Tags |
|
|
Links |
|
|
Member You - Preparation of Claim Chart
Wouldnt it be nice if you could just take a simple test to resolve your conflicts and have proper conflict resolution? A multiple choice test would be the best:1. The person you are in conflict with is?a. Controllingb. Indecisivec. DemeaningJust choose letter A, B or C and you magically uncover the solutions to all your conflict problems.How great and easy would that be!p>3) a green cogscreen
Widget apparatus:
Yes (col 1, line 10)
Yes (col 1, line 12)
No (but there is a blue cogscreen at col 7, line 10)
Widget subassembly
No.
No.
Yes (col 9, line 12)
This chart supports a rejection of claim 1 as obvious over A in view of 'B.
The most useful automating tool that I have found is the shareware program that takes a draft specification and produces reports of the numbered items referred to in the claims and produces reports with respect to the same. It saves time in producing a Sec. 112 check.
How much really can you say about working from home. I mean, the home based business model has been around for decades and has created more self made millionaires in the last decade than any other single industry. What is there to know about those who work from home and why they do it and what their mentality is? Those who work at home really enjoy a lifestyle that maybe 3% of most people enjoy. There is a huge gap between the conventional
Second, use an arrow after a dependent claim to show what claim it is dependent from.
Third, use the PTO check mark and equal signs (from the file wrapper claim chart format) to indicate rejected or allowed claims. "=" means allowed, "./" (the closest can get to a check mark here) means rejected.
Fourth, draw the claim chart veritcally on the inside of the file wrapper (in the margin) this way you get a road map of the claims during reviewing the case.
Miscellaneous notations might be added to remind you about the scope of the claims or other notes. e.g., "A" for apparatus, "M" for method, "o" for objected to, etc.
Example: A ten claim case with 3 independent claims might have a chart like this:
A (1) ./
2 -> 1 =
3 -> 1 ./
4 -> 3 =
M (5) =
6 -> 5 =
7 -> 6 =
A (8) ./
9 -> 8 o
10 -> 9 o
In day-to-day analysis of claims, people use the this type of claim tree as a way to visualize the analysis especially for complex claim structures.
For example, in an application with 100+ claims and an extended prosecution history (e.g., with many canceled, revised, and newly added claims), a visual depiction of the dependency structure of the claims (e.g. using a tree structure similar to Windows Explorer) can be invaluable. Some people take a further step of annotating the tree structure to reflect the content of the claim and any references cited against the claim.
Another approach for making claim chart is a two-column table in every legitimate patent infringement analysis. In the left column are each and every limitation of the patented invention. In the right column is either a "yes" or "no" answer as to whether that limitation is present in the accused device or method. For example, an accused device and a claim chart are presented below:
Robert's validity chart is not only useful for 102 analyses, but also 103 analyses, particularly the combining references type. Consider
Claim 1
Reference 'A
Reference B
A widget apparatus, comprising:
1) a frobosinator,
2) a pixilator, and
3) a green cogscreen
Widget apparatus:
Yes (col 1, line 10)
Yes (col 1, line 12)
No (but there is a blue cogscreen at col 7, line 10)
Widget subassembly
No.
No.
Yes (col 9, line 12)
This chart supports a rejection of claim 1 as obvious over A in view of 'B.
The most useful automating tool that I have found is the shareware program that takes a draft specification and produces reports of the numbered items referred to in the claims and produces reports with respect to the same. It saves time in producing a Sec. 112 check.
Law firm marketing is comprised of many different elements. The analysis of your firm in law practice management can be complex, however, lets begin with a key success variable your current client base. Managing your client base is the most important aspect of your law firm marketing efforts. I suggest you begin with grading your clients.The ABCD SolutionIn looking at your client base for law firm marketing purposes,
Miscellaneous notations might be added to remind you about the scope of the claims or other notes. e.g., "A" for apparatus, "M" for method, "o" for objected to, etc.
Example: A ten claim case with 3 independent claims might have a chart like this:
A (1) ./
2 -> 1 =
3 -> 1 ./
4 -> 3 =
M (5) =
6 -> 5 =
7 -> 6 =
A (8) ./
9 -> 8 o
10 -> 9 o
In day-to-day analysis of claims, people use the this type of claim tree as a way to visualize the analysis especially for complex claim structures.
For example, in an application with 100+ claims and an extended prosecution history (e.g., with many canceled, revised, and newly added claims), a visual depiction of the dependency structure of the claims (e.g. using a tree structure similar to Windows Explorer) can be invaluable. Some people take a further step of annotating the tree structure to reflect the content of the claim and any references cited against the claim.
Another approach for making claim chart is a two-column table in every legitimate patent infringement analysis. In the left column are each and every limitation of the patented invention. In the right column is either a "yes" or "no" answer as to whether that limitation is present in the accused device or method. For example, an accused device and a claim chart are presented below:
Robert's validity chart is not only useful for 102 analyses, but also 103 analyses, particularly the combining references type. Consider
Claim 1
Reference 'A
Reference B
A widget apparatus, comprising:
1) a frobosinator,
2) a pixilator, and
3) a green cogscreen
Widget apparatus:
Yes (col 1, line 10)
Yes (col 1, line 12)
No (but there is a blue cogscreen at col 7, line 10)
Widget subassembly
No.
