Patent Reform Town Hall Meeting (Balt/Washington Area IEEE C

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:13:18 -0800 (PST), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com
wrote:









On Nov 7, 2:34=A0pm, fatalist <simfid...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 7, 2:08=A0pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Nov 6, 12:28=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com
wrote:

You guys missed a really great discussion today. =A0We had to expert
presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =A0They
discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =A0I only wish> > I
had taken better notes. =A0I did get the chance to speak directly wi> >th
Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =A0On> >e is
to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication whic> >h
would represent prior art. =A0This is attached at an application or > >even
a granted patent. =A0If the patent holder tries to enforce the paten> >t by
filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in goo> >d
faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
court. =A0There were other things that can be done and they don't
require you to be a lawyer or use one.

I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
the USPTO representatives. =A0Probably the most useful thing that wa> >s
said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
profit. =A0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.

BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =A0So> > it
is just like an election, file early and file often!

Rick

Thanks for the update. =A0 I wish I could have been there.

Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
processed? =A0 What's to stop someone from filing something only
marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =A0Soun> >ds
like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to
kill a good patent.

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

No, this was a response to my question after the presentation. =A0I
don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent. =A0I
believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need
to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted.

It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called
"provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the
date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full
application. =A0A significant aspect of this is that you have no
obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a
patent on that same invention.

I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely
broken. =A0I think the problem is that people don't know much about it
and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find. =A0My ca> >r
is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go. =A0But I guess
your mileage may vary. =A0:)

Rick- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"A significant aspect of this is that you have no
obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
art" registered with the USPTO. =A0No one can subsequently apply for a
patent on that same invention."

Provisional application is not published by USPTO and automatically
expires in one year

It cannot be used as "prior art" by USPTO or anyone else unless it is
followed by a formal non-provisional application that is published and
claims the benefit of a provisional

This issue was discussed by the four member panel and no one disagreed
with the speaker, Dr Hollaar.  Remember this included two
representatives from the USPTO.  Even if the provisional application
expires, it constitutes prior art because it was filed with the
USPTO.  I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was
presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing
fee of only $125.  Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his
presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it.

Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art?
I'm not certain whether it is published or not.  But the USPTO has the
application so they know it's prior art.

Rick

I suspect you mean "priority date" rather than "prior art".

Otherwise they may have been saying that a provisional can be used as
evidence of "prior art" against competing applications, assuming a
formal application is eventually filed to replace the provisional.

Or something like that...

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:08:09 -0800 (PST), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Nov 6, 12:28=A0pm, eric.jacob...@ieee.org (Eric Jacobsen) wrote:
On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com
wrote:

You guys missed a really great discussion today. =A0We had to expert
presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. =A0They
discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. =A0I only wish I
had taken better notes. =A0I did get the chance to speak directly with
Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. =A0One is
to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which
would represent prior art. =A0This is attached at an application or even
a granted patent. =A0If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent by
filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good
faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
court. =A0There were other things that can be done and they don't
require you to be a lawyer or use one.

I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
the USPTO representatives. =A0Probably the most useful thing that was
said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
profit. =A0Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.

BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. =A0So it
is just like an election, file early and file often!

Rick

Thanks for the update. =A0 I wish I could have been there.

Regarding the ability for the public to file prior art notice of
publication, was there any discussion about how that is checked or
processed? =A0 What's to stop someone from filing something only
marginally related as "prior art" to be attached to a patent? =A0Sounds
like a strategy that could be used by someone nefariously trying to
kill a good patent.

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

No, this was a response to my question after the presentation.  I
don't think any attachment will "automatically" kill a patent.  I
believe the point is that if you truly have prior art, you don't need
to spend a ton 'o money to fight a patent even if it is granted.
It was discussed in the meeting that there is an application called
"provisional" IIRC that is only $125 to file and in essence sets the
date of filing if you then follow up within the year with a full
application.  A significant aspect of this is that you have no
obligation to follow up but in any event the filing becomes "prior
art" registered with the USPTO.  No one can subsequently apply for a
patent on that same invention.

Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw.   They're a means to
establish the "priority date" for an invention,  in other words the
file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready.   There are
some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one
can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't
covered by material in the provisional application.

The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and
doesn't have a specific format.  e.g., it is not unusual to file a
draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the
provisional application for any patents that might come out of it.

Establishing the "priority date" by filing a provisional patent may be
more important in the US now that we're moving to a first to file
system.

I don't share the opinion of some that the patent system is completely
broken.  I think the problem is that people don't know much about it
and seem to have knee jerk reactions to problems they do find.  My car
is far from perfect, but it gets me where I want to go.  But I guess
your mileage may vary.  :)

Always.  ;)

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was
presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing
fee of only $125. Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his
presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it.

Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art?
I'm not certain whether it is published or not. But the USPTO has the
application so they know it's prior art.

