Get Patents & Reap Benefits

September 30th, 2008


Today, we are living in the age of information technology & spreading our wings to every aspect of the society. We exchange our information (ideas, techniques, process, and product) to a target group but we never come to know this thing that someone is also targeting our information. So we are much prone to unintentionally leakage of our precious ideas as our information passes through different portals.

It is the human tendency to share their innovative thoughts with their near & dear ones but that proves fatal, in most of the cases, in respect of the that original creation or your property i.e. intellectual property (IP).Most of the people acts indiscreetly & ignorantly which results in jeopardizing the chance of saving their intellectual property i.e. novelty of ideas as they comes under public domain & lose their chance to be protected by the INELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS.

Intellectual property literally means some academic or scholar work. Intellectual property (IP) pertains to any scholar or any original creation of the human intellect; that work can be artistic, literary, technical or scientific creation.

Intellectual property rights mean those rights which are given by the State to the inventor or creator to protect one’s invention or creation for a certain period of time.

Need for intellectual property rights:-

For individual: - IP helps to protect investment of time, money, effort & such other resources of the inventor or creator.

For public:-IP provides a pool of information to the general public since all forms of IP are published in journals & magazines except in case of trade secrets.

For country:-IP provides a mechanism of handling infringement, piracy and unauthorized use & it encourages industrial development & technological advancement which leads to overall economic development of the country.

Bundle of rights:-

IPR are bundle of rights i.e. it includes the various independent rights. Following are the various independent rights for which IPR collectively provides protection:

1. Patent Right(Patent Act,1971 & Patent Rules,2000)

2. Industrial Design(Design Act,)

3. Trademarks (Trademarks Act)

4. Copyright(Copyrights Act)

5. Geographical Indication(Geographical Indication Of Goods Act)

6. Trade secrets(Common Law)

7. Circuit Layout Design(Semiconductor Layout Design Act)

India at International level:-

• The fact that India is a member state of World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), an international organization, responsible for the promotion of the protection of intellectual property throughout the world proves that India has proved its potential & has been acknowledged at international level.

We are here concerned with Patent Law; A patent is an exclusive right granted to inventor or creator of a useful or improved article or a new process of making an article for a specified period of time. After the expiry of the duration the invention becomes part of public domain i.e. everyone can use it. So Patent means monopoly rights of inventor in respect of an invention.

Geographical limits of the patent:-

Patent is granted for a specific invention in a particular country in which an application is made for the same cause. There is no international patent as such though it has acquired an international character. For e.g. a patent granted in India is valid only for India and not in the USA. However, a patent granted in the EPO is valid in all the contracting states recognized by European Patent Organization. The protection so granted in a country / region not only identifies the rights of the creator/ inventor or his assignees, but also enables the right holder to enforce his rights against infringers.

Moreover, several international agreements, treaties & conventions exist to monitor that the inventor/creator are not denied of his/her rights like European Economic Community Treaty(EEC),Patent co-operation Treaty(PCT),European Patent Conventions and Protocols(EPC),Community Patent Convention and Protocols(CPC) resulting in a common patent office for granting common patents applicable to the member countries.

What can be patented?

Only inventions can be patented.Sec.2 (1) (j) defines invention as an invention means a new product or a new process involving an inventive step & capable of industrial application. Invention includes within its scope any new & useful improvements of any manner of manufacture, article or substance whether patented or not but such improvement must qualify independently to satisfy the pre-requisites of the patent i.e. novelty, inventive step & capable of industrial application.

Who may apply for patent?

An application for a patent may be made by inventor, either alone or jointly with another, or his/their assignee, legal representative of deceased inventor or assignee are entitled to apply. For e.g. If a person invents a new product or process & unfortunately soon after that he dies then his legal heirs can or any person authorized by him before his death can apply for patent.

Term & date of patent:-

Term of every patent will be from 20 years from the date of filling of patent application & date of patent is the date on which the application for patent is filed, irrespective of the fact whether it is filed with provisional or complete application. To keep the patent in force renewal fee is to be paid every year. The first renewal fee is payable for the third year of the patent’s life & must be paid before the patent’s second anniversary. Term of patent can’t be extended beyond the specified term of patent.

