Innovation and invention, again
IPWatchDog had a post on 9 March 09 titled Change in Patent Office Philosophy Can Lead Recovery which included the text:
What we need is a novel approach to issuing patents. It has always seemed strange to me that we call the patent process a non-adversarial ex parte process. I suppose it is that, but it is hardly a cooperative process. What we need to do first is change the philosophical view of the Patent Office to get everyone on board with the idea that patents should be granted to applicants. Next, an examination process needs to evolve so that examiners are allowed and encouraged at a very early stage to work together with the applicant or the applicant’s representative to locate allowable matter and issue the allowable matter. Essentially, the examiner and the application or applicant’s attorney should work toward finding allowable matter and issuing the patent, much as is required of examiners when inventors represent themselves. By a cooperative examination process that seeks to issue patents we will put exclusive rights more quickly into the hands of innovators, who can then seek investment and build companies that will employ individuals. This will undoubtedly result in the preliminary issuance of narrow patent claims, which could then be expanded upon by continuation after continuation.
As one minor point, allowing the patent places a property right in the hand of the inventor, not the innovator. The inventor may be an innovator (eg, Chester Carlson) or he may not (ironically exemplified by later Xerox employees)
Separately, note that IPWatchDog did NOT include IPBiz in its blog polling, although Quinn did say
I think it is safe to say that the major blogs have been captured on these lists. The only exception may be Just a Patent Examiner, which I will still add to the voting despite not having a ranking.
***Also, seen on a Google search-->
Results 1 - 1 of about 0 for "robert klupacs" finkel. (0.25 seconds)
What we need is a novel approach to issuing patents. It has always seemed strange to me that we call the patent process a non-adversarial ex parte process. I suppose it is that, but it is hardly a cooperative process. What we need to do first is change the philosophical view of the Patent Office to get everyone on board with the idea that patents should be granted to applicants. Next, an examination process needs to evolve so that examiners are allowed and encouraged at a very early stage to work together with the applicant or the applicant’s representative to locate allowable matter and issue the allowable matter. Essentially, the examiner and the application or applicant’s attorney should work toward finding allowable matter and issuing the patent, much as is required of examiners when inventors represent themselves. By a cooperative examination process that seeks to issue patents we will put exclusive rights more quickly into the hands of innovators, who can then seek investment and build companies that will employ individuals. This will undoubtedly result in the preliminary issuance of narrow patent claims, which could then be expanded upon by continuation after continuation.
As one minor point, allowing the patent places a property right in the hand of the inventor, not the innovator. The inventor may be an innovator (eg, Chester Carlson) or he may not (ironically exemplified by later Xerox employees)
Separately, note that IPWatchDog did NOT include IPBiz in its blog polling, although Quinn did say
I think it is safe to say that the major blogs have been captured on these lists. The only exception may be Just a Patent Examiner, which I will still add to the voting despite not having a ranking.
***Also, seen on a Google search-->
Results 1 - 1 of about 0 for "robert klupacs" finkel. (0.25 seconds)
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home