One wonders what the US patents office is about sometimes...
Seems you don't have to have something that actually works; just pay them the money and their happy it seems.
This pic is from the front page of 6,094,035. It's supposed to be a class D amplifier output stage but using boost regs instead of the more usual buck regs to try and achieve a higher output voltage swing than fed to it by the dc supply rails. However...
Seems you don't have to have something that actually works; just pay them the money and their happy it seems.
This pic is from the front page of 6,094,035. It's supposed to be a class D amplifier output stage but using boost regs instead of the more usual buck regs to try and achieve a higher output voltage swing than fed to it by the dc supply rails. However...
Attachments
I read about a patent granted in Sweden once that made
such extraordinary claims that I had to get a copy of it and
read it. It the thing did what they claimed, they would have
solved one of the most important unsolved problems in
theoretical computer science. Of course they hadn't, they
just shoved their total lack of understanding of the concept
they talked about and the patent office showed their lack
of understanding by granting them a patent. The thing most
probably worked, though, it just didn't have much to do with
the extraordinary claim they made about it.
such extraordinary claims that I had to get a copy of it and
read it. It the thing did what they claimed, they would have
solved one of the most important unsolved problems in
theoretical computer science. Of course they hadn't, they
just shoved their total lack of understanding of the concept
they talked about and the patent office showed their lack
of understanding by granting them a patent. The thing most
probably worked, though, it just didn't have much to do with
the extraordinary claim they made about it.
slightly OT
Hey, pooge, I don't mean to hassle you, you're off duty here, but what's the story with interference, anyway? I've seen patents issue (including mine) with similar application dates covering largely the same material. Looking at the file wrappers, there's always an initialed section for "interference search", but it doesn't look like any interference searching was actually done.
Hey, pooge, I don't mean to hassle you, you're off duty here, but what's the story with interference, anyway? I've seen patents issue (including mine) with similar application dates covering largely the same material. Looking at the file wrappers, there's always an initialed section for "interference search", but it doesn't look like any interference searching was actually done.
pooge said:
Well, those laws have drastically changed around 5 or 6 year ago. It is no longer the responsibility of the patent office to determine if you have anything valid. You want a patent, you get it. Ultimately, it will be decided in court when you are challenged, whether the patent stands up to it.
Jan Didden
janneman said:
Okay, then.... tell me why they fought my employer for 4 years before granting us a patent. More importantly, why did I spend that time explaining myself over and over to them in writing (through the lawyer)? And finally, why did it cost $50K to get them to roll over? Did I just happen to be number 11 in the queue to get checked out (just like the police alcohol road checks)?
ensen.
purplepeople said:
Okay, then.... tell me why they fought my employer for 4 years before granting us a patent. More importantly, why did I spend that time explaining myself over and over to them in writing (through the lawyer)? And finally, why did it cost $50K to get them to roll over? Did I just happen to be number 11 in the queue to get checked out (just like the police alcohol road checks)?
Was the issue one of whether or not your invention worked (which I doubt) or whether it was novel in view of prior art (which is my guess)?
I had a similar situation, with the examiner taking an incomprehensible position. He wouldn't back off until after we went through and won an appeal- and two years after one of our competitors received a patent on essentially the same thing (different examiner).
SY: As usual SY you surmise correctly.... it was definitely an argument about novelty vs. "obvious to someone skilled in the art." As always, my fall back position can be classified as "if it was so obvious, then why didn't anyone else think of it." Of course, the words I used were not so patronizing but you get the picture.
ensen.
PS: My advice to anyone wanting to get a patent is that they should consider the enforce-ability of the claims. IOW, how easy (or cheap) is it to prove infringement and/or how easy is it to defend against invalidation.
ensen.PS: My advice to anyone wanting to get a patent is that they should consider the enforce-ability of the claims. IOW, how easy (or cheap) is it to prove infringement and/or how easy is it to defend against invalidation.
Patents
Some patent examiners are hardcore and will reject you for years until they are convinced that the thing is patentable. Others are kind of easy and will give you the blue slip sooner (a "blue slip" is the internal PTO form that allows the patent, hence the term "blue slipper" for examiners that allow everything).
Examiners are on a quota system, where the following count towards the quota- (a) first office action (ie, rejection), (b) allowance, (c) abandonment, (d) appeal to PTO board of appeals. Thus, most examiners max their quota by giving a first office action rejection and then allowing the case on the next action-- two credits total in about 8 months. Good blue slippers will allow the case on the first office action and thus get 2 credits in about a day. Hardcore examiners will reject you, get a credit, and then fight you for years, getting no credit. Now you see why there are much fewer of these guys, because they get half the credit of the typical examiner and it takes them much longer. Eventually they get abandonments and appeals and credits for that, but not at the rate of allowances.
Typical allowance rate is 77% across the PTO, meaning eventually 77% of everything filed is allowed in some form or another (you are allowed to amend your coverage and claim less than you originally did after getting rejected).
