DOCSLIB.ORG

Prior Art Searches in Software Patents – Issues Faced

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prior Art Searches in Software Patents – Issues Faced Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 23, November 2018, pp 243-249 Prior Art searches in Software Patents – Issues Faced Shabib Ahmed Shaikh, Alok Khode and Nishad Deshpande,† CSIR Unit for Research and Development of Information Products, Tapovan, S.No. 113 & 114, NCL Estate, Pashan Road, Pune - 411 008, Maharashtra, India Received: 15 November 2017; accepted: 24 November 2018 Prior-art-search is a critical activity carried out by intellectual property professionals. It is usually performed based on known source of literature to ascertain novelty in a said invention. Prior-art-searches are also carried out for invalidating a patent, knowing state of the art, freedom to operate studies etc. In many technological domains such as chemistry, mechanical etc., prior art search is easy as compared to domain such as software. In software domain, prior-art can prove to be a complex and tedious process relying heavily on non-patent literature which acts as a pointer to the current technological trends rather than patent documents. This paper tries to highlight the issues faced by patent professionals while performing prior-art search in the field of software patents. Keywords: Patents, Software patents, World Intellectual Property Organisation, Prior art, Search Issues A patent is a form of intellectual property. It provides The identification of the relevant prior art, comprising exclusionary rights granted by national IP office to an of existing patents and scientific or non-patent inventor or their assignee for a limited period of time literature is important as it has bearing on the quality in exchange for public disclosure of an invention. of granting process or quality of the granted patents.5 Patent right prevents others from practicing (making, Patent applications are written to show how the using or selling) a claimed invention in a particular invention differs from prior art.6,8 Thus, patent territory during the patent tenure.1 If patent professionals search for prior arts published before the information is properly searched and analysed, it can filing date of a patent application.9,10 The online provide various insights useful for formulating databases from patent offices, along with online and technology strategies, can reveal technological trends, offline literature, published papers and articles form identify emerging technologies and products in a the main source of information for prior art.5 particular domain and also competitors’ intellectual In general, prior art provides basis for different types property strategies.2,3 The patent description reveals of patent searches as suggested below:11 how to make and use the invention, while the claims State of the Art Search - identify patents for the define the scope of legal protection and provide purpose of a general review (aka landscaping) boundaries of the patent owner’s exclusive rights. Novelty - identify patents and non-patents which Hence, Patent assertion for novelty depends on its may affect the patentability of an idea/ invention claims.4 Novelty is one of the fundamental (performed before writing a patent application) requirements for patentability, therefore finding relevant prior art is a crucial step during patent Patentability - given a patent application, ensure prosecution5 as well as for granting a patent.6 novelty The main objective of prior-art-search is to identify Infringement/Freedom to Operate - identify all relevant information to ascertain novelty in the enforceable patents which cover the proposed patent application or to invalidate the originality of a products or process. claim of a patent application.7 Prior art information Opposition - identify literature available to the can be documentary technical article published in public to show lack of novelty or inventive step of a journal or some earlier patent or products a granted patent offered for sale and even prototypes of products.6 Due Diligence - analyze strengths, weaknesses and scope of IP rights. ——————— Others †Corresponding author: Email: [email protected] 244 J INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, NOVEMBER 2018 Many techniques have been studied and software, the filings are much more than compared to recommended for efficiently searching the above other technologies (Fig. 2). Based on the worldwide mentioned prior-arts for patents. Ji and Guo12 analyse patent filing statistics from WIPO for various various patent laws in State Intellectual Property technologies, the graph below revels that most of the Office of China (SIPO) decision stating that the drug filings are in the area of computer technology which standards that are publicly available can qualify as a might be fueled by increased filings related to prior