Where a patent application should be filed?

The Indian Patent Office has its head office at Kolkata, which has three branch offices located at Mumbai, Chennai and Delhi. The Controller General heads the Patent Office and each branch has a Controller as its head. In case of an Indian applicant, the patent application must be filed at the patent office under whose jurisdiction the applicant’s has his place of work, or place of residence or place where he conduct business from.

For e.g. if an applicant provides a Chandigarh based address, the application must be filed at the Delhi Patent Office. In case of foreign applicant/s, the jurisdiction in which the patent application is filed would be based on the address for services of the applicant’s agent. For e.g. if the address for services for foreign applicant is based at Bangalore, the patent application must be filed at the Chennai Patent Office.

What are the rights given to the patentee?

The patentee (i.e. an applicant who has been granted a patent) has the exclusive right to prevent unauthorized third parties from making, using, offering for sale, selling or importing the patented product or process in India.

Patent information centre:-

Patent Information Centre (PIC) has been set up in 20 states & is further expanding in other states. Patent information centre provides information regarding the techniqulities & procedure laid down by the government to get a patent. One can get all the information regarding the filing of the patent application & further procedure up till the patent is not granted. The centre provides general precaution for the applicant before & after applying for a patent. The most common mistake which an applicant often does is to publish their invention in newspaper or scientific & technical journals, before applying for patents. Publication of an invention, even by the inventor himself, would (except under certain rare circumstances) constitute a bar for the subsequent patenting of it. Similarly, the use of the invention in public, or the commercial use of the invention in public or even in secrecy, prior to the date of the patent would be a fatal objection to the grant of the patent. However the secret working of the invention by way of reasonable trial or experiment, or the disclosure of the invention to other confidentially may not result into loss of novelty.

Another mistake, which is frequently made by the inventors, is to wait until their inventions are fully developed for commercial working, before applying for the patents. Delay in making application for a patent involves certain risks. so it is advisable to apply for the patent as soon as one’s invention get a physical appearance with 3-D drawings sheets depicting the whole model.

Incentives for obtaining patents:-

An innovative industry can gain competitive advantage in the market if it develops the necessary expertise and skills in developing and manufacturing new products, which are patented. For example, the advantage of a three year excise duty exemption or exemption from Drugs Price Control Order may translate into reserves / income which may offset the cost towards R&D. In order to promote R&D and innovation in Indian industries, Government of India provides a number of fiscal incentives and support measures to industries. Some of them are following:-

• Excise duty waiver on the patented article for a period of 3 years from the date of commencement of commercial production provided that such products be designed &developed by wholly owned Indian companies.

• Exemption from drug price control for a period of 5 years from the date of commencement of commercial production provided that they are produced from the basic stage by a process of manufacture developed by the unit through its own R&D efforts.

• Weighted tax deduction @ 150% on R&D expenditure is available to companies engaged in the business of biotechnology, or the business of manufacture or production of drugs, pharmaceuticals, electronic equipment, computers, telecommunication equipment, chemicals and manufacture of aircraft and helicopters. The expenditure on scientific research in relation to drugs and pharmaceuticals shall include expenditure incurred on clinical trials of drugs, obtaining approval from the regulatory authority under any Central, State or provincial Act and the filing of a patent application in India.

• Depreciation allowance at a higher rate is available in respect of plant and machinery installed for manufacturing goods based on indigenous technology developed in recognized in-house R&D units, Government R&D institutions, national laboratories and Scientific and Industrial Organizations (SIRO). The present rate of depreciation for plant and machinery is 40% as against 25% for other plants and machinery.

• Income tax exemption:-Under Section 35(1)(i) of the Income Tax Act 1961, the revenue expenditure on scientific research, by recognized R&D units, on activities related to the business of the company is allowed full deduction. Under Section 35(1)(iv) expenses of capital nature could be deducted totally from the income of the year in which the expenses have been incurred. Section 35(2AA) of the IT Act 1961 provides for a weighted tax deduction of 125% for expenses on sponsoring research programmes at National laboratories functioning under ICAR, CSIR, ICMR, DRDO, Department of Biotechnology, Department of Atomic Energy, Department of Electronics; IIT and universities.

