The division of Patent World into US and Non-US is not new. One of the big element of this difference has been the US Class 705 Patents - called the Method of doing business patents.
I have been following these for some years now - trying to make sense. Please look at following posts for last three years
2005 Post: BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS IN US, EUROPE AND INDIA –
A Critical Appraisal
2007 Post: Business Method Patents - A Strategic Awakening Call for Indian Software Companies
2007 Post: Outsourcing Patents
Would like the readers to comment and may be post what are their thoughts, views and inputs?
-----------------------------------------
Thanks a lot to Nancy Baum Delain - for creating this blog of Open exchanges - I feel this blog is going to become most talked about blog in Patents world in a very short time! - Thanks - Navneet Bhushan (www.crafitti.com)
Monday, September 15, 2008
Holistic Patent Strategy - an article that may be of interest
Implement a Holistic Patent Strategy for Maximum Value
"Among different types of intellectual property (IP), patents offer the most potential for value; correspondingly, organizations have started to devise patent strategies to create, protect and exploit IP (in the form of patents and patent portfolios) for business benefit. At the core of patent strategy is the ability to define and understand the value contained in the IP, in the form of value determinants. These value determinants cover multiple dimensions of IP value – alignment with organizational needs and strategy, how good the patent/patent portfolio is, opportunity window and customer value. Viewing and analyzing these elements together offers a holistic view of IP value paving the way toward the creation of a comprehensive, structured and informed patent strategy."
"Among different types of intellectual property (IP), patents offer the most potential for value; correspondingly, organizations have started to devise patent strategies to create, protect and exploit IP (in the form of patents and patent portfolios) for business benefit. At the core of patent strategy is the ability to define and understand the value contained in the IP, in the form of value determinants. These value determinants cover multiple dimensions of IP value – alignment with organizational needs and strategy, how good the patent/patent portfolio is, opportunity window and customer value. Viewing and analyzing these elements together offers a holistic view of IP value paving the way toward the creation of a comprehensive, structured and informed patent strategy."
Interesting Patent related Articles
The Concentration of Technological Progress
A good article by Gianluca Carnabuci. The aritcle states that, the size distribution of the domains of US-patented technological knowledge obeys an exponential law, revealing a disproportionable concentration of progress among larger domains. Mr. Gianluca's analyses suggest that this phenomenon is explained by a combination of two factors. First, domains' trajectories of growth have inherently different potentials. Second, differences in domains' potentials are magnified by a mechanism - domains' self-hybridization - endogenous to the process of knowledge growth. Mr. Gianluca conclude that the observed concentration of progress reflects dynamics of knowledge growth that are more general than the specific case analyzed, and should be factored in investment decisions and policies. Read full article
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Advanced Patent Analysis Workshop Using TRIZ
CRAFITTI CONSULTING (http://www.crafitti.com/) is offering two days of Innovation Ignition workshops on our world-class frameworks developed and practiced to solve business and technical problems in large global organizations. These comprehensive frameworks are being offered for the first time in India in workshop settings.
Workshop 1: Lean Inventive Systems Thinking – A Framework for transformationSeptember 26, 2008 Hotel Ramanashree, Richmond Road, Bangalore, India
Workshop 2: Advanced Patent Analysis using TRIZ and other conceptsSeptember 27, 2008 Hotel Ramanashree, Richmond Road, Bangalore, India
Advanced Patent Analysis using TRIZ and Other Techniques
Workshop 1: Lean Inventive Systems Thinking – A Framework for transformationSeptember 26, 2008 Hotel Ramanashree, Richmond Road, Bangalore, India
Workshop 2: Advanced Patent Analysis using TRIZ and other conceptsSeptember 27, 2008 Hotel Ramanashree, Richmond Road, Bangalore, India
Advanced Patent Analysis using TRIZ and Other Techniques
Patents are the most comprehensive source of information and knowledge. In the rapidly globalizing world of continuous change and cutthroat competition, every enterprise searches for competitive advantage. Patent information although realized by many as highly informative are not really tapped by enterprises at large, simply as the understanding of patents as a source of information and trigger for inventing the next are still in infancy. Although there are many open tools and databases to make patent data visualization, there doesn’t seem to be enough awareness of using patents for inventing next!
Altshuller, a Russian navy patent officer after Second World War, started a systematic study of patents – his aim was to find out what makes a successful invention. Can there be an algorithm for inventing? His search led him to develop a unique methodology called Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (acronym TRIZ in Russian). In the process he also developed a methodology to analyze and study patents. Crafitti Consulting has developed on the TRIZ way of doing patent analysis and reinforced it with other techniques to build a comprehensive framework for Patent analysis. For the first time this framework is offered in India. The delegates will be exposed to
Understanding the level of an invention and a patent
Finding out the key contradictions the invention is solving
Looking at the claims hierarchy of the patent
Function Diagrams of a patent/invention
Pruning or Trimming as a means of inventing
System Complexity Estimation
These techniques will help in
Finding Technological Alternatives to a Patent
Writing Future-proof claims of a Patent
Understanding the evolution of an invention compared to prior art
Finding white space in a field to leverage
-----------------------------------------------------
Questions or comments? Email us at info@crafitti.com or call at +91-80-41688077 .
