The five who voted against S.23
from the Maryland IP blog :
(the 5 Nay votes came from Boxer (D-CA), Crapo (R-ID), Risch (R-ID), Ensign (R-NV), and Cantwell (D-WA)).
Hmmm, were bloggers responsible for convincing the two Idaho senators?
One gets a sense of lemming-like behavior in the overwhelming 95-5 vote.
PatentDocs gets into "the first inventor to file" aspect of S.23:
New ยง 102(a)(2) expressly defines the "first-inventor-to-file" aspects of the change, by defining as prior art an earlier-filed patent or application that "names another inventor"; it is likely that this provision will include (or be interpreted to include) a definition of "another inventor" as another "inventive entity," i.e., any difference in named joint inventors.
(the 5 Nay votes came from Boxer (D-CA), Crapo (R-ID), Risch (R-ID), Ensign (R-NV), and Cantwell (D-WA)).
Hmmm, were bloggers responsible for convincing the two Idaho senators?
One gets a sense of lemming-like behavior in the overwhelming 95-5 vote.
PatentDocs gets into "the first inventor to file" aspect of S.23:
New ยง 102(a)(2) expressly defines the "first-inventor-to-file" aspects of the change, by defining as prior art an earlier-filed patent or application that "names another inventor"; it is likely that this provision will include (or be interpreted to include) a definition of "another inventor" as another "inventive entity," i.e., any difference in named joint inventors.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 8:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home