. A method of generating hydrogen for use in a fuel cell includes the steps of: providing a source of dry metal hydride fuel; providing a source of steam; providing a mixing/reaction chamber connected to the source of dry metal hydride fuel and to the source of steam; operating the mixing/reaction chamber to transport the dry metal hydride fuel from its source to a byproduct receptacle and feeding steam into the mixing/reaction chamber such that the steam reacts with the dry metal hydride fuel to produce hydrogen gas and a dry metal powder byproduct; removing the dry metal powder byproduct from the mixing/reaction chamber; and extracting the hydrogen gas from the mixing/reaction chamber.

Did you read [0050] of the patent? Here's their basic, "original" algorithm:

% ltpdirect.m
% local tangent plane position from range and azimuth
% good for distances less than 10 kilometers
%
function newpos=aproxdirect(pos,range,azimuth);
global DATUM
delta_east=sin(azimuth)*range;
delta_north=cos(azimuth)*range;
n=nphi(pos.lat);
m=mphi(pos.lat);
% convert here changes in meters of easting and northing
% to changes in longitude and latitude
newpos.lon=pos.lon+delta_east(n*cos(pos.lat));
newpos.lat=pos.lat+delta_north/m;
newpos.hea=0;

Yep, basic trigonometry using spherical coordinates. It would never be obvious to "practitioners of the craft".
Their other algorithm is adapted from this 30-year-old software.

Look at these patents:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6137869.PN.&OS=PN/6137869&RS= PN/6137869

So basically any VOIP system utilizing a database to authenticate callers and bill them for usage is infringement. Amazing.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6104711.PN.&OS=PN/6104711&RS= PN/6104711

VOIP DNS.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6282574.PN.&OS=PN/6282574&RS= PN/6282574

Same.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6298062.PN.&OS=PN/6298062&RS= PN/6298062

Voice mail / call waiting / call forwarding I assume. Now this is proprietary because it's been ported to VOIP systems?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6359880.PN.&OS=PN/6359880&RS= PN/6359880

This looks more applicable to wireless networks; I wonder how it applied in this case.

Look at these patents:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6137869.PN.&OS=PN/6137869&RS= PN/6137869

So basically any VOIP system utilizing a database to authenticate callers and bill them for usage is infringement. Amazing.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6104711.PN.&OS=PN/6104711&RS= PN/6104711

VOIP DNS.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6282574.PN.&OS=PN/6282574&RS= PN/6282574

Same.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6298062.PN.&OS=PN/6298062&RS= PN/6298062

Voice mail / call waiting / call forwarding I assume. Now this is proprietary because it's been ported to VOIP systems?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6359880.PN.&OS=PN/6359880&RS= PN/6359880

This looks more applicable to wireless networks; I wonder how it applied in this case.

Look at these patents:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6137869.PN.&OS=PN/6137869&RS= PN/6137869

So basically any VOIP system utilizing a database to authenticate callers and bill them for usage is infringement. Amazing.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6104711.PN.&OS=PN/6104711&RS= PN/6104711

VOIP DNS.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6282574.PN.&OS=PN/6282574&RS= PN/6282574

Same.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6298062.PN.&OS=PN/6298062&RS= PN/6298062

Voice mail / call waiting / call forwarding I assume. Now this is proprietary because it's been ported to VOIP systems?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6359880.PN.&OS=PN/6359880&RS= PN/6359880

This looks more applicable to wireless networks; I wonder how it applied in this case.

Look at these patents:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6137869.PN.&OS=PN/6137869&RS= PN/6137869

So basically any VOIP system utilizing a database to authenticate callers and bill them for usage is infringement. Amazing.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6104711.PN.&OS=PN/6104711&RS= PN/6104711

VOIP DNS.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6282574.PN.&OS=PN/6282574&RS= PN/6282574

Same.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6298062.PN.&OS=PN/6298062&RS= PN/6298062

Voice mail / call waiting / call forwarding I assume. Now this is proprietary because it's been ported to VOIP systems?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6359880.PN.&OS=PN/6359880&RS= PN/6359880

This looks more applicable to wireless networks; I wonder how it applied in this case.

Look at these patents:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6137869.PN.&OS=PN/6137869&RS= PN/6137869

So basically any VOIP system utilizing a database to authenticate callers and bill them for usage is infringement. Amazing.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6104711.PN.&OS=PN/6104711&RS= PN/6104711

VOIP DNS.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6282574.PN.&OS=PN/6282574&RS= PN/6282574

Same.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6298062.PN.&OS=PN/6298062&RS= PN/6298062

Voice mail / call waiting / call forwarding I assume. Now this is proprietary because it's been ported to VOIP systems?