art reference. Gaff and Rubinger6 highlight that software related patents. understanding and identifying of prior art is a high The details of technology wise patent filing trend is stake challenge and is essential while writing a patent represented in the Table-1.14 application or if embroiled in a patent litigation. The Technology Life Cycle Faster than Publication Timeline authors further highlight that prior art can limit a patent In general, a patent application is not published applications claim as an invention while in prosecution, immediately after its filing and it may get published prior art can invalidate a patent. As these studies are for after 18 months. Furthermore, a quick search and generalized prior art search and not for prior art analysis based on data for patents applied and granted searches in the field of software patents. However, in US between years 2006 and 2016 for software there are some problems and concerns of prior art domain revealed that more than 82 per cent of these searches related to software patents. patents are published after 18 months from date of Prior Art Problems in Software Patents filing as shown in Fig.-3. It can be seen from the Searching for prior knowledge is an art itself,13 graph that, the number of patents published after requiring domain expertise along with knowledge of 2 to 3 years are much more than those published earlier. information sources to search from. Prior art searches However, software being a fast changing technology, are complex, exhaustive as well as repetitive tasks this 18 months lag often creates a void to search prior that require systems and procedures in place. Over art in the field of software as the technology may and above, prior art searches are required to be done become obsolete by the time application comes in in a limited time frame. In case of technological public domain. Hence searches rely less on patent domains such as software, prior art searches can be data for searching of prior art in the field of software. more complex, tedious and time consuming than Not Confined to Single Inventive Concept others due to reasons highlighted below. Prior art search in software patent is a complex Growth of Software Patents task as compared to other domains such as There is a enormous increase in patent filings in the chemistry and mechanical engineering. Software last couples of decades. This can be seen from the being inherently conceptual and involving multiple World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) data technologies thus making it difficult to represent in depicted in Figure 1.14 This led to an increase in the single inventive concept. On the other hand, patent data that is available for searching. As per European Patent Office, it is estimated that there are more than 100 million patents in the world as of now and the count is increasing each day. In case of Fig. 2 — Technology wise patent filing trend from WIPO 14 Fig. 1 — Total patent filing trend statistics source SHAIKH et al.: PRIOR ART SEARCHES IN SOFTWARE PATENTS – ISSUES FACED 245 Table 1 — Technology wise patent filings worldwide from year 2000 to 2016 Technology/Year 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Unknown 25238 28431 21327 46912 37114 29537 30924 24319 23193 Electrical Machinery, Apparatus, Energy 68207 77772 83029 95146 100556 110667 140240 167305 181412 Audio-Visual Technology 59994 67952 78260 92336 83723 72811 71961 71949 75428 Telecommunications 45926 54064 56993 66153 65168 54162 49982 50134 51910 Digital Communication 27889 41322 49975 58707 68336 75728 89411 113825 132580 Basic Communication Processes 14159 16630 16979 16977 16523 15471 15373 15892 14990 Computer Technology 60446 86593 96371 115723 127694 121224 142653 180373 192475 IT Methods For Management 6281 26916 19126 19496 21823 22829 28367 41327 43720 Semiconductors 47056 56344 63535 71796 74378 71547 79618 80782 76742 Optics 48379 59328 66186 73318 70406 60613 61900 61569 65499 Measurement 43729 53113 57345 62045 70739 75815 92968 112249 127527 Analysis of Biological Materials 7800 11707 12481 10971 11465 11422 12240 14366 15425 Control 19653 24517 25944 26408 27965 28099 32017 42417 55206 Medical Technology 42092 55381 66143 68633 77411 77944 87881 104451 117371 Organic Fine Chemistry 39712 48148 54960 54592 55866 54253 54924 58401 61438 Biotechnology 25466 37511 37504 34034 36535 39068 42928 50010 55194 Pharmaceuticals 40476 55557 65906 72769 75732 71276 74791 90391 105785 Macromolecular Chemistry, Polymers 24166 26998 28326 27096 28250 28531 33330 40575 46760 Food Chemistry 14061 16262 19475 19837 23160 27659 34429 56620 64146 Basic Materials Chemistry 31490 34215 36869 37116 41392 44451 53841 70523 80319 Materials, Metallurgy 24243 26817 28856 28545 34208 37377 47725 57945 65982 Surface Technology, Coating 19678 23579 27494 28579
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Is Software Still Patentable?