No.
Yes (col 9, line 12)
This chart supports a rejection of claim 1 as obvious over A in view of 'B.
The most useful automating tool that I have found is the shareware program that takes a draft specification and produces reports of the numbered items referred to in the claims and produces reports with respect to the same. It saves time in producing a Sec. 112 check.
Who invented the first portable lighting tower?This depends largely on your definition of a lighting tower. A broad definition could include something as simple as a candle or primitive torch placed on a tall mast to cast light over a large area, such a device has probably been in use since the Stone Age.In more recent history its un-clear as to when the modern lighting tower was invented. Researching pate
For example, in an application with 100+ claims and an extended prosecution history (e.g., with many canceled, revised, and newly added claims), a visual depiction of the dependency structure of the claims (e.g. using a tree structure similar to Windows Explorer) can be invaluable. Some people take a further step of annotating the tree structure to reflect the content of the claim and any references cited against the claim.
Another approach for making claim chart is a two-column table in every legitimate patent infringement analysis. In the left column are each and every limitation of the patented invention. In the right column is either a "yes" or "no" answer as to whether that limitation is present in the accused device or method. For example, an accused device and a claim chart are presented below:
Robert's validity chart is not only useful for 102 analyses, but also 103 analyses, particularly the combining references type. Consider
Claim 1
Reference 'A
Reference B
A widget apparatus, comprising:
1) a frobosinator,
2) a pixilator, and
3) a green cogscreen
Widget apparatus:
Yes (col 1, line 10)
Yes (col 1, line 12)
No (but there is a blue cogscreen at col 7, line 10)
Widget subassembly
No.
No.
Yes (col 9, line 12)
This chart supports a rejection of claim 1 as obvious over A in view of 'B.
The most useful automating tool that I have found is the shareware program that takes a draft specification and produces reports of the numbered items referred to in the claims and produces reports with respect to the same. It saves time in producing a Sec. 112 check.
"I respect those who know their own wishes. The greatest part of all the mischief in the world arises from the fact that many do not sufficiently understand their own aims. They have undertaken to build a tower, and spend no more labor on the foundation than would be necessary to erect a hut." Johann Wolfgang von GoetheOver the years we've been involved in too many "vernacular engineering" debates as management teams argue about w
Robert's validity chart is not only useful for 102 analyses, but also 103 analyses, particularly the combining references type. Consider
Claim 1
Reference 'A
Reference B
A widget apparatus, comprising:
1) a frobosinator,
2) a pixilator, and
3) a green cogscreen
Widget apparatus:
Yes (col 1, line 10)
Yes (col 1, line 12)
No (but there is a blue cogscreen at col 7, line 10)
Widget subassembly
No.
No.
Yes (col 9, line 12)
This chart supports a rejection of claim 1 as obvious over A in view of 'B.
The most useful automating tool that I have found is the shareware program that takes a draft specification and produces reports of the numbered items referred to in the claims and produces reports with respect to the same. It saves time in producing a Sec. 112 check.
Do you believe in coincidences? Well, as I was writing this article, I got an email from past colleague.The last time we "talked" was by email 2 years ago. And yet, when I got her email today, I was delighted to hear from her (even though she was writing to ask me for something).We lose touch with people all the time -- in our professional lives and personal lives -- for various reasons.For example, this year, with the
Widget apparatus:
Yes (col 1, line 10)
Yes (col 1, line 12)
No (but there is a blue cogscreen at col 7, line 10)
Widget subassembly
No.
No.
Yes (col 9, line 12)
This chart supports a rejection of claim 1 as obvious over A in view of 'B.
The most useful automating tool that I have found is the shareware program that takes a draft specification and produces reports of the numbered items referred to in the claims and produces reports with respect to the same. It saves time in producing a Sec. 112 check. For the most part, I have found analysis of claims not to be terribly difficult to do with human eyeball, but can see massive problems in trying to do them automatically, making it a project unsuitable for automation, because the cost/benefit ratio seems unfavorable. On the other hand, while this is certainly true for novelty searches, where you compare the claims of your application with the teachings of the prior art, where you pretty much ignore the claims, it may not be so true for a validity search, where you compare the claims of many patents with the accused device.
HTTP = HTML link (for blogs, profiles,phorums):
<a href="http://www.memberyou.net/article/32964/memberyou-Preparation-of-Claim-Chart.html">Preparation of Claim Chart</a>
BB link (for phorums):
[url=http://www.memberyou.net/article/32964/memberyou-Preparation-of-Claim-Chart.html]Preparation of Claim Chart[/url]
Related Articles:
Protecting Your Assets - Choosing the Right Electronic Security Solutions and Suppliers
Traveling Safe when on International Business
Getting a Job Offer From A Company in Canada
Bookmark it:
|