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnet ahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r= 1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=6359880.PN.&OS=PN/6359880&RS= PN/6359880

This looks more applicable to wireless networks; I wonder how it applied in this case.

My dear fellow and close friend, let me provide some well-meant guidance.

Leaks are irrelevant. The wiki process would be (as far as I gathered, please correct me if I am wrong) open to anyone. By the very definition of a patent, the contents are disclosed in detail to the public and the Patent Office at the time of submission. Otherwise a patent application could be under review for a year while other people continued research on the subject, only to submit a patent application themselves on day 364, to be told immediately after that "aha, there was a patent application in for the same thing you were working on, and it was just granted". Neither is there really any need for secrecy - you can already contribute prior art by searching through the applied-but-not-yet-granted applications at the USPTO webpage, http://www.uspto.gov/patft/ . I therefore can't really see how in any way "leaks" would be relevant.

The bias I am talking about is intentionally using distortive language, connotative wording, distorted probability estimates, causal assumptions and all those other techniques that you are fully aware can spin any written text in any direction without changing the underlying "facts". "Obviousness" is just one example - if assistant patent reviewers are allowed to present written arguments, rationales, descriptions and explanations of *why* they believe something is an 'obvious extension' of existing art, it leaves the door wide open to bias.

It is gobsmacking that you somehow claim that 'unemployed people would not be biased' - are you serious? Have we grown up with different definitions of the word 'bias'? A bias of the above type (what I and I would say most reasonable people consider bias) can come from any of a massive number of sources of which pay is only one of them.

To connect the dots rather than use compartmentalised rhetoric here - you would probably argue that Fox News is biased, the Republican Party HQ Press is biased, that the Rand Institute is biased and that Stormfront is biased - and you would not argue that this is purely down to them being paid for it. As you are, again, I assume, capable of arguing that noncommercial bias exists, it should not be a stretch (unless you are seriously opposed to it, in which case I would look critically at your bias) that anyone else might also be biased through ideology rather than payment.

The answer to your question - how biased would an unemployed person just laid off by Ford be about Microsoft - it fully and completely depends. Does he hate Microsoft? Does he see Microsoft as an obstacle to world peace, prosperity and advancement that it is morally right to fight? Does he feel patents belong in the hands of small companies and those with a track record of turning them into products, and that Microsoft does not fit that bill? In short, does he feel an urge to deprive Microsoft of benefit? And is this urge something he may have opportunity to influence the patent reviewers with, through exercising judgement and writing things they read, essentially having a debate and discussion with them, rather than solely submitting prior art diagrams and measurements?

In that case he is completely unsuited as a patent reviewer, and for any other public office role that deals with Microsoft as well. The law should be equal for all, and where the law involves judgement, the judgement should be applied similarly to all similar subjects. Where there are distinctions between subject types (large software companies vs small software companies), the distinction should be completely public and transparent. I would argue that step 1 for any patent examiner is that he/she cannot choose which companies to review patents for - ideally that they don't even know which company filed it.

This written somewhat motivated by a general irritation of the ideological trend towards "payment makes bias, nonprofit makes unbiased" that seems to infest a lot these days.

I'm not sure where the Washington Post got their numbers, but according to the USPTO's own Annual Report, they received more than 615,300 patent related applications, which were dealt with by 4,883 examiners. A reasonable calculation then suggests that they would have to process the applications in an average of 15 hours each to keep up with demand.

In actuality, only 332,535 patents were disposed in FY2006, which means the backlog (already in excess of on million patent applications) only grew. In a system where your application is not likely to even be looked at for the first 22 months, and it takes more than 2.5 years for the average application to be processed, they are desperately in need of help examining.

The most depressing part of the report is to look at their goals. The objective is not to reduce the backlog, or improve first action or total pendency time, it is simply to have the backlog increase by less than in previous years. With this kind of thinking, there is no end in sight. What is really needed is a radical change of leadership, such that the resources being allocated and the goals being set can actually improve the situation.

The European Union requires 22 percent of electricity consumption to come from renewable energy sources -- such as solar, wind and wave -- by 2010.

The European Union requires 22 percent of electricity consumption to come from renewable energy sources -- such as solar, wind and wave -- by 2010.

It's brutally long (51 pages!) but provides a lot more details.

Basically each node has N (or N-1) receivers spaced slightly apart, along with a single transmitter. These receivers & transmitters are all in the same plane opposite a mirror. Every node can transmit simultaneously. The different angles at which the transmitters hit the mirror cause the beams to focus on a different receiver within each node's array.

