I do apologize as I meant to say Porcupine8 for the name as he was asking for a non-legalese definition and not you. I do not doubt your ability in a legal field for one second as from your posts you are probably either an examiner or a patent attorney.
With that out of the way, I suppose I was focusing more on the result which I feel will be implemented later on and additionally I did over-emphasize the shift of burden to some degree. I suppose in implementation we will not see the complete change of burden to the applicant, however it will allow for a much broader range of rejection. I have been discussing in my TC with some other examiners the implications this may have for us and we do agree that while it will not provide an immense change, it will make things easier for us and harder for attorneys so there will be a shift but to a more limited extent.
Precisely. The ruling has not yet been implemented (nor will it for a while) but depending how the court opinion is translated later into the MPEP, it could spell some big changes. And you are correct that it won't mean a huge (if any) difference for the actual definition, but it will spell some big changes for the process. Because Obviousness will thus be easier to implement it will cover a broader range of claim language.
It seems that this question was answered, but only with examples in the MPEP which is more legal-speak, and because you "don't have enough background knowledge" I'll put it into plain english for you
Essentially when rejecting a patent application an examiner could combine two different peices of prior art in the form of patents, PGPubs, Non-patent literature, etc. to come up with a rejection. In order to properly combine these pieces of art properly the examiner had to show exactly why it would be obvious (and generally site prior art for such a motivation) instead of being able to say "yeah... duh!" which gave a lot of loopholes for attorneys saying "you didn't give proper motivation" when the examiner would put a motivation in his own words.
The change now puts the burden into the attorney's hands to show why a motivation would be improper and giving evidence that the improvement really never had been thought of before. This will make rejection easier for examiners.
Way to completely miss the point. Of course there are people lined up to buy it and AT&T will do very well with the Iphone in general. The point of not only my comment but the entire article is that their advertising campaign is directed to the wrong audience. Next time maybe it would help you if you think before you type.
For serious business and enterprise users the Iphone completely fails to compete with other offerings like the blackberry. If AT&T wants to do well they should do what apple does and try to appeal to the "hip and trendy" teen and young adult crowd like the old dancing B&W Ipod commercials did. The rest of the market that wants to follow the hip & trendy crowd will do so.
so the article concludes: "only four may only deserve to claim a limited degree of innovation."
man... if only BetaNews only had an editor.
I'm sure it would only cost only a minimal amount per article
if only.
seeing as how p2p occupies well over 80% of all internet activity due to its high bandwidth, Deleting cookies would need the amount of information in a typical webpage to increase at least threefold assuming absolutely everyone deletes cookies. given a more logical assumption that about 30% of people delete cookies that increase in internet activity is more like nine times the information. Keep in mind this doesn't take into account other internet activity (VOIP, video, etc) and that most likely, far fewer than 30% of people regularly delete cookies.
I would much rather keep track of my own data. I really don't know what security or backup scheme is set up in remote hosts and feel I may be vulnerable to attack and not even know about it. If I make a mistake with my own data security or backup, I can slap myself on the forehead (or curse loudly for a half hour depending on seriousness) and know it's my own fault whereas when someone else accidentally looses information, or worse yet, lets needed information slip into the wrong hands, I know I would be absolutely livid.
Indeed, he seems to set up a huge conspiracy theory for what could be a faulty digital to analog conversion. I'm sure that there is at least some wrongful packet prioritization, but I doubt you would ever see the effect to the extent that a fax wouldn't work.
Was there any specific quantum effect you had in mind or did your spell checker mysteriously substitute the phrase "quantum effects" for the word magic ?
Slashdot Mirror
I do apologize as I meant to say Porcupine8 for the name as he was asking for a non-legalese definition and not you. I do not doubt your ability in a legal field for one second as from your posts you are probably either an examiner or a patent attorney.
With that out of the way, I suppose I was focusing more on the result which I feel will be implemented later on and additionally I did over-emphasize the shift of burden to some degree. I suppose in implementation we will not see the complete change of burden to the applicant, however it will allow for a much broader range of rejection. I have been discussing in my TC with some other examiners the implications this may have for us and we do agree that while it will not provide an immense change, it will make things easier for us and harder for attorneys so there will be a shift but to a more limited extent.
