Patent » Patent Registration Patent- Patent Law, Patent Application, Patent Search, Patents, US Patent Office, US Patent Thu, 29 Sep 2016 15:43:40 +0000 en-US hourly 1 Reduction to Practice Explaied Sat, 04 Apr 2015 10:36:57 +0000
Under the American legal avenues for patent registration, administered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Interference proceedings are unique in patent registration procedures to the legal culture of the United States. The American legal system understands patent registration rights as the property of the inventor at the moment that the conception for some new device or process is "reduced" to practice, or materially implemented.
According to the Federal Circuit Court opinion on the case of Hybridtech vs. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., in 1986, conception can be defined as the "formation in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice." For this reason, the United States is considered to have a first-to-invent system for patent registration, in contrast to which most countries, such as in Europe, operate according to a first-to-file system.
The practical utility of the reduction to practice concept for inventors is to allow them to block patent registration of a device or process they came up with but failed to file before another individual had the chance to do so. The interference proceeding is the technical means though which this end is achieved.
For the purpose of an interference proceeding, there are several different forms in which reduction to practice may be understood to have occurred. The most conventional, in that the American system is still geared toward patent registration through official documentation, is referred to as constructive reduction to practice. According to the Federal Circuit opinion on the 1995 case of Brunswick Corp. vs. U.S., this happens with "the filing of a patent application on the claimed invention."
For inventors who made use of a process or device before submitting it to patent registration, a case of "actual reduction to practice" will be applied instead by the interference proceeding. In deciding on interference proceedings, United States courts will also consider "simultaneous conception and reduction to practice" as a principle, particularly in reference to discoveries made in areas with volatile elements such as biology.
In cases coming under this heading, inventors are unable to conceive of the invention until they have practically implemented it.
Some of the means by which an instance of "actual reduction to practice" can be applied to a patent registration case include several different forms of evidence that may be referred to by the court. The most common kind of evidence cited in an interference proceeding is the "inventor's notebook." Another is a working model of the invention.

]]> 0
Statutory Invention Registration Sat, 04 Apr 2015 10:36:57 +0000
The process of patent registration in the United States, which is administered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), is provided for in the greater framework of American law by Title 35 of the United States Code, the collection of American federal statutes. Section 157 deals with the topic of statutory invention registration. 
This process represents an alternative to patent registration allowed for and facilitated by the USPTO. In a statutory invention registration, the USPTO publishes an invention which had previously been the subject of a patent application for the benefit of the public. The publication is made with the permission and at the request of the would-be patent holder. The existence of the statutory invention registration is meant to provide some measure of authorial satisfaction to inventors in patent cases which go badly and to secure for the benefit of the public the use of an invention which might otherwise have fallen victim to the patent registration process.
Statutory invention registrations came into existence due to the recognition that inventors could not always secure patent registration for their technology or for ethical reasons might choose not to pursue a patent in the first place. Statutory invention registration is a means of placing the process or device which has been discovered in the public domain, to use a copyright term, and disavowing any rights to benefits from its usage proceeding from the privileges of authorship. 
Such an option might be chosen by a potential patent holder who felt that his or her discovery should be freely enjoyed with charge. Alternately, it might be chosen as a modified assertion of patent rights, which are generally couched in the negative language of having the power to stop other people from using the patent without permission. While choosing statutory invention registration over patent registration does cut off the chance of enjoying the material benefits due to an author, it does allow for a kind of authorial right in barring anyone else from claiming the patent as his or her own.
The USPTO provides four requirements to be fulfilled before the statutory invention registration option can be chosen in lieu of patent registration. The first requirement is based on Section 112 of Article 35, which deals with the subject of "Specification." According to this section, the inventor seeking the protection of a patent must provide clear and understandable language on the operation of the process or device, allowing the USPTO a fair chance at comparing it to other processes and determining that it is functional.
If statutory invention registration is selected in preference of patent registration, the specification is intended to give another individual possessing "ordinary skill in the art" the ability to freely use it, as is the purpose of the invention's publication. The second requirement is that the inventor accede to the USPTO's "printing requirements." The third is that the inventor disavow rights to the invention being published within a set period. The fourth is the inventor's payment of required fees.

