Patently-O Bits & Bytes by Lawrence Higgins

Jay Walker sues more than 100 of companies for patent infringement

  • Jay Walker is a successful inventor and entrepreneur. He is the founder of Priceline, a website that offers discounts on hotels, cruises, and other travel related items. Walker has now sued more than 100 companies for patent infringement. He contends that these companies violated various patents that he owns. Walker’s suit against Apple, Google, Samsung, Microsoft and others claim their mapping technology infringes his patents. [Complaint] Walker’s suit against companies like Groupon and Livingsocial claim that they infringe four of his patents. One such patent (6,249,772) called Systems and Methods Wherein A Buyer Purchases A Product At A First Price And Acquires The Product From A Merchant That Offers The Product For Sale At A Second Price.” [Complaint]

Number of patent applications in Europe hits all-time high

  • The EPO received 235,000 European patent filings in 2010, the highest number ever in the office’s 34-year history. Over 33% of the filings came from European states, 26% from the US and 18% from Japan. EPO’s president Battistelli states that, “after a 2-year slump, the EU and US are nearly back to their levels of patenting before the crisis.” Is this a sign that the economy is improving? [Link]

Patent issued for bubbles!

  • On March 22 the USPTO issued patent #7,910,531 titled “Composition and method for producing colored bubbles” to C2C Technologies. However, on that same day Crayola filed a re-exam 95/001,582 which asserts anticipation and obviousness. Crayola filed the re-exam because they already have colored bubbles on sale in stores and would likely be liable for patent infringement if they do not find a way to get the patent invalidated. [Link]

Patent Jobs:

  • Shumaker & Sieffert is seeking to hire patent attorneys with 1-5 years experience for their Twin Cities office. The firm will consider remote working relationships for experienced attorneys. [Link]
  • Holland & Hart is searching go trademark attorney with 4+ years experience for their Boulder office. [Link]
  • Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack is seeking an entry-level patent attorney with a chemical background for their Washington D.C. office. [Link]
  • Chernoff Vilhauer is looking for their patent attorney with 4+ years of experience for their Portland office. [Link]

Upcoming Events:

  • William Mitchell College of Law will hold the 2nd annual Patterson Thuente IP Lecture on April 21st. Judge Randall Radar will discuss the most pressing issues in patent law. [Link]
  • Fordham Intellectual Property Law Institute will host the 19th Annual Intellectual Property Law and Policy Conference April 28th -29th. David Kappos, Victoria Espinel, Judge Newman, Judge Radar, and many others in the IP field will be in attendance. [Link]
  • Licensing Executives Society (LES) will hold its Spring Meeting in New York May 4th -6th. The Keynote speaker will be David Kappos. Patently-O readers will receive a $200 discount by using promo code PO11. [Link]
  • The 3rd Annual Corporate IP Counsel Forum will be held May 24-25 in New York. The Corporate IP Counsel Summit is the premier forum to hear about solutions to maximize IP assets, avoid costly litigation, create and maintain efficient infrastructure, fully integrate IP strategies into business plans, prepare for anticipated patent law changes, and much more. Guest speakers include Michael Bishop, Mony Ghose, Mark Costello, Michael Springs, Charles Kwalwasser, and Timothy Wilson. Patently-O readers will receive a $100 discount by using promo code FZA884. [Link]

Contact Lawrence.Higgins@patentlyo.com with leads for future Bits and Bytes.

49 thoughts on “Patently-O Bits & Bytes by Lawrence Higgins

  1. 49

    Très cher Max,

    […] you see abuse

    I will note that I was not the one who introduced the word “abuse”, but that it was your qualification of the various situations I described. I will nevertheless admit that have grave reservations about (e), and I’m not alone.

    If you won’t accept the observations of a lowly former examining worm, how about the opinion of the EBoA on the issue of double patenting, in particular section 13 of G1/05?

    […] but where’s the harm?