    Is Software Still Patentable? The last four years have posed significant hurdles to software patents; nevertheless they continue to be filed and allowed. By James J. DeCarlo and George Zalepa | August 20, 2018 | The Recorder Over the past four years, decisions by the Supreme Court and Federal Circuit, as interpreted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, have had a dramatic effect on software-related inventions. These decisions have focused primarily on what comprises patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and whether a patent’s specification adequately supports the claims. While uncertainty still exists, recent court decisions, coupled with sound prosecution strategies, can be used to bolster a practitioner’s arguments before the USPTO and courts. In Alice v. CLS Bank (2014), the Supreme Court applied the now familiar “two-part test” first laid out in Mayo v. Prometheus (2012). Under this test, a claim is first analyzed to determine if it is “directed to” an abstract idea. If so, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether it recites “significantly more” than the identified abstract idea or just “routine and conventional” elements. This test was (and is) routinely applied to software claims, and the pendulum of patentability for software inventions post-Alice swung firmly towards ineligibility. Nearly all decisions by the Federal Circuit in the immediate aftermath of Alice found claims ineligible. Similarly, the USPTO’s allowance rate in software-related art units plummeted, and many allowed but not yet issued applications were withdrawn by the USPTO. While many cases are representative of this period, the decision in Electric Power Group v.
    [Show full text]
  • Can I Challenge My Competitor's Patent?
    Check out Derek Fahey's new firm's website! CLICK HERE Can I Challenge My Competitor’s Patent? Yes, you can challenge a patent or patent publication. Before challenging a patent or patent publication, an analysis should be conducted by a registered patent attorney to determine if challenging a patent or patent publication is necessary, and to evaluate the legal grounds for challenging the patent or patent publication. As a registered patent attorney, I evaluate patents and patent applications to determine the risk of developing competing goods. Below are three important questions that must be answered by a registered patent attorney to evaluate the risk of competing against a patented good. 1. Does a particular good infringe on a patent? Typically, a registered patent attorney will conduct a “freedom to operate” opinion to determine if a business owner can commercialize a particular good without infringing on another’s patent. First, a patent attorney will determine if the patent is enforceable. Next, a patent attorney will perform an infringement analysis to determine if a particular good infringes on any of a patent’s claims. To perform an infringement analysis of a patent and a possibly infringing product, first, the patent’s scope must be analyzed. Second, the patent’s claim terms must be interrupted using the specification, prosecution history and extrinsic evidence to understand and construe the meaning of the claim terms. After the claim terms have been construed, then the elements of a particular good must be analyzed to determine if the particular good practices each and every claim element taught by a patent’s claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Strict Territoriality Toll the End of Software Patents?
    NOTES DOES STRICT TERRITORIALITY TOLL THE END OF SOFTWARE PATENTS? James Ernstmeyer* INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1267 I. UNITED STATES PROTECTION FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SOFTWARE ........................................................................ 1269 A. Defining Software ...................................................................... 1269 B. Copyright Protection for Software ............................................ 1270 C. Patent Protection for Software .................................................. 1272 D. The Backlash Against Intellectual Property Rights in Software ..................................................................................... 1274 E. In re Bilski Turns Back the Clock .............................................. 1278 II. UNITED STATES SOFTWARE PATENTS IN CROSS-BORDER TRADE .... 1280 A. Global Economic Stakes in United States Software Patents ..... 1280 B. Congressional Protection of Patents in Cross-Border Trade ......................................................................................... 1281 C. Extraterritoriality Concerns in Applying § 271(f) to Software Patents ........................................................................ 1283 III. DO PATENTS PROTECT SOFTWARE? – WOULD COPYRIGHTS DO BETTER? ............................................................................................ 1287 A. Effects of the Microsoft v. AT&T Loophole .............................. 1287 B. Combining
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Novelty and Inventive Step (Patent Act Article 29(1) and (2))
    Note: When any ambiguity of interpretation is found in this provisional translation, the Japanese text shall prevail. Part III Chapter 2 Section 1 Novelty Chapter 2 Novelty and Inventive Step (Patent Act Article 29(1) and (2)) Section 1 Novelty 1. Overview Patent Act Article 29(1) provides as the unpatentable cases (i) inventions that were publicly known, (ii) inventions that were publicly worked (iii) inventions that were described in a distributed publication or made available to the public through electric telecommunication lines in Japan or a foreign country prior to the filing of the patent application. The same paragraph provides that a patent shall not be granted for these publicly known (Note) inventions (inventions lacking novelty, hereinafter referred to as "prior art” in this chapter.). The patent system is provided to grant an exclusive right to the patentee in exchange for disclosure of the invention. Therefore, the invention which deserves the patent should be novel. This paragraph is provided to achieve such a purpose. This Section describes the determination of novelty for an invention of the patent applications to be examined (hereinafter referred to as "the present application" in this Section.) (Notes) The term "publicly known" generally falls under Article 29(1)(i), or under the 29(1)(i) to (iii), hereinafter the latter is applied. 2. Determination of Novelty Inventions subject to determination of novelty are claimed inventions. The examiner determines whether the claimed invention has novelty by comparing the claimed inventions and the prior art cited for determining novelty and an inventive step (the cited prior art) to identify the differences between them.