Eric Jacobsen wrote:
Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw.   They're a means to
establish the "priority date" for an invention,  in other words the
file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready.   There are
some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one
can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't
covered by material in the provisional application.

That means the provisional application should be prepared like full
patent application.

The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and
doesn't have a specific format.  e.g., it is not unusual to file a
draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the
provisional application for any patents that might come out of it.

If it comes to a lawsuit regarding priority date, then it would be hard
to prove anything unless the provisional application is identical to the
subsequent patent application.

Establishing the "priority date" by filing a provisional patent may be
more important in the US now that we're moving to a first to file
system.

Provisional applications are pretty much pointless.

Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultanthttp://www.abvolt.com

On Nov 7, 3:41 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:

Eric Jacobsen wrote:

Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw. They're a means to
establish the "priority date" for an invention, in other words the
file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready. There are
some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one
can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't
covered by material in the provisional application.

That means the provisional application should be prepared like full
patent application.

I don't recall the details of the full presentation.

This was
discussed but I seem to recall that the provisional doesn't need to be
the same as the full application. In fact, I want to say the
provisional doesn't need to have claims at all.

The nice thing is that a provisional is cheap and easy to file, and
doesn't have a specific format. e.g., it is not unusual to file a
draft of a paper to be published describing a new technology as the
provisional application for any patents that might come out of it.

If it comes to a lawsuit regarding priority date, then it would be hard
to prove anything unless the provisional application is identical to the
subsequent patent application.

I'm pretty sure Dr. Hollaar said the full patent application can be
expanded beyond the provisional app, but the details are fuzzy.

rickman wrote:

On Nov 7, 3:41 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...@nowhere.com> wrote:

Eric Jacobsen wrote:

Provisional patent applications aren't new, fwiw. They're a means to
establish the "priority date" for an invention, in other words the
file date, even if a full patent application isn't ready. There are
some basic rules concerning limits on the content, e.g., IIRC one
can't add claims to the subsequent patent application that aren't
covered by material in the provisional application.

That means the provisional application should be prepared like full
patent application.

I don't recall the details of the full presentation.

Refer to the original law, not to somebody's comments.

This was
discussed but I seem to recall that the provisional doesn't need to be
the same as the full application. In fact, I want to say the
provisional doesn't need to have claims at all.

Yes, it isn't required for provisional applications to have claims or
anything. However, if it comes to actual lawsuit, the improperly
prepared provisional application could be very much useless.
If provisional application should be prepared like patent, then why
provisional applications at all?

In comp.arch.fpga rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

(snip)

I am pretty sure I don't have this wrong because it was
presented as a fail safe way of establishing prior art for the filing
fee of only $125.  Dr. Hollaar had this as a bullet in his
presentation and then followed up with a full discussion on it.
Why do you say a provisional application can't be used as prior art?
I'm not certain whether it is published or not.  But the USPTO has the
application so they know it's prior art.

This reminds me of something I was interested in some time ago,
though never got into researching it more.  That is, the ability
to search encrypted text.  If one could have a file if encrypted,
but not published, text, and the appropriate search algorithm, one
could determine, for example, the possible existance of prior art
without being able to actually read it.  One might be able to find
that some unpublished provisional contained wording that might
cause it to be prior art.

I believe that there are other uses for such ability, and some
might even be patentable.

-- glen

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:04:13 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky
nospam_at_nowhere.com> wrote:

Yes, it isn't required for provisional applications to have claims or
anything. However, if it comes to actual lawsuit, the improperly
prepared provisional application could be very much useless.
If provisional application should be prepared like patent, then why
provisional applications at all?


You misunderstand provisional filing pretty thoroughly.

Eric Jacobsen wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 17:04:13 -0600, Vladimir Vassilevsky
nospam_at_nowhere.com> wrote:

Yes, it isn't required for provisional applications to have claims or
anything. However, if it comes to actual lawsuit, the improperly
prepared provisional application could be very much useless.
If provisional application should be prepared like patent, then why
provisional applications at all?


You misunderstand provisional filing pretty thoroughly.


Would you please enlighten me in which particular way are you planning
on using a provisional application?

You guys missed a really great discussion today. We had to expert
presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office. They
discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here. I only wish I
had taken better notes. I did get the chance to speak directly with
Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent. One is
to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which
would represent prior art. This is attached at an application or even
a granted patent. If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent by
filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good
faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
court. There were other things that can be done and they don't
require you to be a lawyer or use one.

I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
the USPTO representatives. Probably the most useful thing that was
said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
profit. Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.

BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year. So it
is just like an election, file early and file often!

Rick


On Oct 24, 3:59=A0pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Co-sponsored by
IEEE NCA Consultants Network,
Baltimore Consultants Network,
Society on Social Implications of Technology,
Baltimore and NoVA/Wash. Computer Society,
and Region 2 PACE Committee

Congress has enacted sweeping patent reform that is adverse to small
inventors and entrepreneurs. How will this affect you? Let=92s explore
what the future holds with our panel of experts. Lunch and networking
reception are included. Student members may bring a guest at no
additional cost. Door prizes! Additional details at the link below.