    If the renewed filing of applications through “divisionals” really was so harmless, why is it done at all? To create original but expensive wallpaper for the applicant’s offices? Give me a break.

    Case in point: the Virgin Atlantic first-class seating patent saga. The original application was filed nearly a decade ago, so the patent term is about half-exhausted. It looks that this case will keep many members of the legal professions busy for the second decade of its life. There are six European publications ( EP2272711, EP2289734, EP1602526, EP1571037, EP1495908, EP1417113), i.e., one “Stammanmeldung” and five “divisionals”. Four of these matured into patents, and were/are heavily litigated. Some are still going through opposition proceedings before the EPO.

    A British court found one of the earlier patents (“‘908”) to be VALID, but NOT INFRINGED on substance. Later proceedings addressed the question as to whether claims directed to a “seating system for an aircraft” covered individual seat assemblies delivered by a seat manufacturer. (The final installation in the customer’s aircraft is performed in another jurisdiction).

    The newest two divisional applications, filed well after the first above-mentioned judgment was handed down, but while the later proceedings were still pending, were drafted with the benefit of the court’s assessment of the scope of the claims, the detailed knowledge of the features of competitors’ products, and their lines of defence. Lo and behold, the latest includes claims (10 ff.) specifically directed to individual seats, and the independent claims do not appear to include the technical feature against which the ‘908 infringement accusation failed. This new generation of applications was possible because the applicant still a pending application simmering somewhere on a back burner. Prima faciae, I can’t see that subject-matter was introduced (I’m not saying that there isn’t, just that the drafter was more careful than usual).

    Now, let me ask you:

    Article 123(3) EPC, in the name of LEGAL CERTAINTY (cf. Visser, Singer+Staude, usw.), prohibits the broadening of the scope of protection for a granted patent.

    Why should it be possible for a proprietor to achieve in practice what Art. 123(3) EPC was meant to avoid through the backdoor of a so-called “divisional” application, with the added benefit of entirely fresh, independent, proceedings before the EPO and national courts? I can hardly believe that this result was intended by the EPC drafters when they were debating the text of Article 76.

    Even if these newest patents/applications were ultimately busted, their mere existence gives their owner an edge against the public, by maintaining uncertainty and foisting high legal costs on the other parties. For the latest one, even if the examiner considers the claims to be grantable, the description must still be amended. If the examiner doesn’t fix the Druckexemplar himself, we’re talking of a procedural turnaround of 6 months to one year. If the patent was granted on this day, we’d only know in about a year or so whether it will be opposed. Opposition proceedings may themselves take a few years to conclude, and we’ve not even considered appeals or national proceedings.

    And anyway, as the EPO “raises the bar” it gets increasingly difficult to acquire ever more B publications out of the same single WO. Agreed?

    What do you mean by “WO”? Written Opinion, or PCT application entering the regional phase?

    I would not. I, for one, consider the whole “raise the bar” package to be a set of ill-designed, arbitrary, rules, that will not achieve the goal they purport to achieve, viz, improve patent “quality”. Name about any measure from that lot (Rule 36, Rule 164, Rule 141, claims fees, etc.), and I’ll explain why. But I’m only a (former) worm.

    You wrote:

    These Applicants are remitting the fees that pay your salary […]

    I can see the bruised sensibilities of EPO Examiners, […]

    You don’t know how lucky you are, inside the EPO.

    Are you trying to patronize me? This is how you come through in any case. BTW, haven’t you noticed the use of the past tense in my comments?

    atchao!

  2. 48

    Colored bubble bath is not the same as colored bubbles Malcolm. Please cite a product that produces uniformly colored, single color bubbles.

  3. 46

    Ned I would not want to pre-empt the Fairfly on this double patenting thing of yours, the one you surmise is “perhaps only theoretical”, but here’s my thought.

    The EPC contains a provision that allows Member states to revoke on their own initiative, when an Applicant takes to issue an EPO patent and a national patent on the “same” invention.