For more information locate at:-http:/Ipindia.nic.in. Or e-mail at: pisnag@nag.mah.nic.in/pisnagpur@satyam.net.in

For further inquiries e-mail writer at: - kamal_417@yahoo.com, kamdahiya@gmail.com

Read more

Posted in Guide of Patent Protection | No Comments »

How to Assert the Patentable Weight of a Claim Preamble

September 29th, 2008

Generally, during the examination of an application, an Examiner attempts to rebut the novelty and non-obviousness of a claim by identifying, in the prior art, teachings or suggestions of each feature of that claim. Some claim features, however, may be ignored in this analysis. These features are said not to be entitled to any “patentable weight.”

One of the claim components that frequently gives rise to disputes about patentable weight is a claim’s preamble (e.g., a device for) which, along with a transitional phrase (e.g., comprising) and a body (e.g., a wheel), constitutes a claim.

Examiners generally decline to consider the novelty and non-obviousness of a claim’s preamble because preambles tend to only provide a context or a purpose for a claimed invention. Similarly, Examiners often dismiss as unpersuasive patentability arguments based on features recited in a preamble. This is, however, by no means a per se rule. Indeed, there are circumstances when features in a claim’s preamble must be given patentable weight. Consequently, when an Applicant relies on features in a preamble to traverse a claim rejection, it often becomes necessary to explain to the Examiner why those features are entitled to patentable weight.

The Test and the Law

There is no litmus test for determining whether a preamble should be given patentable weight. Basically, a claim preamble is said to be as important as the claim as a whole suggests.

A preamble is entitled to patentable weight when it is “necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality” to the claim. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The Federal Circuit has held that a preamble may give “life, meaning, and vitality” to a claim either: (1) explicitly (the claim expressly uses the preamble and the body of the claim to define the claimed invention); or (2) implicitly (proper construction of the claim requires reference to the preamble). So, when an Applicant uses the body of a claim and the preamble to define the claimed subject matter, the preamble should be accorded patentable weight. Conversely, when the body of the claim “fully and intrinsically” sets forth the claimed invention, the preamble may not be entitled to patentable weight. As the Pitney Bowes court instructed, when a preamble “offers no distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, but rather merely states . . . the purpose or intended use of the invention,” then the preamble cannot be read as a limitation on a claim.

The MPEP addresses the patentable weight of preambles in section 2111.02, which provides the following limited, specific guidance:

    1. Preambles that limit structure must be given patentable weight (MPEP 2111.02(I)); and

    2. Preambles reciting a purpose or an intended use may be given patentable weight (MPEP 2111.02(II). Specifically, features in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the cited art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim.

An Example of an Argument that a Claim Preamble Should Be Given Patentable Weight

Presume that claim 1 recites the following:

A method of transmitting a packet over a system including a client and a source device, the packet including a source address and a destination address, the method comprising:

assigning, by the source device, one of plural trees to broadcast the packet to the destination address; …

    associating with the packet an identifier indicative of one of the trees.

An appropriate response to an Office Action that dismisses a patentability argument based on features recited in the preamble (that the cited art does not teach or suggest a packet that includes a destination address), may be the following:

    Applicant notes, at page 4 of the Office Action, the Office’s contention that features recited in the preamble of claim 1, and in particular a packet “including … a destination address” need not be accorded any patentable weight. This contention is respectfully traversed as being incorrect as a matter of law.

    It is established law that when a preamble of a claim provides more than just context for the claimed invention, that preamble should be given patentable weight. Indeed, when, as is the case here, the body of the claim expressly refers to features in a preamble and uses those referenced features to define the claimed invention, it is legal error not to give that preamble patentable weight.

    Claim 1 recites “assigning … [one tree] to broadcast a packet to a destination address.” And, this packet is expressly defined by the claim preamble to include that destination address. Thus, the body of claim 1 expressly incorporates by reference the preamble feature of a packet that includes a destination address. In this way, the body of the claim depends on the preamble for completeness and gives life, meaning, and vitality to this claim. For this reason alone, the preamble of claim 1 should be afforded patentable weight. See MPEP 2112.02(II).

