In a recently decided matter of Rolic AG et al vs The Controller General of Patents and The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in respect of a national phase patent application in India, in the First Examination Report (FER) the Indian Patent Office had raised objections including (i) invention as claimed lacked in novelty for instance see International Preliminary Examination Report and documents cited therein and (ii) invention as claimed lacked in inventive merit for instance see International Preliminary Examination Report and documents cited therein.
The Applicants filed their response to the Examination Report within the prescribed timeline and submitted documents with amended claims explaining the invention and clarifying how the invention under the amended claims were
Posted by: Ophir Tal in USPTO, software patent, Software, politics, Patents Opposition, Patents, Patently-O, Patentability, Patent Prosecution, Patent Legislation, patent, Internet Patent, intellectual property, cyberlaw, Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, COMPUTER CONTROLLED SOFTWARE INTEGRATED INVENTIONS, claims, CAFC, blogging on
Jul 22, 2008
Prof. John F. Duffy analyses at Patently-O the probable position of the USPTO towards software patents as presented in a series of cases. Specifically, patentable subject matter must result in a physical transformation of an article that is tied to a particular machine. A general purpose computer may probably not be regarded as a particular machine, and data structures and numbers (e.g. webpage rankings) may probably neither be regarded as articles nor as being physically transformed. Well – some news for the software industry.
The analysis is recommended as being not only thorough but also quite easy to read.
Posted by: Meirav Shalem in US, Patentability on
Feb 26, 2008
Atlanta Attachment vs. Leggett & Platt (shortly referred to as AA vs. L&P)
US law states that "A person shall be entitled to a patent unless the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States." [102(b)]
This publication bar includes some aspects of public selling of the invention.
AA is a patentee of an invention relating to a sewing machine. AA won a summary judgment claming for infrigment of its sewing machine patent by L&P. L&P appealed claiming the sewing machine had been on sale for more than
.jpg)
.jpg)