    The EPO allows divisionals only when the claims of each are directed to “distinctly different” inventions.

    In any innovative apparatus there is going to be more than one patentable invention. For example, is there not some TV advert about a new car from Audi embodying more patented inventions than the whole portfolio of NASA patents? If another car maker were to copy that Audi, how many patents would it be infringing simultaneously?

    What’s your solution: no overlap of scope of protection, between any two patents in the same ownership? Whatever sort of clients do you act for, for goodness’ sake? Ones with only one “invention” to their name, perhaps?

    I don’t know much about Prince Hamlet, but your slur on the patent law of Denmark is baseless.

    Fairfly, from inside the EPO, may we now hear from you?

  4. 45

    Thanks for your explanation. It appears that in a FTF, double patenting is not really a problem among two applicants as the second to file will automatically lose to the first to file.

    IMHO, this is real benefit of FTF over FTI.

    There is a problem, perhaps only hypothetical, where the same applicant gets two patents on the same invention in one jurisdiction. He can sell one, retaining a license of course. For example, if a company spins off a division, the company can retain one of the two patents and assign the other to the divested entity. From the company’s point of view, things couldn’t be better. In fact, if it was actually allowed, if I were patent counsel for a European company, I would seek two patents every time on the important inventions just for such purposes.

    But, from the public’s point of view, two patents on the same invention is wrong. Something still stinks in the state of Denmark.

  5. 44

    Good answer from the Fairfly. Many thanks.

    Ned, do you still see chaos in Europe? Will you enlarge on that?

    Fairfly, you see abuse but where’s the harm? I can see the bruised sensibilities of EPO Examiners, but which other user of the European patent system is suffering actual harm?

    And anyway, as the EPO “raises the bar” it gets increasingly difficult to acquire ever more B publications out of the same single WO. Agreed?

    Fairfly, the EPC and the EPO, don’t knock it. You just try examining elsewhere in the world and see how much you enjoy that. You don’t know how lucky you are, inside the EPO.

  6. 43

    Ned,

    Consider the case of two applications A1 and A2 filed in about the same time window such that one cannot be used against the other under Art. 54(2) [novelty] and Art. 56 [inventive step]. (i.e., A1 was published later than A2’s filing date).

    If A1 was filed on an earlier date than A2, then A1’s entire disclosure is usable against (strict) novelty objections against the claims of A2 (“whole content approach”) according to Art. 54(3) EPC.

    (I deliberately left aside in the preceding the questions of priority claims, and the administrative conditions to be met, as they don’t affect the essential principle).

    (If I were Monsieur Maximilien, I would insert here some suitable text hailing the superiority of the EPC approach…)

    If a 54(3) document is not caught in due time, or identified but not properly assessed by the examiner, then the issued patent can still be narrowed or revoked on its basis (Art. 100a) in the course of opposition proceedings. The patent can also be attacked before national courts on the same basis (Art. 139(1)(a)). However, this can only occur on a third-party initiative, or with the proprietor initiating limitation proceedings under Art. 105a. The patent is out of reach of the examining division once it is finally granted.

    The EPC “double patenting” problem arises when two applications have the exact same effective filing date.

    This can happen in various circumstances, such as:

    a) Two completely independent applicants coincidentally file applications for very similar inventions on the very same day (admittedly a rare, but possible, occurence)

    b) Two different applicants each file the same application the same day, instead of jointly filing a single application (I can’t understand why, but it did happen)

    c) The same applicant files on the same date two applications with only cosmetic differences (read: camouflage), probably in the hope that they will be prosecuted by different examiners, thus improving the probability of walking away with something (I’ve seen this in a couple of cases).

    d) An applicant files identical EP and and PCT applications with the same effective dates. Technically, the PCT application can potentially enter the regional phase and become a second parallel EP application for the same subject-matter. (I did get quite a few of parallel EP+PCT filings, but I can’t remember a case where the PCT entered the regional phase).