    The preamble of claim 1, however, should be afforded patentable weight for another reason. The MPEP instructs that preambles that limit structure must be given patentable weight. (See MPEP 2112.02(I)). The incorporation by reference of the preamble feature of a packet “including … a destination address” defines a packet that has a data structure not found in the applied art. Thus, the preamble of claim 1 must be given patentable weight.

Michael E. Kondoudis is the principal of The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis, PC, a Washington DC patent law firm, and a Washington patent attorney . Mike is the author of Patentably Defined , a leading patent prosecution blog.

Read more

Posted in Guide of Patent Protection | No Comments »

Senate Passes Controversial ‘Copyright Czar’ Bill

September 28th, 2008

On Friday, the U.S. Senate passed the controversial Pro-IP Bill, which would effectively create a “copyright czar” answering to the President.

Read more

Posted in Guide of Patent Protection | No Comments »

Quick Divorce Simplifies the Divorce Procedure

September 27th, 2008

Facing through a divorce processing is generally an extremely painful experience for a couple, and even for the person who has filed it. This emotional pain divorce is sustained most of the times due to a lengthy Divorce process. Quick divorces, as the name suggests, is a fast technique of getting an online divorce so that you can carry on with your life.

The Process Involved
There are two ways of divorce processing: contested and uncontested. A contested divorce pertaining a lot of impediments with the couple finding obstacles in reaching common terms. It might take years to resolve these kinds of divorce proceedings. In the second type, the conclusion to divorce and the circumstances surrounding it are not challenged by the spouse. Quick divorce by online divorce paralegal firms are possible only in the case of an uncontested divorce. When an individual files for divorce in the court of law; the court operates the solicitation to the spouse. When the divorce is uncontested, the judge takes a look at the grounds for divorce, financial arrangement between the partners and information surviving to the child custody. If the judge is satisfied with all the asset documents and arrangements, he permits the Decree. After few weeks and one day of delivering this, the partners can apply for ‘The Decree Absolute’, which is the final stage of dissolution of the marriage.

Although in some cases, where a quick divorce is allowed within seconds, it usually would take at least two months for a quick divorce to come through.

Facilitating a Quick Divorce
Here are a few things that required being taken care of while trying for a quick divorce. These will help you avoid common incorrections while applying for a divorce which would otherwise delay the online divorce process.
Initiative: Partners needs to be initiative and draw up a premarital settlement even before the marriage. These will help them catch an harmonious solution at the earliest in the case of a divorce.
Grounds for Divorce: While defining the reason for a divorce, do not go into details and sound very unpleasant towards your spouse. This might cover the procedure for contested divorce and might cause delays.
Conclusion: Reach a acceptable conclusion and make it final. Any change in the same after the judge has finalized them, would make the process time-consuming. The same pragmatic happens in the case of child custody also.
Avoiding Mistakes: Get professional help while filling out the online divorce forms correctly. After you have submitted the papers in the court, if mistakes are found, you would be needed to start all over again.

Benefits of having a Quick divorce:

It helps in offering a faster relief from the pain owing to divorce and helps the couple move on with their lives.
It saves a lot of time which otherwise could be a hindrance to your professional lives.
If not for quick divorce, the ambiguity of the proceedings would also cause stress upon everyone including the children.

Conclusion
There are a lot of people who oppose the idea of a online divorce due to one or more of the following reasons:
Accelerating up the process of divorce lessens the probability of settlement between the couple.

Read more

Posted in Guide of Patent Protection | No Comments »

Responding to Obviousness Rejections Using the “All Elements Test”

September 26th, 2008

Newly revised Section 2143.03 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure is incomplete because reference to the all elements test has been removed. Applicants needing to remind an Examiner of this test will need to cite decisions of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). Here is a way to do just that.

Recent Support To Use

A January 2008 BPAI decision entitled In re Wada and Murphy reversed a § 103 rejection because the Examiner did not explain where or how cited art taught or suggested all of the features of a claimed invention. Of particular interest is the following BPAI articulation of applicable law:

When determining whether a claim is obvious, an examiner must make “a searching comparison of the claimed invention - including all its limitations - with the teaching of the prior art.” In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). Thus, “obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim.” CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)). Moreover, as the Supreme Court recently stated, “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added)).