For news on upcoming events at Crafitti, do visit http://www.crafitti.com/.
http://www.crafitti.com/webtest/html/iiw_tabs.htm
with warm regards,
Navneet
Navneet Bhushan,
Co-crafter Founder Director Crafitti Consulting Pvt Ltd www.crafitti.com
+91-9902766961 +91-80-41688077 skype: navneet.bhushan Blog: http://innovationcrafting.blogspot.com/
Saturday, September 13, 2008
US provisionals
Dear Nancy,
Thanks for organising this blog. I hope to be going to use this for typical day-to-day typicalities. I will be able to inform you on European and Dutch patent law and the pecularities of working with these systems.
I hope that I will be able to learn from you all on the prosecution details in other countries.
One thing that annoys me more and more lately, is the habit of the US examiners to issue restriction requirements. Especially in the biotech field, I am always getting these, and it seems that the frequency is going up dramatically. Not only regarding to the number of applications that meet with such a restriction requirement, but also the 'depth' of the restriction is increasing: where it used to be that the examiner found two or three inventions in one application, now regularly I have applications with 8 or more inventions.
The problem is, that I am happy to divide out my application if there are indeed more than one invention, but most often in the PCT application from which the US application did originate no lack of unity has been mentioned, nor is there any problem with the corresponding European application.
Is there any explanation for this behaviour of the examiners? Do they get more credits for a restriction requirement than for a normal office action or grant? Do they need to increase the number of (divisional) application to get more income for the USPTO?
Also, I have found it useless to file a protest to these restriction requirements. One of the latest examples is a case where initially a restriction requirement was issued because there was some prior art that allegedly took away the novelty or inventive step of the general claim(s). Luckily, the cited prior art was either only published after the priority date or it was arguable not anticipating the invention. So, in our response (in which we also filed some minor amendments in the claims) we protested against this restriction requirement. To my surprise, I recently received a new restriction requirement, wherein the examiner basically defined the same 8 inventions as in the earlier restriction requirement. However, he now based this restriction on the provisions of the MPEP. No word was spent to the earlier restriction requirement and/or to our response. And in this case in both the original PCT application and in the European equivalent application we do not have any problems with unity at all.
I recently posted a general question on LinkedIn and in one of the answers it was suggested to bring MPEP 1893.03(d) to the U.S. Examiner's attention. Although I know that many of my US colleague attorneys agree with me that protesting is useless, has anyone any experience with bringing this argument?
Thanks for any comments in advance.
Thanks for organising this blog. I hope to be going to use this for typical day-to-day typicalities. I will be able to inform you on European and Dutch patent law and the pecularities of working with these systems.
I hope that I will be able to learn from you all on the prosecution details in other countries.
One thing that annoys me more and more lately, is the habit of the US examiners to issue restriction requirements. Especially in the biotech field, I am always getting these, and it seems that the frequency is going up dramatically. Not only regarding to the number of applications that meet with such a restriction requirement, but also the 'depth' of the restriction is increasing: where it used to be that the examiner found two or three inventions in one application, now regularly I have applications with 8 or more inventions.
The problem is, that I am happy to divide out my application if there are indeed more than one invention, but most often in the PCT application from which the US application did originate no lack of unity has been mentioned, nor is there any problem with the corresponding European application.
Is there any explanation for this behaviour of the examiners? Do they get more credits for a restriction requirement than for a normal office action or grant? Do they need to increase the number of (divisional) application to get more income for the USPTO?
Also, I have found it useless to file a protest to these restriction requirements. One of the latest examples is a case where initially a restriction requirement was issued because there was some prior art that allegedly took away the novelty or inventive step of the general claim(s). Luckily, the cited prior art was either only published after the priority date or it was arguable not anticipating the invention. So, in our response (in which we also filed some minor amendments in the claims) we protested against this restriction requirement. To my surprise, I recently received a new restriction requirement, wherein the examiner basically defined the same 8 inventions as in the earlier restriction requirement. However, he now based this restriction on the provisions of the MPEP. No word was spent to the earlier restriction requirement and/or to our response. And in this case in both the original PCT application and in the European equivalent application we do not have any problems with unity at all.
I recently posted a general question on LinkedIn and in one of the answers it was suggested to bring MPEP 1893.03(d) to the U.S. Examiner's attention. Although I know that many of my US colleague attorneys agree with me that protesting is useless, has anyone any experience with bringing this argument?
Thanks for any comments in advance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)