    e) An applicant files an EP application. Things are not going too well, refusal threatens or occurred, or opposition against the patent is mounting, or the applicant simply wants to increase his chances of eventually getting something. One or several divisional applications are filed, very often with the exact same disclosure and claims as the original application.

    f) An applicant files a national application (e.g., DE1 in Germany), and then files European Application EP2 based on DE1. DE1 and EP2 therefore have the same effective filing date. Both DE1 and EP2 are prosecuted in their respective offices, and mature into patents. Parallel patent rights will exist for Germany for the same invention. (Remember, a patent granted by the EPO eventually explodes in a bunch of national patents).

    If you look at travaux préparatoires, you will see that the drafters of the EPC were only concerned with situation (f), i.e, the simultaneous protection of inventions by national and EP patents, and ultimately decided to leave this particular issue to be addressed by national law under Art. 139. AFAIK, situations such as (a) to (e) were not considered at all.

    The law is definitively lacking, and there isn’t much the EPO can undertake for preventing an applicant from filing the exact same material as a “divisional”.

    There is one approach, based on the catch-all Art. 125 EPC and the Guidelines, where reference is made to national law prohibiting double patenting. I am not aware of a definition of the expression “same invention”. I often felt like I was waving a dead chicken whenever I was drafting an objection based on this approach, and never obtained very satisfactory results.

    Another approach is based on a somewhat contrived reading of Art. 60 EPC.

    There are outspoken critics of either approach.

    In the end, examiners just muddle through. And we’re not even talking about situations (a) or (b), the ones your were alluding to in your question. These are the least problematic in comparison.

  7. 42

    “With the help of a chemist, he eventually created brightly hued bubbles that disappeared without a trace in less than half an hour.”

    Lulz, I think they mean the chemist created them and he took the credit.

  8. 41

    “http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704266504575142170324994044.html”

    There are nice false advertising statutes in VA. I looked them up, and man it covers just about anything. Actual damages or 500$ statutory. Your choice!

  9. 40

    Let’s start this simply:

    Does the EPO knowingly issue two patents on the same invention to two different applicants?

    Knowingly?

    And, if not, why not?

    What happens if they do, by mistake. What do they do?

  10. 38

    No takers on the C&C argument?

    No takers on the scandalous lack O control Office process that leads to an ungodly PTA award?

    No champions willin ta speak up, eh?

  11. 37

    Please spend 10 seconds going to

    Soooo, howz come the ones responsible for searching cant find this – hey Maxie, that includes the vaunted EP search machine – whats going on here?

  12. 36

    It was indeed a pleasure

    blah blah blah – so ya found someone who was nice ta ya.

    Wont last.

  13. 35

    And I’m not a chemist either

    …and obviously not someone familiar with patents, either.

    LOLOL right back atcha

  14. 33

    Just when he thought he’d succeeded, he’d failed again. Washable wasn’t good enough. He needed color that disappeared on its own, that would never stain any surface it touched.

    There was a Wall Street Journal article within the last couple weeks discussing the legions of pixxed off parents who trying to remove the stains left by these colored bubbles.

  15. 31

    Maybe, what could have happened was that this guy and his partner really did invent something new but ended up trying to patent something larger in scope than they invented.

    That is, they invented a soap bubble with uniform colour where the colour disappears and does not stain after the bubble pops. But what they patented was a method to create coloured bubbles.

    If that was indeed what they did, then that’ll be a shame. I should read the claims in more detail.

  16. 30

    I’m not sure what they claimed in the patent. I referred to what they claimed in the article. Here’s a small citation to what the inventor, Tim Kehoe, was trying to accomplish but couldn’t until he met his partner.