]]> 0
What if an Invention has Multiple Inventors Sat, 04 Apr 2015 10:36:41 +0000

As a form of intellectual property rights, invention patents may raise some particularly thorny legal questions and ambiguities, due to the nature of the creations they cover being functional and practical rather than aesthetic and creative, as is often the case with copyright, or strictly commercial, as with trademarks. Two novels which shared very similar vocabularies and themes would not for that reason alone constitute an intellectual property right violation, whereas the specific methods by which patented inventions must be closely examined. 

The depth of knowledge involved in making valid considerations on whether to patent inventions requires expertise from the presiding officials. The level of expertise required of the inventor often means that invention patents are issued for the work of more than one person. In Title 35 of the United States Code, the question of how to patent inventions with multiple inventors is addressed by Section 116.

The basic provision made by Section 116 is that inventors must patent inventions "jointly," first making the invention patent together and later each making the required oath. Specific issues of "fairness," as may arise as grievances between co-creators, are not addressed by Section 116, which makes clear that joint invention patents do not refer to and do not require equal amounts of contribution or actual, side-by-side collaboration. The different sections of a patent claim also do not have to involve every inventor. 

The complexity involved in recognizing a device or process aimed at some practical purpose as a unique intellectual and technical creation may mean that the joint inventors responsible for its creation came from widely divergent fields of expertise and contributed to the invention in vastly different ways. Both tasks related to invention may be considered valid for joint authorship.

Section 116 provides strong measures to encourage that multiple authors patent inventions together. It allows for the possibility that a joint inventor may opt not to receive the patent rights which would normally be his or her due. If joint inventors cannot be located when the time comes for filing to patent inventions and have not made provisions for his or her wishes, the co-authors of the invention patents must be able to demonstrate to the United States Patent and Trademark Office 

]]> 0
Conditions for Patentability Sat, 04 Apr 2015 10:36:40 +0000
United States patent law is administered under Article 35 of the United States Code, which is also referred to as the Patent Act. In this larger body of decisions, Sections 100-105 set out the requirements which intellectual discoveries and developments satisfy in order to be considered to fall within the bounds of patentability. According to the language of Section 101, patentability will be considered to exist for the purposes of American patent law in "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 
The general stipulations for the patentability of a purported invention are defined by Article 35 as utility, non-obviousness, and novelty. Section 100 of Article 35 deals with "Definitions," providing a basic understanding of the language used elsewhere to define patent law. Section 101 refers to "Inventions patentable," Section 102 to "Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent;" and Section 103 to "Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter." Less immediately or probably relevant to the needs of applicants under United States patent law are Sections 104, "Inventions made abroad," and Section 105, "Inventions in outer space."
The requirement for utility, found in Section 101's reference to a "useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter," can be understood to comprise two related conditions for patentability. The first is that the subject of a patent have an intended purpose and effect novelty United States Patent and Trademark Office. 

