Thursday, November 09, 2006

More on bogus claims and US application 20040161257

A scientist friend did not get the issue with claim 9 of US application 20040161257. The point is that the inventor didn't read claim 9 (or at least comment on claim 9) and the lawyers filed as it was. It's still curious that a search on "bogus claim" does not return US application 20040161257 as a hit, making one wonder how effective the USPTO search engine is.

Some other interesting applications:

20060149711, Infringer finder, which ironically relies on USPTO information. [good luck on "bogus claim."] First claim: A system for finding infringement of a patent, the system comprising: patent analysis logic operable to analyze patent information, associated patent support data relating to the patent information, and reference materials, to create a patent search profile; search logic operable to utilize the patent search profile to search sources of public information for possible patent infringers and to provide patent search results; and report generator logic operable to utilize the patent search results to provide a patent search results report.

20060190807, Patent optimizer. First claim: A method to analyze a patent document, comprising: receiving patent application text including background, description of drawings, description and claims; generating a claim chart showing claim dependencies; checking for antecedent, support in drawings, support in the description; generating a navigable claim hierarchy; and generating a diagnostic message for the patent document.

20030211747 Contains as [76] the following text: The undersigned attorney who presented a draft of this application for approval by the named Applicants understands fully the requirements of the patent statute for defining the metes and bounds of what Applicants claim to be their invention and unless the patent code is codified to positively require actual reduction to practice of what is claimed considers that the claims in the case are all formally correct, at least as to scope of the invention, following approval by Applicants.

20060110203 Contains the text: The National IP Rights Center, Scott Fields, Attorney, 4/12/04, completed the patent search using the ICO search system re: Hand Dominant Keyboard search. Prior to submission of this application in Mar. 2005, Nevin Shaffer, Patent Attorney in Gulf Breeze, Fla. reviewed a draft of the application and defined what I could claim based on the search and opinion by Scott Fields and the research from the book When Left is Right: Keyboarding for Success.

20060173699 Contains the text: Generally, legal matters are handled in the Office of General Counsel, but at Universities with technology transfer offices, contracted law firms will manage the University's intellectual property legal matters. Some universities choose to use the same firm to protect all of their intellectual property while others choose to use many different firms or patent attorneys. However, it does not matter if one law firm is employed or several, an agreement between the University and the firm must be drafted and executed. The process of selecting and employing Intellectual Property (IP) attorneys can be a major time commitment. During the drafting process, invariably, there will be several revisions of the Contract for Private Attorney Services. The amount of processing time lost while drafting such agreements and waiting on specific approvals can be and is often enormous. The system solves this problem by employing attorneys that have been pre-selected as preferred providers of intellectual property services. Participating firms, attorneys and agents will be required to subscribe to the service by signing an agreement to perform services at a predetermined rate for the universities. Generally, the subscription will be for patent and licensing related activities, but can include other services as well. Therefore, once an invention has been disclosed, the process is not delayed because of the University's or organization's internal legal review and approval process.
Generally, the lead inventor reviews the draft application, and then circulates a single copy of the draft to each co-inventor for editing. The problem here is the amount of time it takes each inventor to review and edit the draft before passing it on to the other co-inventors and then finally getting the draft back to the attorney. Working from a single copy of the patent application creates a plethora of problems for users. The greatest challenge is to keep the "marked up" copy circulating. The virtual system flows effortlessly without delay because the inventors have access to the draft document at all times. Except when the attorney or another inventor is reviewing the application. By now, the possible inefficiencies that could exist in the traditional technology transfer office should be blatantly obvious. The virtual system works well because the process remains dynamic even when individuals cannot meet at the same time or in the same place.

**UPDATE on searching "bogus claim"

A search of the USPTO patent application database for "bogus claim" produced NO HITS within the claims section:

Results of Search in db for:
ACLM/"bogus claim": 0 applications.

No application publications have matched your query

A search simply for the word bogus did produce several hits, including:
20040161257 Display control apparatus for image forming apparatus

Of course, there were other hits for "bogus" including:

RF breathalyzer as claimed in claim 1-7 and 16 wherein said breathalyzer sensor circuit cane differentiate human breath versus bogus air.

The tracking and security system of claim 6 wherein said chronological histories are for items of jewelry and/or works of art and may be correlated to certificates of authentication for such items of jewelry and/or works of art and may further include data and information such as tracking, shipping, receiving, selling, retrieving fake or bogus or lost or stolen.

A method for a player playing a casino game comprising: receiving a wager from the player in the casino game to play an underlying game of chance and a survey-based bonus game; playing the underlying game of chance in the casino game; paying the player a game of chance award when the player wins during play of the underlying game of chance, the game of chance award at least based on the wager; upon occurrence of a triggering event in the casino game, presenting the player, in a display, with a survey question and a plurality of accompanying survey responses from a database in the casino game, said plurality of accompanying survey responses including at least one correct response and at least one bogus response; receiving at least one input to the survey-based bonus game from the player responsive to said presented survey question, said at least one input including at least one of said plurality of accompanying survey responses; continuing said receiving until either: (a) all correct responses are received from the player, or (b) a bogus response is received from the player, whichever of (a) or (b) occurs first; and paying the player a bonus game award, said bonus game award paid separately from said game of chance award.


Post a Comment

<< Home