    Just when he thought he’d succeeded, he’d failed again. Washable wasn’t good enough. He needed color that disappeared on its own, that would never stain any surface it touched. But in the history of organic chemistry, no one had ever created a water-soluble dye that disappeared on its own. And Kehoe, despite his years of tinkering, was no chemist.

  17. 29

    PS DIP,

    It was indeed a pleasure having a discussion in which one’s position was not turned inside out and obfuscated to play hide the meaning like certain other posters with all capital names are want to do.

    Further your reference to shampoo did make me laugh, as the opaqueness of shampoo bubbles do tend to seem uniformly white.

    Can I quibble that white is not a true color (rather a full visible light spectrum reflection)?

    Again, a pleasure, and I look forward to more discussions.

  18. 28

    “(As in, if an anonymous blog commenter can post possible 102a art in 30 seconds, you might be in trouble.)”

    A problem that gets worse and worse with every day.

  19. 27

    Ned, on “double patenting”, I should clarify, and damp down your excitement. Fair is thinking only about thickets grown out of a single filing event ie proliferations of divisional filings.

    Article 56 EPC prohibits any claim that embraces subject matter that is obvious. Why do we need a novelty provision in addition? Why, to stop an applicant “patenting the state of the art”. Why does Article 54(3) EPC include the entire information and disclosure content of all the earlier filings also of the Applicant itself, as full-blown novelty attacks on any claim? To stop Applicant re-patenting the same subject matter.

    If Applicant wants to spend the huge money involved in growing thickets of divisionals, where’s the harm? The English and Dutch courts have been faced with such abuse many times (the egregious cases are the ones on subject matter juicy enough to litigate). In short order, they call out the abuse, and send the abuser packing. If only the patent judges in other EPC jurisdictions had comparable resolve, there would be no problem.

    The dubious divisionals, the ones that are a “stretch” to cover stuff with no corresponding written description in the parent, are quite simple to weed out, using Art 123(2) EPC (prosecution amendment has had the effect of adding matter to the parent).

    Fairfly, are you an EPO Examiner, resentful of Appicants who persist in filing one divisional after another, all on the same invention? Relax. These Applicants are remitting the fees that pay your salary, and those divisionals are easy to dispose of, aren’t they? You get only one point for an Allowance, but two for a refusal. Enjoy.

  20. 26

    Pleasure chatting with you. Your high level of appropriateness is entertaining and educational to read.

    My hall of shame comment was hyperbole and was written after reading much of the Crayola obviousness arguments and seeing the dozen references filed in the ex-parte re-exam. Plus, I had just looked at the ingredients on my shampoo bottle which includes all of the claimed ingredients (claims 1-3 at least) and my bubbly lather sure looked uniformly white!

    I do understand why the voluminous IDS was filed (1.56), but was suprised at the low quaility of the citations. If you are going to go to the trouble of getting a patent isssued on a product your competitor is already selling, wouldn’t you want more on-point art to be of record? (As in, if an anonymous blog commenter can post possible 102a art in 30 seconds, you might be in trouble.) But yes, it remains very much the Office’s job to search, examine, and issue.

  21. 25

    Thank You PS DIP,

    I appreciate that you have located art that can be considered prior and be on point. That does appear to validate your contention that this is a “loser.”

    I am sure that opposing counsel, or even the Office may appreciate the reference in an ex parte submission.

    However, your supplied reference changes nothing of what I said. I am interested in what you think I said that was inappropriate, as I do try to not say inappropriate things (something far too few on these boards try).

    As far as 100+ references and your lack of understanding why they are included, it appears that you do not understand the IDS rules, the ability to use disparate art groups in obvious rejections, or the state of “inoculations” often deemed necessary in making things of record, or all of the above. It is far easier and far safer to include anything of knowledge to the applicant that in any conceivable manner may be put together to make a 103 type rejection. The inoculation against the patentee considering anything submitted as bearing on patentability and, in this case, the submission being in reverse chronological order – not haphazardly mixed to induce “hiding a needle,” all speak to proper prosecution. Further, no matter what is supplied by the applicant (which by the way included an EP search report), the actual responsibility for search and examination remains with the Office. Granted you seem to have a reference on point. But do consider that both the USPTO and the EPO missed that reference. Yet you still seem to be intent on panning the applicant.