]]> 0
Conditions for Patentability Non-Obvious Sat, 04 Apr 2015 10:36:40 +0000
Article 35 of the United States Code contains regulations and provisions for governing the process through which the "patentability" of proposed inventions are determined by the relevant government body, in most cases the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Within that area of the Code, Sections 100 to 105 deal specifically with the requirements which a process or device must manifest in order to be considered to fall within patentability. For instance, Section 102 requires "novelty," or the newness of the technology being submitted to the Patent Office's consideration, specifically in terms of its dissemination in the public eye and availability for the public's use. 
Section 101, containing the definition for the main kind of patent considered for the purposes of American law and commerce, contains an important standard in that language, that the patent refer to something which is "useful." After those basic and fairly intuitive considerations have been made, the patent applicant has the more nuanced and potentially difficult task of proving patentability by showing that the invention is "non-obvious."
Essentially, this term refers to the requirement that a patent cannot have been too easy to concoct. If not on the books, a non-obvious provision might not be able to stand in the way of applicants successfully patenting very simple and intuitive forms of mechanical functioning. Beyond that simplified sense of the non-obvious requirement, a degree of ambiguity can be raised in regard to the relation of a procedure or device being sought for patentability in relation to previous techniques relying on similar methods or tools.
In the process of making judgments on the patentability of devices or processes under consideration, the United States Patent and Trademark Office compares the article to any  predecessors that can be found in its method of functioning or aimed-at goal. These predecessors, called the "prior arts," must be sufficiently different from the new technology in order for it be considered non-obvious. Another consideration to be made, one with greater latitude for ambiguity and potential conflict, is whether the new technology could have been devised by an individual "of ordinary skill in the art." 
Because of the subjective foundation of the language describing a non-obvious patented invention, examinations by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to figure out whether an invention can be considered to manifest this quality must be particularly thorough. If every attribute of the process or device can be found in a prior art, then it will be found lacking in sufficient patentability. Likewise, if the Patent Office can determine that the new technology is essentially a combined version of two prior arts, it will be rejected. That being said, findings that a patent is non-obvious proceeding from this reasoning may often be challenged because of their  more tenuous nature.

]]> 0
Conditions for Patentability Novelty Sat, 04 Apr 2015 10:36:40 +0000
The question of which new ideas for devices and functions can be considered to fall within the bounds of patentability for the purposes of United States law is provided for the U.S. Patent Act, which can be found in Article 35 of the body of federal law known as the United States Code. 
In this article, the Sections numbered from 100 to 105 supply the conditions under which a concept may be proved to be the new creation of its inventor and accordingly receive intellectual property protection rights. Among these conditions for patentability, an important part is played by "novelty," as it is termed by the language used. 
"Novelty" in this sense refers not to the interest aroused by something original but simply to the newness of the invention. The novelty requirement can be found in Section 102 of Article 35.
The definition of novelty contained by the United States Code for the purpose of proving patentability allows for enough ambiguity to occasionally require complex judgments on interpretations and facts. A clear-cut example of a case which will not satisfy patentability is one in which the idea can be established to have been public knowledge before the application was made. 
Another means by which an invention may be made public and thus ineligible for patentability is some account of the idea being published more than a year before the registration for its patent is filed. The third condition under which the novelty of an invention will be automatically discounted is one in which it was made commercially available or publicly put to use more than a year before patent registration was applied for. 
By these examples, novelty as is applicable for a finding of patentability can generally be defined as the period of a year. Inventors who wait for longer than a year, then, after initiating public use or discussion of the new invention can expect to see the invention lapse into a status equivalent to copyright law's public domain, opening up the invention to use by others. Even a casual reference to the desired object of patentability may be understood as the start of the one-year grace period if it occurs in some kind of public context. 
For this reason, even casual discussions of the fully developed invention should not be made by the inventor unless the listeners sign confidentiality agreements, not of mistrust of the audience, but out of the need to show that an invention has yet to be publicly disseminated.
Among the various issues which United States patent attorneys are trained to deal with, the requirement for novelty in patent applications is one which the legal representatives for a patent applicant should be prepared to handle. Among the main issues which arise from this section of patent law, it is important to note that United States patent law is unusually generous in allowing for a grace period as long as one year. 
Many other countries require the immediate filing of applications, often necessitating that applications be filed in those countries as soon as the invention is publicly discussed.