When: Saturday, November 5 10am-2pm

Where: Loyola University Graduate Centers Room 260
8890 McGaw Road Columbia, MD 21045 USA

Cost: $10 IEEE members (advance), $20 general

Web Page:www.ieee-consultants.org

Registration:http://meetings.vtools.ieee.org/meeting_view/list_meeting/87=
71

Panelists: Dr. Lee Hollaar, Dr. Amelia Morani

We are still looking for a panelist who is a consultant able to speak
regarding the impact of this new law. =A0Anyone available in the area?

Rick and all,

Ran across this the other day and thought it might be useful.   I
haven't had a chance to go through much of the material (because
there's a lot!), but it looks to be along the same lines as what you
had pulled together.

Presentation materials are available in the links as well.

http://www.ieeeusa.org/calendar/seminars/AIA-seminar/default.asp

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 16:46:03 -0700 (PDT), rickman <gnu...@gmail.com
wrote:









You guys missed a really great discussion today.  We had to expert
presenters and two representatives from the Patent Office.  They
discussed a lot of issues that have been raised here.  I only wish I
had taken better notes.  I did get the chance to speak directly with
Dr Lee Hollaar who spoke of several ways to deep six a patent.  One is
to file (free) with the patent office a notice of a publication which
would represent prior art.  This is attached at an application or even
a granted patent.  If the patent holder tries to enforce the patent by
filing suit in court the lawyer would be guilty of filing not in good
faith or some such legal term and would be in deep sneakers with the
court.  There were other things that can be done and they don't
require you to be a lawyer or use one.

I was very impressed with the knowledge of the presenters as well as
the USPTO representatives.  Probably the most useful thing that was
said was that there are many views of the new law but it is the law.
Those who are most aware of it and use it are the ones who will most
profit.  Getting an attitude about it accomplishes nothing.

BTW, many of the provisions don't take effect for over a year.  So it
is just like an election, file early and file often!

Rick

On Oct 24, 3:59=A0pm, rickman <gnu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Co-sponsored by
IEEE NCA Consultants Network,
Baltimore Consultants Network,
Society on Social Implications of Technology,
Baltimore and NoVA/Wash. Computer Society,
and Region 2 PACE Committee

Congress has enacted sweeping patent reform that is adverse to small
inventors and entrepreneurs. How will this affect you? Let=92s explore
what the future holds with our panel of experts. Lunch and networking
reception are included. Student members may bring a guest at no
additional cost. Door prizes! Additional details at the link below.

When: Saturday, November 5 10am-2pm

Where: Loyola University Graduate Centers Room 260
8890 McGaw Road Columbia, MD 21045 USA

Cost: $10 IEEE members (advance), $20 general

Web Page:www.ieee-consultants.org

Registration:http://meetings.vtools.ieee.org/meeting_view/list_meeting/87> >71

Panelists: Dr. Lee Hollaar, Dr. Amelia Morani

We are still looking for a panelist who is a consultant able to speak
regarding the impact of this new law. =A0Anyone available in the area?

Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communicationswww.anchorhill.com

This reminds me of something I was interested in some time ago,
though never got into researching it more. That is, the ability
to search encrypted text. If one could have a file if encrypted,
but not published, text, and the appropriate search algorithm, one
could determine, for example, the possible existence of prior art
without being able to actually read it. One might be able to find
that some unpublished provisional contained wording that might
cause it to be prior art.

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

This reminds me of something I was interested in some time ago, though
never got into researching it more. That is, the ability to search
encrypted text. If one could have a file if encrypted, but not
published, text, and the appropriate search algorithm, one could
determine, for example, the possible existence of prior art without
being able to actually read it. One might be able to find that some
unpublished provisional contained wording that might cause it to be
prior art.

Your description reminds me of Zero-knowledge proofs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof

This reminds me of something I was interested in some time ago,
though never got into researching it more. That is, the ability
to search encrypted text. If one could have a file if encrypted,
but not published, text, and the appropriate search algorithm, one
could determine, for example, the possible existance of prior art
without being able to actually read it. One might be able to find
that some unpublished provisional contained wording that might
cause it to be prior art.

I believe that there are other uses for such ability, and some
might even be patentable.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:30:08 +0100, Noob wrote:

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

This reminds me of something I was interested in some time ago, though
never got into researching it more. That is, the ability to search
encrypted text. If one could have a file if encrypted, but not
published, text, and the appropriate search algorithm, one could
determine, for example, the possible existence of prior art without
being able to actually read it. One might be able to find that some
unpublished provisional contained wording that might cause it to be
prior art.

Your description reminds me of Zero-knowledge proofs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof

Until I followed that link, I thought that response was a lot more
insulting than it turned out to be.

--
Rob Gaddi, Highland Technology -- www.highlandtechnology.com
Email address domain is currently out of order. See above to fix.