    Now, having put all this forth, Ned is aware of how I feel concerning a registration system, and your ease of finding a reference would tend to validate my thoughts on that topic.

  22. 24

    New light, some of what you say is appropriate. Some is not. Unfortunately there is no edit or undo button here on PatentlyO. I still consider this patent a likely loser at CRU.

    Please spend 10 seconds going to link to worldwide.espacenet.com and paste in soap bubble pigment solution. Look at the 2nd of 3 references listed: JP2005028038 to see a soap bubble solution published prior to the filing date and not of record. The description states ‘the particle of the pigment disperses uniformly, it is possible to make the soap ball which does not have color unevenness’. (You do have to go to the JPO site for the free machine translation, an extra 20 seconds.)

    Regarding the art of record; I’m not sure why the applicant cited 100+ toothpaste compositions or why their presence makes the patent more or less anything.

  23. 22

    The EPO news release is not entirely truthful, to say the least, as it makes no mention of the surge in divisional applications resulting by the introduction of the new version of Rule 36.

    The rule now provides that a divisional can forthwith only be filed within two years after the filing of the earliest parent application, or after being invited by the examiner in a fresh non-unity objection. The rule’s concept and wording are fuzzy enough that it will probably require half a decade until the boards of appeal provide a reasonable interpretation, or virtually cancel it for all means and purposes.

    Since “divisionals” at the EPO are only rarely used for seeking protection for other bona fide inventions found in the original disclosure, but rather permit having several pending applications in the event the first application is seen unfavorably by the division. Some pathological cases have dozens of parallel pending applications having only slight variations in wording. The EPC by design has no rules prohibiting double patenting.

    The transitional period ended last October, resulting in a “last call” rush…

    Despite a solid financial situation, supplementary windfall revenues and all those speeches about backlogs and all that jazz hiring levels have been frozen for the last two years, and formalities officers are overburdened in the vain hope that they could be replaced by automation. More production will be expected from examiners thanks to all these patent examination highway and work sharing gimmicks.

  24. 21

    To start off, I have not read any of the references or the arguments lobbed back and forth, but there are some basics that seem to be misapplied here.

    so I honestly do not understand how a uniformly dispersed color is not an inherent feature of these known ingredient

    It appears that you are swayed because you simply do not understand that uniform color is not an inherent feature. I advise you to go the corner drug store and buy a fifty-nine cent bottle of children’s bubbles and blow a few. Uniformity is not an inherent characteristic. I understand enough of the physics of color and films to know that actually achieving a uniform color is in fact very difficult to do because indeed it is inherent to not be uniform. It is easy to be swayed by presentation when one lacks the underlying understanding.

    What have they added or subtracted to achieve uniform color (vol% of dye for example)? Why isn’t it in the claims?

    You are conflating enablement with claim language. All that is required in the claim is that which allows the claim to be inventive. That is captured in the single word “uniform.”

    For enablement, you need to look to the specification. I do not know if the specification is enabling of the claim. If it is not, then a 112 rejection is in order. To merely look at the claim and pronounce, as you have done, that this belongs in the Hall of Shame is indeed shameful. If you are involved in this area of law you should know better. If you are not involved, you need to investigate before making such comments. The impact of the comments reflect more on you than on this patent.

    The fact that so many Office actions and a fair amount of prior art was before the Office should be more indicative than merely reading the claim and saying, “that sounds obvious”.

  25. 19

    Fair enough Don Ho, I am not the person handling this case and uniform coloration is the crux of the invention (I actually did read the file wrapper and re-exam file wrapper – though not all 199 pages of Crayolas arguments).