Sure it's cool to charge your gadgets with a little plastic pad, but I contend it's more fun with a Tesla coil
Precisely. The ruling has not yet been implemented (nor will it for a while) but depending how the court opinion is translated later into the MPEP, it could spell some big changes. And you are correct that it won't mean a huge (if any) difference for the actual definition, but it will spell some big changes for the process. Because Obviousness will thus be easier to implement it will cover a broader range of claim language.
It seems that this question was answered, but only with examples in the MPEP which is more legal-speak, and because you "don't have enough background knowledge" I'll put it into plain english for you
Essentially when rejecting a patent application an examiner could combine two different peices of prior art in the form of patents, PGPubs, Non-patent literature, etc. to come up with a rejection. In order to properly combine these pieces of art properly the examiner had to show exactly why it would be obvious (and generally site prior art for such a motivation) instead of being able to say "yeah... duh!" which gave a lot of loopholes for attorneys saying "you didn't give proper motivation" when the examiner would put a motivation in his own words.
The change now puts the burden into the attorney's hands to show why a motivation would be improper and giving evidence that the improvement really never had been thought of before. This will make rejection easier for examiners.
They sure made a battery that can burn through the competition!
Didn't do too well in English either did you?
Way to completely miss the point. Of course there are people lined up to buy it and AT&T will do very well with the Iphone in general. The point of not only my comment but the entire article is that their advertising campaign is directed to the wrong audience. Next time maybe it would help you if you think before you type.
For serious business and enterprise users the Iphone completely fails to compete with other offerings like the blackberry. If AT&T wants to do well they should do what apple does and try to appeal to the "hip and trendy" teen and young adult crowd like the old dancing B&W Ipod commercials did. The rest of the market that wants to follow the hip & trendy crowd will do so.
so the article concludes: "only four may only deserve to claim a limited degree of innovation." man... if only BetaNews only had an editor. I'm sure it would only cost only a minimal amount per article if only.
no no no... I think that's for something else!
seeing as how p2p occupies well over 80% of all internet activity due to its high bandwidth, Deleting cookies would need the amount of information in a typical webpage to increase at least threefold assuming absolutely everyone deletes cookies. given a more logical assumption that about 30% of people delete cookies that increase in internet activity is more like nine times the information. Keep in mind this doesn't take into account other internet activity (VOIP, video, etc) and that most likely, far fewer than 30% of people regularly delete cookies.
People do stupid things.
Like infringing on patents for phone service.
so say goodbye to vonage.
The Dying phone company.
Unlimited lawsuits in the US and Canada.
24.99 Million/month (in lawsuits and fees)
Vonage
Visit vonage.com/screwed or 1-800-2GET-OUT
(Parody of This Commercial)
To attract women students to the CS field, 'Moving emphasis away from programming proficiency was a key to the success of programs
This sounds like Microsoft's policy:
Who needs proficiency anyways? Besides... those buffers will never overflow!
I would much rather keep track of my own data. I really don't know what security or backup scheme is set up in remote hosts and feel I may be vulnerable to attack and not even know about it. If I make a mistake with my own data security or backup, I can slap myself on the forehead (or curse loudly for a half hour depending on seriousness) and know it's my own fault whereas when someone else accidentally looses information, or worse yet, lets needed information slip into the wrong hands, I know I would be absolutely livid.
I for one happily say goodbye to our former open-source hating overlords!
Indeed, he seems to set up a huge conspiracy theory for what could be a faulty digital to analog conversion. I'm sure that there is at least some wrongful packet prioritization, but I doubt you would ever see the effect to the extent that a fax wouldn't work.
Maybe his spell checker uses quantum effects!
Nothing beat the breathtaking brutality of blowing up a worm with a rocket launcher!
No no no,
Some political leaders don't even have the mental capability to be a jerk