This is all over the blog world and the patent world right now, so I'm sure it's not news to anyone frequenting this LJ comm...but apparently all gene patents are now invalid. ;)
So does anyone know what the going rate is to get a prior art search? I'm working on trying to price out my own services and don't really have a good guide to go from.
Does anyone know if a post to a friends-locked LJ counts as 102(b) prior art, assuming a small group of friends (under 50)? Seems like an interesting question, and one that's actually relevant to something I'm working on.
The USPTO filed its brief, requesting CAFC review of the lower court decision in Tafas v. Dudas.
The PTO's primary argument is that the lower court's interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 2(b) is incorrect. That is, the PTO does have the requisite rulemaking authority for the new continuation rules.
If my understanding is correct, section 2(b) allows the PTO to make rules and regulations that govern procedural aspects of obtaining a patent, but the PTO has no legislative rulemaking authority, i.e. the Office cannot make any rules that would (a) abridge a substantive property right, or (b) the responsibility of Congress. I realize I'm reading a lot into the "not inconsistent with law" proviso in section 2(b), of course.
Since limiting the number of continuations does affect a substantive (if prospective) property right, how is the PTO going to win on this argument, if at all?
Totally lacking in relevance to anything in this community, but I passed the PTO's registration exam today. Go me! :) I should have done it ages ago, but I'm really lazy...er, something more important always came up.
In this OA, the Examiner cites the publication of the app under examination as prior art.
I'm not sure which is worse: the app being cited against itself or the fact that some of the claims are considered to only be obvious in light of the reference.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a final rule notice in the Federal Register to revise the rules of practice in patent cases relating to continuing applications and requests for continued examination practices, and for the examination of claims in patent applications. See Changes to Practice for Continued Examination Filings, Patent Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims, and Examination of Claims in Patent Applications, 72 Fed. Reg. 46716 (Aug. 21, 2007) (Claims and Continuations Final Rule). The final rule notice published in the Federal Register indicates that the effective date for the changes to the rules of practice in the Claims and Continuations Final Rule is November 1, 2007.
On October 31, 2007, the United States District Court for the Eastern District Court of Virginia, however, issued a Preliminary Injunction enjoining the USPTO from implementing the changes in the Claims and Continuations Final Rule. Therefore, the changes to the rules of practice in the Claims and Continuations Final Rule will not go into effect on November 1, 2007.
USPTO employees are to continue processing and examining patent applications under the rules and procedures in effect on October 31, 2007, until further notice."
"I have just received word from John White, who is at the hearing in the Eastern District of Virginia, that GlaxoSmithKline has prevailed and that the Patent Office has been enjoined from making the the Final Rules on claims and continuations effective. The status quo previals [sic]!"
So who else is doing the happy dance right about now? ;)
ETA: Apparently, the parties are on their way over to the Federal Circuit for an emergency appeal. This should be interesting...
ETA2: I can't decide whether to laugh or cry at some of the ineptitude the PTO is showing in this case. Details here.
This is a bit obscure, but I am wondering if a Non-US citizen can file a DMCA notification. Or if someone can file a DMCA notification and use a Non-US mailing address.
