Analysis of apparatus claims
Rejections of apparatus claims are discussed in Ex parte Karpf. Schneider and Masham are cited.
See also Ex parte Bae.
See also Ex parte Bae.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 3:26 AM
Friday, December 13, 2013
About Me
- Name: Lawrence B. Ebert
I'm a patent lawyer located in central New Jersey. I have a J.D. from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. from Stanford University, where I studied graphite intercalation compounds at the Center for Materials Research. I worked at Exxon Corporate Research in areas ranging from engine deposits through coal and petroleum to fullerenes. An article that I wrote in The Trademark Reporter, 1994, 84, 379-407 on color trademarks was cited by Supreme Court in Qualitex v. Jacobson, 514 US 159 (1995) and the methodology was adopted in the Capri case in N.D. Ill. An article that I wrote on DNA profiling was cited by the Colorado Supreme Court (Shreck case) and a Florida appellate court (Brim case). I was interviewed by NHK-TV about the Jan-Hendrik Schon affair. I am developing ipABC, an entity that combines rigorous IP analytics with study of business models, to optimize utilization of intellectual property. I can be reached at C8AsF5 at yahoo.com.
Previous Posts
- Double patenting issue not reached in Ex parte Braun
- Obviousness affirmed in Ex parte Gulli
- Interference 105,955
- PTAB enters 112 P 2 rejection in Ex parte Nielsen
- Intel loses in Ex parte Shankara
- Arguing dependent claims separately
- IBM loses on obviousness in Ex parte Bodin
- Obviousness of a novolac photoresist affirmed in E...
- PTAB cites Gorman, whacks GoDaddy in Ex parte Chad...
- Sapphire does deal with Phillips 66 on "green crude"
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home