    [Show full text]
  • There Is No Such Thing As a Software Patent
    There is no such thing as a software patent 1 Kim Rubin BSEE/CS 45 years technology experience 4 startups 100+ inventions Patent Agent Author Taught computer security Book shelf for patents 2 {picture of file cabinets here} 3 There is no such thing as a software patent 4 7.5 5 7.4 6 7.3 7 There is no such thing as a software patent. There is no such thing as a rubber patent. There is no such thing as a steel patent. There is no such thing as an electricity patent. 8 There is only ... a patent. 9 pro se en banc said embodiment 10 Czapinski v. St. Francis Hosp., Inc., 2000 WI 80, ¶ 19, 236 Wis. 2d 316, 613 N.W.2d 120. v. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), ch. 675, 52 Stat. 1040, as amended, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq., iSee 21 U.S.C. § 355(a); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc., 496 U.S. 661, 665—666, 674 (1990). 11 Article I, Section 8 8. “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Inventors the exclusive Right to their Discoveries.” 12 Article I, Section 8 8. “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Inventors the exclusive Right to their Discoveries … except for software.” 13 Jefferson, Congress, SCOTUS and MPEP 3. “The Act embodied Jefferson’s philosophy that ‘ingenuity should receive a liberal encouragement.’ 5 Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 75-76 Washington ed. 1871).
    [Show full text]
  • Obviousness and the Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law: Striving for Objective Criteria
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 43 Issue 2 Winter 1994 Article 7 1994 Obviousness and the Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law: Striving for Objective Criteria Stephen G. Kalinchak Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Stephen G. Kalinchak, Obviousness and the Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Law: Striving for Objective Criteria, 43 Cath. U. L. Rev. 577 (1994). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol43/iss2/7 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OBVIOUSNESS AND THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS IN PATENT LAW: STRIVING FOR OBJECTIVE CRITERIA The United States Constitution grants Congress the power to promote technological innovation by granting to inventors the exclusive right to their discoveries in the form of patents.' Congress has delegated the duty of granting patents to the Commissioner of the Patent and Trademark Office.2 The exclusionary right a patent provides' is effected through a civil action alleging infringement of the patent and seeking injunctive re- lief, damages, or both.' Patent law can be divided into two general procedural periods-the first relating to the procedure of procuring a patent from the Patent and Trademark Office, and the second relating to the enforcement of the in- ventor's right to exclude others from exploiting the patented invention.5 In the first period, the invention is fully described in an application con- taining a disclosure,6 followed by claims designed to outline precisely 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Google Inc. in Response to the PTO's Request for Comments on the Partnership for Enhancement of Quality of Software-Related Patents, Docket No
    From: Suzanne Michel Sent: Monday, April 15, 2013 8:40 PM To: SoftwareRoundtable2013 Subject: Submission of Google Inc Please find attached the submission of Google Inc. in response to the PTO's request for comments on the partnership for enhancement of quality of software-related patents, Docket No. PTO-P-2012-0052. If possible, please send an acknowledgment of receipt of the submission. Thank you very much, Suzanne Michel -- Suzanne Michel Senior Patent Counsel, Google [email protected] 202 677- | | | 5398 Before the United States Patent and Trademark Office Alexandria, VA 22313 In re: ) ) Docket No. PTO-P-2012-0052 Request for Comments and Notice ) of Roundtable Events for ) Partnership for Enhancement of ) Quality of Software-Related ) Patents ) ) COMMENTS OF GOOGLE INC. Daryl L. Joseffer Suzanne Michel KING & SPALDING LLP GOOGLE INC. 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 1101 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 737-0500 (650) 253-0000 Adam M. Conrad KING & SPALDING LLP 100 N Tryon Street, Suite 3900 Charlotte, NC 28202 (704) 503-2600 April 15, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 PART II: THE PTO SHOULD APPLY SECTION 112(F) TO MORE PATENTS THAT CLAIM SOFTWARE-IMPLEMENTED INVENTIONS ...........................3 A. Section 112(f) Permits The Use Of Functional Claim Elements Only When The Specification Discloses Sufficient Structure To Limit The Claim To The Applicant’s Actual Invention. ...............................3 1. As A Matter Of Policy And Precedent, Patent Law Has Never Permitted Pure Functional Claiming. .......................................3 2. Congress Enacted Section 112(f) To Permit Functional Claiming Accompanied By Sufficient Disclosures.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Guide