]]> 0
Conditions for Patentability Subject Matter Sat, 04 Apr 2015 10:36:40 +0000

In leaving patentability up to the question of utility, American patent law is relatively unusual, in that European patent law does not refer to general usefulness, but rather to the industrial applicability of the technology. Despite this difference, the distinction between the kinds of subject matter falling within the bounds of patentability established in the two regions are generally not very different. The main body of American patent law is addressed toward inventions which can be issued utility plant design.
Due to controversies that have occasionally arisen over the kind of uses which may be allowed for by Section 101, in the early 21st century the USPTO has released statements restating its opinion that certain kinds of products of human creativity and expertise, which include transmitted energy, literature, music, paper documentation on law, and collections of information do not meet the conditions for patentability. It has also welcomed further discussions of the patentability of these forms of human creativity. Transmitted forms of energy have been excluded by American patent law for the specific reason that they are not physically manifest and thus lie outside the proper bounds of the USPTO.
Section 103 of Article 35 also contains provisions on the kinds of subject matter that may be administered by United States patent law. According to the language of this section, subject matter must be "non-obvious" and not readily graspable by individuals "of ordinary art" in the subject matter to constitute original creations.

]]> 0
Usefulness Sat, 04 Apr 2015 10:36:40 +0000
Article 35 of the United States Code contains the federal statutes which govern the rules and procedures applying to patent law.
The usefulness generally inherent in the definition of patentability can be understood in two senses, though they are related to each other. The first is that the device or process for which patenting is sought is aimed at some kind of rational and allowable end. A patent is primarily understood as a significantly original means for arriving at a rational end. 
The second is that the patent possess the demonstrable ability to arrive at that end, or that it be operative. This requirement might be most easily tested through the application of common sense, and more rigorously with regard to the specific conception of the patent's functioning.
The patentability requirement for successful performance of a useful function is only present in, and for that matter is inherent in, the specific category of patent law addressed to so-called utility patentsplant patents 

]]> 0
How to Patent Sat, 04 Apr 2015 10:36:40 +0000 The United States Patent and Trademark Officeprotectionutilitydesignplant patent
]]> 0
Importance of Registering a Patent Sat, 04 Apr 2015 10:36:40 +0000
The process of patent registration as it is practiced under United States law is geared toward securing intellectual property rights for the creators of original ideas for devices and processes. Successfully applying for a patent enables the holder to pursue legal action against others who improperly make use of the patented idea or claim it as their own. 
In addition to protecting against the malicious abuse of intellectual property rights, patent registration also ensures that an original idea will appear in a thorough patent search and thereby prevent the original author from being preempted by others with the same idea.
United States law conceives of patent registration in negative terms. That is to say, a patent holder is not so much, under the literal wording of the law, empowered to make use of a patented idea as to prevent others from making use of it. This concept of patent registration proceeds from the principle that American law does not in general require that sellers of a particular good have a special grant from the government to do so. 
Rights in relation to a commercial good such as an invention are conceived instead in relation to the rights which other people have toward the invention. In this conception of patent rights, the patent holder must give permission to others to use an invention, commonly through a patent license agreement. If the patent holder feels that this right is being violated by others, he or she has the power to file suit in a Federal court. Possible courses of action in response to patent infringement include asking the courts to issue an injunction against the infringing action and requesting that damages be paid by the person committing the infringement. 
At this point, the patent registration procedures observed by the plaintiff will be particularly relevant, as court determine instances of infringement in reference to the language used in the patent itself, as opposed to visual or performance comparisons of examples of the patent in physical use.
In addition to providing for legal recourse against intellectual property thieves, the patent registration process is also designed by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to prevent patent applicants acting in good faith from conflicting with each others' intellectual property claims. 
The USPTO offers prospective applicants a patent search function in order to either determine that their finished discovery is indeed original and bears no significant resemblances to preexisting discoveries, or to find a promising direction for the beginning of the invention process. 
The agency provides the USPTO Patent Full-Text and Image Database for patent search inquiries. Patents registered after 1976 are maintained in the Database in a "full text" format, which may be accessed by a "quick," "advanced," or number-based patent search. For a patent search conducted from 1790, when federal intellectual property protection first went into practice, to the present, information can be accessed as images in a TIFF format.

]]> 0