    But the list of surfactants and dyes within claims 1-3 include most off the shelf soaps and easily available dyes, so I honestly do not understand how a uniformly dispersed color is not an inherent feature of these known ingredients. What have they added or subtracted to achieve uniform color (vol% of dye for example)? Why isn’t it in the claims?

    Look at the independent claim 13 and the pigment examples from the specification: They take water, ivory soap, glycerine [a known wetting agent], and dye. Heat and cool. Uniformly colored bubbles are created. All things dissolve better in water upon heating and children shouldn’t play with hot water, so we cool it. These are the verbatim ingredients in the Crayola cited 1904 newspaper clipping and several of the childrens activity books in the Re-Exam.

    Also, only a handful of the 250 facially cited references are pre-1970s (text search cut off point) and very few are non-patent literature. Shouldn’t that raise huge red flags for any patent litigator with their sights set upon a giant like Crayola? Especially if you are garnering a claim that doesn’t pass the proverbial pencil test.

  26. 18

    There are an additional 54 other references listed on the Patent.

    I am quite sure that DIP has not read these references, nor read the patent even before his general pronouncements that this patent merits a Hall of Shame nomination.

    The owner of Shame her is self evident.

  27. 16

    Um, they do not claim a ‘non-staining bubble’. They claim a uniformly colored bubble made with water, surfactant [soap], and colorant. This one would have made the ‘Wall of Shame’ back in the tunnels of Crystal City!

  28. 15

    DEAR CONGRESS,
    IF YOU DON’T PROTECT THE LITTLE POLY WOGS.. THERE WILL BE NO REASON TO ALLOW THE USPTO TO EXIST. AND THAT IS WHAT CHINA WANTS… AND YOU ALLOW THE SPECIAL INTERESTS TO BRING US CLOSER AND CLOSER UNTIL I FINALLY DISCOVER JUST HOW CLOSE WE ARE TO ANT RUIN. AND TO THE USPTO AND THE LAWYERS, YOU HAVE CONTINUALLY LIED TO ME.. AND EXPIRED MY STATUTES OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AND YOU CONTINUE TO ARGUE OVER THINGS THE CONSTITUTION HAS ALREADY DECIDED.
    TOO BAD I COPIED WHAT YOU HAVE ERASED. THIS TIME I COPIED IT BEFORE I MENTIONED IT.
    I KNOW WITH THE WORM YOU ARE LUCKY ENOUGH TO READ EVERYTHING I WRITE. SO I DON’T HAVE TO REPEAT WHAT I WROTE EARLIER…. IF I HAD A REALLY GOOD CAMERA I COULD CATCH THE PAGE BEFORE PATENTLY O. BECAUSE I DO SEE IT. WHAT DOES IT SAY … DOD? FOR YOUR EYES ONLY? LOL. WELL THIS IS FOR YOUR EARS ONLY. IF YOU ARE AN HONEST PATENT LAWYER AND NOT A SNAKE THEN THE ONLY THING TO DO IS FIRST TO INVENT. THERE IS NO OTHER AVENUE. IT IS ALREADY WRITTEN. DON’T MESS IT UP. BECAUSE IF YOU DO.. YOU MAY AS WELL JUST HAND OVER THE KEYS TO THE COUNTRY TO THE ANT FARM.. LIKE YOU HAVE HANDED MINE OVER TO ANYONE THAT WANTS TO GO IN MY HOUSE.
    AND I SEE YOU HAVE LOST ONE MORE NAIL IN MY COFFIN POKER STARS HAS FINALLY BEEN SHUT DOWN. NOW CONGRESS, MAYBE YOU SHOULD GET BUSY, NOW’S YOUR CHANCE, A SITE FOR AMERICANS ONLY. IMAGINE HOW MUCH MONEY YOU COULD GENERATE CHARGING 2.00 FOR EVERY DEPOSIT. COME ON NOW CHOP CHOP.. GET THE PEOPLES WORK DONE.AND BY THE WAY USE THAT TO PAY DOWN THE DEFICIT…

  29. 14

    The coloured bubbles might actually be a valid patent. It took the inventors 11 years to create it. I remember reading about it a few years ago. Look at the filing date, 2005!