    Intellectual Property Guide Attorney Advertising Material Table of Contents Types of Intellectual Property . 2 Patent Overview . 3 • Eligible Inventions . 4 • Types of Patents . 6 • Benefits of Patents . 7 • Implications for New Products . 7 How to Patent an Invention • Filing a Patent Application . 8 • Inventor’s Notebook and Communication Guidelines . 9 • Patent Do’s and Don’ts . 10 • Timelines . 11 • Background Research . 12 Trade Secret Overview . 13 Trademark Overview . 14 Copyright Overview . 16 Additional Resources . 17 Appendix • Flow Chart for 102(a)(1) and 102(b)(1) Analysis . 19 • Flow Chart for 102(a)(1) and 102(b)(1) Analysis . 20 In today’s world, a company’s intellectual property is often its most valuable asset . This is true not only for technology-based businesses, but also for manufacturers, life science companies, financial institutions, healthcare organizations and many other service providers both large and small . Intellectual property can provide a competitive advantage for its owner and can even create a separate revenue stream . Many innovations that consumers and businesses use and rely on every day became commercially viable due to solid intellectual property protection . Intellectual property rights offer innovators and developers a time-limited exclusivity to use and profit from the fruits of their inventive and creative efforts . This exclusivity encourages innovators to create, which ultimately inures to the benefit of society as a whole. This is your guide to intellectual property: the definitions, rationale and strategic considerations that will help advance the development of innovation into valuable assets for your organization . The information contained in this publication does not constitute legal advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on Development and Intellectual Property
    E CDIP/13/10 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: MARCH 27, 2014 Committee on Development and Intellectual Property Thirteenth Session Geneva, May 19 to 23, 2014 PATENT-RELATED FLEXIBILITIES IN THE MULTILATERAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND THEIR LEGISLATIVE IMPLEMENTATION AT THE NATIONAL AND REGIONAL LEVELS - PART III prepared by the Secretariat 1. In the context of the discussions on Development Agenda Recommendation 14, Member States, at the eleventh session of the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) held from May 13 to 17, 2013, in Geneva, requested the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to prepare a document that covers two new patent-related flexibilities. 2. The present document addresses the requested two additional patent-related flexibilities. 3. The CDIP is invited to take note of the contents of this document and its Annexes. CDIP/13/10 page 2 Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………...…….….. 3 II. THE SCOPE OF THE EXCLUSION FROM PATENTABILITY OF PLANTS..…….…….…4 A. Introduction……..……………………………………………………………………….….4 B. The international legal framework………………………………………………………. 6 C. National and Regional implementation………………………………………………… 7 a) Excluding plants from patent protection……………………………………........ 8 b) Excluding plant varieties from patent protection………………………………... 8 c) Excluding both plant and plant varieties from patent protection……...……….. 9 d) Allowing the patentability of plants and/or plant varieties……………………… 9 e) Excluding essentially biological processes for the production of plants…….. 10 III. FLEXIBILITIES IN RESPECT OF THE PATENTABILITY, OR EXCLUSION FROM PATENTABILITY, OF SOFTWARE-RELATED INVENTIONS………………………….…….…. 12 A. Introduction………………………………………………………………………….….…12 B. The International legal framework………………………………………………………13 C. National implementations……………………………………………………………….. 14 a) Explicit exclusion …………………………………………………………………. 14 b) Explicit inclusion…………………………………………………………………... 16 c) No specific provision……………………………………………………………… 16 D.