Authority such as this is difficult for an Examiner to dismiss.

Example Using Recent Support

The following is an example of a brief discussion of the current state of the “all elements test” that might be usable to advise an Examiner that the Office cannot simply ignore a claim feature in an obviousness determination. Presume that independent claim 1 has been rejected under § 103 as unpatentable over an asserted combination of two patents to Smith and Jones but that a specified feature has not been specifically addressed by the Office.

For any of these reasons, the aforementioned feature of independent claim 1 cannot reasonable be said to be present in the asserted combination.

The failure of an asserted combination to teach or suggest each and every feature of a claim remains fatal to an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, despite any recent revision to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP).

Section 2143.03 of the MPEP requires the “consideration” of every claim feature in an obviousness determination. To render claim 1 unpatentable, however, the Office must do more than merely “consider” each and every feature for this claim. Instead, the asserted combination of the patents to Smith and Jones must also teach or suggest each and every claim feature. See In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974) (emphasis added) (to establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the claim features must be taught or suggested by the prior art). Indeed, as the Board of Patent Appeal and Interferences has recently confirmed, a proper obviousness determination requires that an Examiner make “a searching comparison of the claimed invention - including all its limitations - with the teaching of the prior art.” See In re Wada and Murphy, Appeal 2007-3733, citing In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (emphasis in original). Further, the necessary presence of all claim features is axiomatic, since the Supreme Court has long held that obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries, including … ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) (emphasis added). Indeed, Applicant submits that this is why Section 904 of the MPEP instructs Examiners to conduct an art search that covers “the invention as described and claimed.” (emphasis added). Lastly, Applicant respectfully directs attention to MPEP § 2143, the instructions of which buttress the conclusion that obviousness requires at least a suggestion of all of the features of a claim, since the Supreme Court in KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc. stated that “there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

In sum, it remains well-settled law that obviousness requires at least a suggestion of all of the features in a claim. See In re Wada and Murphy, citing CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Intern. Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) and In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974)).

Read more

Posted in Guide of Patent Protection | No Comments »

Virent nabs sweet success

September 25th, 2008

A Madison-based biofuels start-up company has reached another milestone in its quest to produce gasoline from the sugars found in plants such as switchgrass and trees, a company founder said Tuesday.

Read more

Posted in Guide of Patent Protection | No Comments »

Art of Understanding the Patent for Non-patentees

September 24th, 2008

Art of Understanding the Patent for Non-patentees
By: Muthu Senthil Kumar M | 22/09/2008 | Patents
This article explains about the ways and techniques to understand and gets knowledge about the Patent or Patent application to the individual other then the Patent related professionals. This article describes the techniques to read/understand the Patent for those who are not familiar with patents and patent law. It describes the particulars of the patent, how to analyze and how to grasp the real invention from the patent.

Read more

Posted in Guide of Patent Protection | No Comments »

Patent Enforcement in Taiwan

September 23rd, 2008

Due to globalization in recent awareness in the area of IP, Taiwan has revised its IP laws recently numerous times to strengthen IP protection and making its Patent Act as per with the international standards. That’s the reason most people are not well aware of the various legal implications mostly in the area of patent prosecution and infringement. Patent infringement generally refers to exploitation of a patent without the consent of the patent holder. It includes:

Read more

Posted in Guide of Patent Protection | No Comments »

Gamecaster Awarded Granted United States Patent on Virtual Camera Control Technology

September 22nd, 2008

Gamecaster, Inc. announced today that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued Gamecaster U.S. Patent No.

Read more

Posted in Guide of Patent Protection | No Comments »

Challenge to a Provision Accrued Before it is Repealed is Maintainable if the Repealing Act is Silent

September 21st, 2008

Recently Supreme Court of India in a landmark judgement as to interpretation of Indian Patents Act and to the maintainability of challenge to a provision after it is repealed, held that challenge to Controller’s refusal to application for Exclusive Marketing Rights of GSK is maintainable even though the Act under which EMR application could be granted was repealed on January 1, 2005.

Read more

Posted in Guide of Patent Protection | No Comments »

« Previous Entries