Patently-O Bits and Bytes

• Media Partner & Symposium CLE: TechInsights is hosting a series of Intellectual Property Symposiums beginning December 2 and 4 in Chicago and Dallas respectively. The focus of the one-day symposium is on the "needs of the electronics community." http://ips.techinsightsevents.com/. Use code IPSPYO for $359 registration special (or just ask for the "Patently-O Discount.")
• Quote of the week: Ellen P. Apill "The consequences of the [Bilski] decision will depend on how PTO examiners understand and apply the test to the patent applications they review."
• Fish & Richardson on Bilski: Business method inventions "might be or might not be patentable." [Link]
• Bilski Process: In Bilski, the Federal Circuit took sua sponte action to hear the case en banc even before a three-member panel considered the issues. This process seems to have worked well here.
• Google Patents: I have been having an e-mail conversation with a patent librarian. Our conclusion is that Google Patents is useful for quick searching, but folks should be aware that it is not totally accurate and is missing some patents and publications.
• Recent Patent Law Jobs:
  • Patent Counsel - Small Corporation - Menlo Park, Calif.
  • Patent Attorney - Law Firm - Chicago, Ill.
  • Sponsored: Senior ANDA Litigator
  • Paralegal - Law Firm - Madison, Wisc.
  • Senior Patent Attorney - Small Corporation - Bellevue, Wash.
  • Patent Agent - Law Firm - Chicago, Ill.
  • Patent Attorney - Large Corporation - Madison, N.J.
  • Patent Litigation Associate - Law Firm - Chicago, Ill.
  • Patent Attorney - Small Corporation - Rochester, N.Y.
  • Patently-O Jobs

Comments

[A]

Google patents is especially bad for class/subclass searching as it uses OCR rather than getting the text data from the PTO. Therefore if the OCR is incorrect, the search can be incorrect.

I found this out the hard way when I saw that Google thought certain patents that should have been class 151 were actually in class 51 because the OCR dropped a number.

[patent leather]

"Bilski Process: In Bilski, the Federal Circuit took sua sponte action to hear the case en banc even before a three-member panel considered the issues. This process seems to have worked well here."

Here's the problem: The Bilski panel (intentionally) left so many unresolved questions (e.g., what is a particular/general machine, what is "tied to," what qualifies as a "transformation"), that the big question of whether software is really patentable or not might now be decided by a 3-judge panel. Obviously, the judges on the Fed Circuit have widely varying views here, so the real fate of software may depend upon the luck of the draw.

I hope out of fairness that the inevitable companion cases are also decided en banc.

[Just an ordinary inventor(TM)]

So what else is new?:

Patent Rights Circa 1895
E. Bement & Sons v. La Dow, 66 Fed. 185 (Cir. Ct. N.Y. 1895)

[N]o property is so uncertain as "patent rights"; no property more speculative in character or held by a more precarious tenure. An applicant who goes into the patent office with claims expanded to correspond with his unbounded faith in the invention, may emerge therefrom with a shriveled parchment which protects only that which any ingenious infringer can evade. Even this may be taken from him by the courts. Indeed, it is only after a patentee has passed successfully the ordeal of judicial interpretation that he can speak with any real certainty as to the scope and character of his invention.

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2007/11/patent-rights-c.html

[Steve M]

Many problems with Google patents.

Even a simple search of design patents shows that Google is not keeping up with those issued in the last 1+ years.

We rely on them at our own risk.

[Steve M]

Many problems with Google patents.

Even a simple search of design patents shows that Google is not keeping up with those issued in the last 1+ years.

We rely on them at our own risk.

[Steve M]

Many problems with Google patents.

Even a simple search of design patents shows that Google is not keeping up with those issued in the last 1+ years.

We rely on them at our own risk.

[Steve M]

Many problems with Google patents.

Even a simple search of design patents shows that Google is not keeping up with those issued in the last 1+ years.

We rely on them at our own risk.

[millard duckworth iii]

Google Patent Search BETA

Anyone who uses this as their sole searching authority should BETA their application as well.

[Daniel]

Yes, Google Patents is not a perfect tool and professionals shouldn't rely on it exclusively. But before we bash it into the ground, let's mention its BIG advantage over almost everything else out there...

Google Patents enables keyword searching in full (OCR) text going back indefinitely. If you're searching for a mechanical device which could well have been suggested before 1976, it's wonderful to turn up knock-out references from 1911 and 1930 with a few carefully chosen keywords. Those references would be much tougher (and sometimes impossible) to find by classification searching.

A craftsman needs to know the strengths and weaknesses of his tools, and when to use each.

[Daniel]

Not to mention that Google also has some magic which makes their PDF files of US patents 15%-20% the size of everyone else's. Anyone know how they do that?

[millard duckworth iii]

Probably the same compression algorithm that mysteriously but consistently eliminates certain kinds of lines or contours from the occasional figure. I've seen figures missing everything but reference numbers and their leader lines.

I agree the OCR is a great tool, but you've got to watch the figures. I wouldn't use their PDFs for anything but cursory review at this point.

Their interface and presentation is top notch, but that's Google for you.

[SPQR]

Dennis, did you see the citation to Patently-O L.J. in In Re DBC?