The Heene family may have wanted to consult with Joseph Meadows of Los Angeles. His Patent No. 6,325,329 covers a helium balloon of sufficient volume and buoyancy to allow a human pilot to float above the ground and to glide over the ground.
« The Increasing Role of Published Applications in Patent Examination | Main | Patent Reform: Reverse Payments »
Oct 16, 2009
Comments
Search & Share
Subscribe
19,000+ individuals now receive Patently-O via e-mail each morning.
Recent Posts
- Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- Guest Post on New Inter Partes Reexamination Standard
- Prior User Rights Defense
- IPCom Wins by Waiver – Federal Circuit Temporarily Revitalizes IPCom Case Against HTC
- Ford Krippelz
- Patently-O Bits & Bytes by Lawrence Higgins
- Recap of Recent AIA-related PTO Activities
- PTO Announces Proposed Rules for Supplemental Examination
- United States Intellectual Property Organization?: Curing a Fractured Administrative Structure
- Falana v. Kent State University
- Patently-O Bits & Bytes by Lawrence Higgins
- Upcoming Events: Santa Clara
- The New Choice: Inequitable Conduct or Copyright Infringement
- En Banc Federal Circuit To Reconsider Scope of Intervening Rights Defense
- Supreme Court Affirms Broad Congressional Authority to Offer Intellectual Property Rights for Public Domain Works
- New Track I Prioritized Examination for RCE Applications
- The Role of In-House Patent Counsel in Prosecuting Patents
- Guest Post: Should you Submit Third-Party Prior Art?
- How does the USPTO Investigate Allegations of Misconduct?
- Abbott Loses Patent Rights Due to Gap in Consultant Contract
- Estimate: Fewer than 26,000 Active US Patent Attorneys & Agents
- Streck v. Research Diagnostic Systems: Dismissal of Invalidity Counterclaims, Written Description, and Enablement
- Patently-O Bits & Bytes by Lawrence Higgins
- Celsis: Federal Circuit Upholds Preliminary Injunction over Dissent
- New Detroit Office
- Preliminary Report on Track I: Prioritized Patent Examination Program
- USPTO Notice and Comments
- Chief Judge Rader & Band DeNovo to “Rock” San Diego’s House of Blues
- Patently-O as Incontestable?
- Reviewing the New USPTO Post Grant Review System with Reference to EPO Oppositions
Categories
- Academic Studies
- Accelerated Examination
- All Elements
- Amicus Brief
- Anticipation
- Articles and Publications
- Attorney Fees
- Bayh-Dole
- Best Mode
- Biotech
- Bits and Bytes
- Blogroll
- Book Review
- BPAI
- Business Developments
- CAFC
- Certificate of Correction
- Chemical
- Claim Construction
- Claim Drafting Tips
- Conference or CLE
- Contributory Infringement
- Copyright
- Current Affairs
- Damages
- Declaratory Judgment
- Design Patent
- Dissent
- District Court
- Doctrine of Equivalents
- Doctrine of Patent Misuse
- EFiling
- En Banc
- Enablement
- False Marking
- Fees
- First Sale / Exhaustion
- Gaming
- Graham Factors
- Guest Post
- Indefinite
- Inducement
- Inequitable Conduct
- Infringement
- Injunctions
- Interference
- Invalidity
- Inventors
- Inventorship
- ITC
- Jobs
- Jurisdiction
- Law Firm Practice
- Law School
- Lear Doctrine
- License
- Local Rules
- Means Plus Function
- Medical Device
- Method Claims
- Motivation to Combine
- Obviousness
- On Sale
- Ownership
- Patent Applications
- Patent Cases 2004
- Patent Cases 2005
- Patent Cases 2006
- Patent Cases 2007
- Patent Cases 2008
- Patent Cases 2009
- Patent Cases 2010
- Patent Cases 2011
- Patent Legislation
- Patent Prosecution
- Patent Q&A
- Patent Term Extension
- Patentable Subject Matter
- Petitions
- Pharma
- PHOSITA
- Post Grant Review
- Printed Matter Doctrine
- Prior Art
- Priority Rights
- Procedure
- Provisional Patent Application
- Public Use
- Rantanen
- Reexamination
- Reissue
- Revival
- Science
- Settlement
- Software
- Standing
- State Immunity
- statutory bar
- Statutory Construction
- Summary Judgment
- Supreme Court
- Survey
- Takings
- Teaching Away
- Television
- TipCast
- Tools
- Trade Secret
- Trademark
- Transnational
- USPTO News
- Vitiation
- Weblogs
Friends
- Patent Docs
- Patent Baristas
- Orange Book Blog
- Patent Prospectors
- IP Kat
- Prof Goldman
- David Donoghue
- Michael C. Smith
- SCOTUS Blog
- ELS
- Spicy IP
- The Patent Law Journal
- ABA blawgs
- Green Patents
- Mark Walters
- Delaware IP
- Inventive Step
- Professor Holman
- IP Spotlight
- Gray on Claims
- IPEG
- IP Watch
- priorsmart news
- Patents4Life
- Bruce Berman
- Bryan Beel
- Bill Vobach
- Alan Black
- IP Watchdog
Authors
- Dennis Crouch,
Associate Professor
University of Missouri
School of Law
SSRN Articles Jason Rantanen,
Associate Professor
University of Iowa
College of Law
SSRN ArticlesOccasional guest posts by IP practitioners and academics
Recent Comments
- Actual Inventor on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- Actual Inventor on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- Actual Inventor on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- Actual Inventor on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- Actual Inventor on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- Actual Inventor on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- Actual Inventor on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- Actual Inventor on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- Actual Inventor on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- Actual Inventor on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- Looney Toons Lime on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- MM on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- Looney Toons Lime on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- Ned Heller on Prior User Rights Defense
- 6 on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- Looney Toons Lime on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- fish scales on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- 6 on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- MM on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
- EG on Dealertrack v. Huber: Unpatentable "computer aided" claims
Terms of Use & Disclaimer
- Terms of Use
- Patently-O on Facebook
Connect with Patently-O readers. -
-