    According to the inventors, it’s world’s first method of creating coloured bubbles that do not stain. Anyway, read more here:

    link to popsci.com

  30. 13

    Actual Inventor,

    Malcolm does not understand because he is an elitist. His comments and put-downs evince an attitude of disdain on any invention not in his particular art field and he simply does not care for “lesser” things, like ordinary inventors.

    His attitude is embodied in the Flash Of Genius school of thought that has been discredited time and again and that ignores the plain language both of the Constitutional Mandate and of the law that serves that Mandate. He is one of those that adds additional meaning to the word “Promote” and does not understand that the Mandate does not mean “promote if X” or “promote when Y”. Promote is a broad mandate because the nature of innovation is not linear and those that understand true and actual invention KNOW that inspiration is not a Flash of Genius but can come from the very minor inventions cascading into new and wonderful inventions. Malcolm’s ego is his own cage.

    Oh, and !!! Bilski 14 !!!

  31. 12

    What a silly game we play. It’s not Fulbrights ‘fault’ that nobody (applicant or examiner) strolled down to a local Elementary school library to find the half dozen books (with Dewey Decimal stickers attached) that disclose the use of soap, glycerin, and dye to make colored bubbles. What a waste of resources that Crayola had to do that (give them props for the 1904 newspaper clipping though).

  32. 11

    Malcolm Mooney said…”People have been selling colored bubble bath for decades.
    But the important thing to remember is that without patents on stuff like this, there would be no incentive for people to make and sell things that kids like.”

    Mooney there will always be incentive to invent. Thats human nature., mother of necessity and all. Inventions did not begin with the patent system. But with the Patent system the incentive to invent increases exponentially and that means more progress for all man kind. Understand now?

  33. 10

    I’m going to Fulbright’s offices in about an hour–maybe I should stop in and say hello to the prosecuting attorneys, and make some “that’s why they pay us the big bucks” jokes.

  34. 8

    Ya wanna know the chuckles here?

    Chuckles part 1:

    Of the roughly seven times that an examiner had a chance to actually comment on the record for any consideration of prior art, there be a total of FOUR pieces of prior art discussed.

    Four.

    So if Micro$oft has its way, that means that any challenger to the patent only has Clear and Convincing hurdle on those four pieces of prior art (in the Ned-O-gram world)?

    Chuckles part 2:

    On the Issue Notification page a whopping PTA of 1,148 days is recognized.

    One Thousand, One Hundred Fouty-eight Days.

    More than three flippin years of extended term.

  35. 7

    People have been selling colored bubble bath for decades.

    But the important thing to remember is that without patents on stuff like this, there would be no incentive for people to make and sell things that kids like.

  36. 6

    And yet none of those 200 references made obvious the combination of Ivory soap and Hydrus dye…

  37. 5

    Gotta keep cool now, gotta take care
    Last car to pass, here I go
    And the line of cars drove down real slow
    And the radio played that forgotten song
    Brenda Lee’s comin’ on strong
    And the newsman sang his same song
    Oh one more radar lover gone

  38. 2

    “Judge Randall Radar”?

    Lawrence, that is one thing you don’t want to screw up too often.

  39. 1

    For anyone that’s interested, I have a series of articles about the Walker Digital litigation. link to gametimeip.com

    Among the notable events, Walker received a number of seven-figure offers at the last Ocean Tomo auction for a covenant not to sue under specific sets of patents (representing a fraction of the portfolio). Security guru Bruce Schneier is a co-inventor on 8 of the 36 patents in suit, and more than 130 companies are sued in total.

Comments are closed.