All in all it depends on the technology, the person and the claims you are making at the end of the patent.
Oh, "claims" are the paragraphs where it says "I claim...." and are numbered. The key to patents is in the claims, you only cover what you claim, and you need to carefully draft the claims to cover your disclosed invention and what the industry is doing or about to do, and at the same time you must avoid claiming that which was done before (the prior art) or your claim is not going to be valid.
The description is supposed to support the claims but you can have extra stuff in there. Somethings a patent says something stupid but its not claimed, so no big deal.
Patents are very arcane and the area of law is complex, but the PTO has limited resources so you get all kinds of defective patents issuing, which is why patents get the real test in court.
Some patent examiners are hardcore and will reject you for years until they are convinced that the thing is patentable. Others are kind of easy and will give you the blue slip sooner (a "blue slip" is the internal PTO form that allows the patent, hence the term "blue slipper" for examiners that allow everything).
Examiners are on a quota system, where the following count towards the quota- (a) first office action (ie, rejection), (b) allowance, (c) abandonment, (d) appeal to PTO board of appeals. Thus, most examiners max their quota by giving a first office action rejection and then allowing the case on the next action-- two credits total in about 8 months. Good blue slippers will allow the case on the first office action and thus get 2 credits in about a day. Hardcore examiners will reject you, get a credit, and then fight you for years, getting no credit. Now you see why there are much fewer of these guys, because they get half the credit of the typical examiner and it takes them much longer. Eventually they get abandonments and appeals and credits for that, but not at the rate of allowances.
Typical allowance rate is 77% across the PTO, meaning eventually 77% of everything filed is allowed in some form or another (you are allowed to amend your coverage and claim less than you originally did after getting rejected).
All in all it depends on the technology, the person and the claims you are making at the end of the patent.
Oh, "claims" are the paragraphs where it says "I claim...." and are numbered. The key to patents is in the claims, you only cover what you claim, and you need to carefully draft the claims to cover your disclosed invention and what the industry is doing or about to do, and at the same time you must avoid claiming that which was done before (the prior art) or your claim is not going to be valid.
The description is supposed to support the claims but you can have extra stuff in there. Somethings a patent says something stupid but its not claimed, so no big deal.
Patents are very arcane and the area of law is complex, but the PTO has limited resources so you get all kinds of defective patents issuing, which is why patents get the real test in court.
Which well and truly sucks for most of us, since patent litigation is even more expensive that divorce litigation! Half a million minimum. And in the US, your chances of covering your attorney's costs if you prevail are extremely close to zero. I've been involved in half a dozen patent cases (on the winning side 5 times) and none were taken on contingency.
Thanks much for your explanation. It's interesting to know more precisely what motivates examiners, and what you've said here is really enlightening.
I've been both accuser and accused. My own attorneys understood the technology fairly well. I can't speak for my opponents' lawyers, but my last deposition (we were accused of infringing) was taken by an attorney who was hilariously clueless. They lost that one, but forced us into settling by trying to run us out of money at the appeals level.
It does seem as if the only advantage of applying or receiving a patent is that you can put "patent pending" or "patent #xxx" on your product. That the first deterrent is the best and that any entity that will infringe will do so because they believe they can legally nullify the patent or out-money you in the courts.
So, then, the question becomes, why bother? I'm beginning to wonder if a great portion of it is my own or my employer's ego, which I have to admit seems to be the case.
ensen.
So, then, the question becomes, why bother? I'm beginning to wonder if a great portion of it is my own or my employer's ego, which I have to admit seems to be the case.
ensen.
patents again
SY- thanks for the info.
Other than putting "patent pending" or "patent no. xxxx" on the products that are covered, patents can be bought and sold. Additionally, a lot of companies are building portfolios and licensing the technogy for real $$$. Also, if you have a lot of patents and get sued, you can countersue or threaten to, which is a real threat to the other side. This increases the possibility of a settlement and cross-license. So patents are useful to many companies for future defensive use.
That said, patents are not very well understood so you may be right, companies might be dumping resources into obtaining them without careful thought or even without a plan in place.
SY- thanks for the info.
Other than putting "patent pending" or "patent no. xxxx" on the products that are covered, patents can be bought and sold. Additionally, a lot of companies are building portfolios and licensing the technogy for real $$$. Also, if you have a lot of patents and get sued, you can countersue or threaten to, which is a real threat to the other side. This increases the possibility of a settlement and cross-license. So patents are useful to many companies for future defensive use.
That said, patents are not very well understood so you may be right, companies might be dumping resources into obtaining them without careful thought or even without a plan in place.
So right! It's something I see a lot. When I talk to financial and business types, they're amazed that our competitors flagrantly knock us off. "But... but.. but... you have a PATENT!" as if waving the patent in front of a well-funded competitor will make him say, "Oh, golly, gee, now I have to stop and go out of business!"
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.