    [Show full text]
  • How Electric Power Group Case Is Affecting Software Patents by Michael Kiklis (August 19, 2019)
    This article was originally published by Law360 on August 19, 2019. How Electric Power Group Case Is Affecting Software Patents By Michael Kiklis (August 19, 2019) Many commentators predicted the end of software patents after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International decision. Software patent practitioners therefore applauded when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit stated in 2016’s Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp. decision that “claims directed to software, as opposed to hardware, are [not] inherently abstract.”[1] But soon thereafter, our optimism waned when the Federal Circuit in Electric Power Group LLC v. Alstom SA found that data gathering, analysis and display is an abstract idea, thus rendering many software inventions abstract.[2] In fact, the Federal Circuit is recently applying Electric Power Group more Michael Kiklis frequently and has even expanded its use to find that “entering, transmitting, locating, compressing, storing, and displaying data”[3] and “capturing and transmitting data from one device to another” are abstract ideas.[4] Many software inventions — such as artificial intelligence systems — gather data, analyze that data and perform some operation that usually includes displaying or transmitting the result. Electric Power Group and its progeny therefore pose a serious risk to software inventions, including even the most innovative ones. Knowing how to avoid Section 101 invalidity risk from these cases is therefore critical. This article provides strategies for doing so. The Problem With Being Abstract Alice holds that if a claim is directed to an abstract idea and it does not recite an inventive concept, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Patenting Software Is Wrong
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 58 Issue 2 Article 7 2007 Manuscript: You Can't Patent Software: Patenting Software is Wrong Peter D. Junger Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter D. Junger, Manuscript: You Can't Patent Software: Patenting Software is Wrong, 58 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 333 (2007) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol58/iss2/7 This Tribute is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. MANUSCRIPT* YOU CAN'T PATENT SOFTWARE: PATENTING SOFTWARE IS WRONG PeterD. Jungert INTRODUCTION Until the invention of programmable' digital computers around the time of World War II, no one had imagined-and probably no one could have imagined-that methods of solving mathematical . Editor'sNote: This article is the final known manuscript of Professor PeterJunger. We present this piece to you as a tribute to Professor Junger and for your own enjoyment. This piece was not, at the time of ProfessorJunger 's passing, submitted to any Law Review or legal journal.Accordingly, Case Western Reserve University Law Review is publishing this piece as it was last edited by Professor Junger, with the following exceptions: we have formatted the document for printing, and corrected obvious typographical errors. Footnotes have been updated to the best of our ability, but without Professor Junger's input, you may find some errors.
    [Show full text]
  • 2200 Citation of Prior Art and Reexamination of Patents
    Chapter 2200 Citation of Prior Art and Reexamination of Patents Citation of Prior Art and Reexamination of Patents 2247 Decision on Request for Reexamination, 2201 Introduction Request Denied 2202 Citation of Prior Art 2247.01 Examples of Decisions on Request for 2203 Persons Who May Cite Prior Art Reexamination 2204 Time for Filing Prior Art Citation 2248 Petition From Denial of Request 2205 Content of Prior Art Citation 2249 Patent Owner's Statement 2206 Handling of Prior Art Citation 2250 Amendment by Patent Owner 2207 Entry of Court Decision in Patent File 2250.01 Correction of Patent Drawings 2208 Service of Citation on Patent Owner 2251 Reply by Requester 2252 Consideration of Statement and Reply 2209 Reexamination 2253 Consideration by Examiner 2210 Request for Reexamination 2254 Conduct of Reexamination Proceedings 2211 Time for Requesting Examinations 2255 Who Reexamines 2212 Persons Who May File a Request 2256 Prior Art Patents and Printed Publications 2213 Representative of Requester Considered by Examiner in Reexamination 2214 Content of Request 2257 Listing of Prior Art 2215 Fee for Requesting Reexamination 2258 Scope of Reexamination 2216 Substantial New Question of Patentability 2259 Collateral Estoppel In Reexamination 2217 Statement in the Request Applying Prior Art Proceedings 2218 Copies of Prior Art 2260 Office Actions 2219 Copy of Printed Patent 2260.01 Dependent Claims 2220 Certificate of Service 2261 Special Status For Action 2221 Amendments Included in Request by 2262 Form and Content of Office Action Patent Owner
    [Show full text]