At least that's one possible embodiment...

I find it amusing as well. First off, Jobs never suggested removing copyright protections, he just advocated getting rid of DRM. Big difference. Copyrighted work is still protected by copyright law, with or without DRM.

Secondly, any and all patents that Steve Jobs has are already available on the Internet for free . They're right out there for anyone who wants to read them, copy the ideas, and infringe on his patents. How on earth does the man sleep at night?

I wonder if he would feel the same way about his patents being on the Internet free of patent protection.

Well written. I like alternatives. :) Usually makes for good conversation.

However, your proposal has a lot of problems.

1) Who gets to write a summary of the patent? Doesn't the summary stand a good chance of suggesting the answer? "Can you envision a way to make use of the friction energy generated by automobile brakes?" "Uhhhh... sure... I guess you could, uh, charge an electric battery..." (patent)

2) In some cases, recognizing that there even is a problem is the brunt of the invention. "Let's say you have a telegraph. And let's say you have two people who want to communicate in both directions using that telegraph. How might you do that?" (patent)

3) Is this really a good way of determining novelty and non-obviousness? Maybe you just have twelve really stupid or unimaginative reviewers. ;) And what happens if the invention is in such a niche field that you can't find a full 12 experts to review it? What if you can't even find one?

4) Even if you can find twelve reviewers, and even if they do a good job - can you imagine the expense involved? And the delays?

A two or three year duration is the absolute maximum reasonable time for a software patent. Twenty years is laughable. Outside of obscure specialty software like banking systems, twenty years from now, no piece of software that is currently in use will still be in use in any identifiable way.

Yeah! Like that MP3 algorithm - no one uses that any more. (many patents)

Or RSA public-key cryptography - nobody uses that old thing. (patent)

But this assertion has an even bigger problem than being factually incorrect: it's impossible to apply it. There is no bright-line test for "software" vs. "hardware" vs. "biotech," etc. In fact, many inventions cross these boundaries - that's what's cool about technology. What patent term would you afford to a patent for a hardware circuit that implements a bioinformatics algorithm?

- David Stein

They really have got a broad patent.
The first one has a mistake:

Anti-slip control for a legged robot and realisitc simulation of a legged creature

does this make it invalid?

from here: http://animats.com/topics/patents.html

Actually, it didn't work for the iPod, because Apple didn't rely on first-mover advantage. It patented the iPod interface.

In reality, the iPod's success owes little to both the first-mover advantage and the patent system. The iPod has succeeded for three other reasons:

• Excellent design - it is still one of the best user-interface experiences on the market.
• Network effects - leveraging iTunes and tight integration with the Apple platform.
• Goodwill - the Apple brand.

- David Stein

I'll tell you what is "fundamentally wrong"; The US patent system is fundamentally wrong.

I am in total agreement that the patent system needs to be reformed, and issues such as obviousness, and the term length for subject matter like software and business method patents needs to be addressed. However, advocating for the abolishment of the patent system (as I suspect you are) would lead to a fundamentally worse situation then the current one.

First, the patent system, regardless of its flaws, does encourage disclosure of inventions and eventually makes them public domain. In 20 years, regardless of how the owner has used, not used, or abused the patent, the invention claimed in that patent will be public domain, and usable by all with no royalties or restrictions. And even during those 20 years, society can still use that knowledge for further experimentation, or improve on the original invention.

Second, and on a related note, abolishing the patent system will encourage the hoarding of knowledge. Currently the patent system gives the inventor two economic choices, (1) disclose the invention and get a 20 year monopoly on it, OR (2) keep the invention secret and try to make money off of it until its rediscovered or secrecy is lost (this is enforced by 35 USC 102(b) statutory bar, which prevents anyone who commercially uses an invention for more then a year from obtaining a patent on that invention). Abolishing the patent system leaves the inventor with these two economic choices, (1) disclose invention and have everybody copy it, OR (2) keep the invention secret and try to make money off of it until its rediscovered or secrecy is lost. Clearly in the no-patent world, choice (2) is the better choice for the inventor. For society though, I think it is probably the worst choice, since everyone is effectively deprived of the knowledge behind the invention for as long as the inventor can keep it hidden. That definitely does not encourage innovation.

As for your specific concerns:

Why? Because it is a system that guarantees that anyone but the 1st to the gate is hammered;

You are wrong here, the US Patent system is the only major system in the world that gives priority for a patent to the first to invent. The EU and Japan both give priority to the first to file. There has been debate over moving to a first to file system in the US, and IMO it has merit, because one of the most expensive parts of patent litigation is determining the date of invention. Also setting the invention date at the date of the filing would encourage faster disclosure of inventions since there would be an incentive to filing earlier, and not try to keep an invention secret.

because it is a system that guarantees that anyone without deep pockets cannot actually be protected (read, encouraged) by the system;

I agree here, patent litigation is inherently expensive and does favor those with deep pockets, but unless you want to do away with the patent system entirely, I see no way around this.

because it discourages innovation.

I would like to see some proof here. Patent applications over time have been continuously increasing. Source. The USPTO had a record number of applications last year. Source. One would figure that if innovation was negatively affected, we would not have seen over a two fold increase in applications over the last 20 years. I would also refer back to my earlier concerns over a no-patent world.

The number of devices/programs you can actually create without running smack into someone's fool patent is very near zero. So much for encouraging innovation.

I would argue that if someone is creating something and keeps running into blocking patents, the

This is some of the most contemptible saber-rattling -- and caving -- I've seen this year.

This is some of the most contemptible saber-rattling -- and caving -- I've seen this year.

The original US patent (5,440,676) that opened the door to patenting software...

That's bogus information. Software patents go back much further than that. The first software patent was filed in 1965, issued in 1968, and expired in 1981. It's Martin Goetz's U.S. "Sorting System", Patent #3,380,029, the sorting algorithm that broke the O(N log N) barrier. That's the technology behind SyncSort, and it powered mainframe sorting for a generation.

Patent #5845280, "Method and apparatus for transmitting a file in a network using a single transmit request from a user-mode process to a kernel-mode process". Compare this with the Linux (and BSD) SendFile() API.

Yep, that's a patent violation.

Penrose patented the pattern in the 1970's, but his patent should have expired now. I don't know if Pentaplex still has a business model.

Were you looking for the IsNot patent? It was covered on /. a couple of years ago. The patent specifically refers to Visual Basic .NET.

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/0700_706_03_a.htm#sect706.03a

That said, just because something seems abstract does not mean that the claims were written in an abstract way. As long as the claims do something tangible they are eligible.

The changes would cut down on the amount of crap applicants can put in their applications helping to ensure that the actual ideas in the inventions might actually get looked at instead of useless filler. Also it would dramatically reduce applicants ability to keep a case inching along for years until the examiner gives up. There are other good things inside, but the two big changes are severe limits on numbers of claims and length of prosecution.

The patent application (no patent yet) can be viewed here:
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=%2220030134859%22.PGN R.&OS=DN/20030134859&RS=DN/20030134859

From the app, it looks like this stuff can cure just abaout anything:

"diseases such as senile osteoporosis, postmenopausal osteoporosis, disuse osteoporosis, steroid-induced osteoporosis, fracture, osteogenesis imperfecta, rachitis, senile arthrosis, obesity, emaciation, type I and type II diabetes mellitus, arteriosclerosis, lipid metabolism disorder, pancreatitis, autoimmune diseases, glucose metabolism disorder, diabetic neuropathy, diabetic complications, hyperuricemia, leukemia, functional disorders in retinoid related receptors, liver dysfunction, anemia, cancers, inflammation, Basedow's disease, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, eating disorders, hypertension and renal diseases."

Also, I will say I found the wheel has not been patented. Once again, yet.

But I will give you a couple more:

Here's a patent on moistening stamps and envelopes. Yes, that includes licking them.

Or how about a larger version of cocktail umbrellas to shade your drink from the sun.

Also, I will say I found the wheel has not been patented. Once again, yet.

But I will give you a couple more:

Here's a patent on moistening stamps and envelopes. Yes, that includes licking them.

Or how about a larger version of cocktail umbrellas to shade your drink from the sun.

Replying to your other post...
Here's your Fork patent.

Patent for the Fork.

And I was mistaken on the wheel. Someone in Australia is trying to patent the wheel, but he hasn't yet.

Fortunately, such things are not patentable.

Apple Inc. is a Software Company(?)
Based on a detailed analysis of Apple's patent portfolio, we discovered at a high level that Apple is primarily a software company with roughly 65% of its issued patents being related to software elements like its: operating system; means for displaying information; networking; and image processing. If Apple is evil, then they aren't patenting it like Microsoft.

Evil Unseen - Apple's Growing Patent Application Base
Apple does have a slew of smart applications pending. One of the most interesting patent applications on our watch list, with a priority date reaching back to 2002, reads like this: "A method for synchronizing media contents between a portable media player and a media host... and synchronizing media content between the media player and the media host via the wireless connection..."

Apple may be able to make an iPhone call to Redmond if this one issues as written.

That'd be a design patent, see MPEP 1500: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/document s/1500.htm