The Invent Blog®

Follow up to earlier post. Erik J. Heels on: USPTO Patent URLs Still Broken–But at least the USPTO is now acknowledging its mistake.

Three lawyer’s are riding to court together one day and, unfortunately, are killed in a horrible traffic accident.

When they reach the pearly gates, St. Peter welcomes them in turn, and says to the first “welcome to heaven. Can you tell me what you did while you were on earth?”, to which he replied “I was a divorce lawyer, and tried to help couples who had difficulties in their relationship”. Well, St. Peter thought about this and said “I see, you were taking advantage of people who were willing to pay anything to get back at their partner”, and he swiftly pulled the lever dropping the hapless lawyer into everlasting hell.

Along comes the second lawyer, and of course St. Peter asks the same thing, the reply being “I was a personal injury attorney, trying to assist those who had been unfairly injured”. St. Peter just said “Ah yes, that’s what we call an ambulance chaser up here”, and sent him to the same fiery fate as the first attorney.

Alas, finally the third attorney approaches and tells St. Peter he was a patent attorney. St. Peter says “come on in!” and shows him to heaven’s finest suite, just to the right of God, the most lovely angels in attendance, you get the picture. After a few minutes of this, the patent lawyer finally asks “but St. Peter, you’ve sent my friends to a fiery eternity, but you welcome me?” “Ah” says St. Peter, “but you’re a patent attorney, you don’t know enough law to hurt anybody!”

The comments are open if you have other patent attorney jokes to share…

Jason Romrell and the Real Estate Finance Law blog. Covering everything you need to know about real estate finance law, problems (such as growing defaults, increased foreclosures, fraud, etc.) and creative solutions.

Erik J. Heels: Uncool: USPTO Breaks Millions Of Patent URLs Without Public Notice

Charleston Daily Mail on PTI (Patent and Trademark Institute of America) being under investigation:

…PTI and its other promotion businesses have received $61 million from 17,007 customers over six years, yet “PTI has not obtained a license for even one of its clients,” according to court papers filed by the receiver, which has taken control of the companies. They are now effectively out of operation…

As most of you have probably seen, Microsoft recently released Office 2007. I was one of the beta testers…and found the new version to have its ups and downs. For “ups” I really like the changes to Outlook, for instance better integrating to-do lists into the email pane. For “downs” I found the new XML file format annoying (dreading file conversion nightmares, clients who can’t open files, etc.) and, probably most annoying, how the menus and tabs were rearranged (what a pain to have to hunt around to find the function you want). Neither are real deal killers…and I’ll be upgrading soon from Office 2003 to Office 2007.

I beta test software for fun…I’ll install and try anything. No rewards needed…I just enjoy trying new things.

Thus, you can imagine my surprise when I received a package from Microsoft yesterday. The letter in the package from Microsoft noted that:

…we appreciate all of the hard work that our Technology Adoption Program and technical Beta testers have contributed to the 2007 Office system technical Beta. We learned a great deal from all of you…

The Office product team wishes to express our sincere gratitude for the work you put into this effort and the bugs which were exposed through your testing. Enclosed, please find a small token of our appreciation for the time and effort you gave as a technical Beta tester. We hope you will display it proudly and realize how very much we appreciate you…

Any guesses as to what the “token” is?

Since they want me to “display it proudly”…why not do it here on my blog? I’ve created a PDF showing it off: Token of Our Appreciation [PDF]

ConsumerAffairs.com: “FTC Charges Invention Promotion Swindlers with Contempt–Feds Say Scam Took More Than $60 Million from 17,000 Consumers”

A court order issued in 1998 prohibited Julian Gumpel, Darrell Mormando, and Greg Wilson from deceptively marketing invention promotion services, but Gumpel later revived the same scam under the name, “Patent and Trademark Institute of America” (PTI), the FTC charged.

Parties involved:  “Technical Lithographers Inc., d/b/a Patent and Trademark Institute of America (PTI), United Licensing Corporation, International Patent Advisors Inc., Datatech Consulting Inc., International Product Marketing Inc., Unicorp Consulting Inc., d/b/a/ UNI Corp. Inc, Azure Communications Inc., London Communications Inc., and International Licensing Corporation, Inc.”

The article mentions that “On March 9, the court issued an order to show cause” why the Defendants should not be held in contempt.  A hearing has apparently been scheduled for April 30.

However, I ran a PACER search…closest case (same parties) I could find was 1:07-mc-00003-GBL-TCB (Eastern District of Virginia), but that case is listed as “closed.”  If anyone has additional information, please let me know.

Blawg Review celebrates its 100th issue (Blawg Review #100) recapping the past 100.  My favorite, Blawg Review #58…I just really digged the layout that Kevin Heller came up with.

I’m looking forward to next Feburary 11 (Edison’s Birthday) when The Invent Blog will be hosting Blawg Review #148.

Matt Homann has invited me (we’re speaking together at ABA’s TechShow next week) and my Chicago readers to join him “and a bunch of legal bloggers for the First Annual Techshow Blogger Bar Crawl.”

Starts: Mar 22, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Ends: Mar 23, 2007 at 1:00 am
Location: Sheraton Hotel and Towers (START), 301 E North Water St # 1, Chicago, 60611

It is TECHSHOW time again, and we are going to bring together Legal Bloggers and a bunch of our non-lawyer Chicago blogging buddies for a night of collaboration, communication, blog-talk and beer!

Venue information will follow, but we’ll start out at the Sheraton Lobby at 7:00 pm and hit 4-5 bars within walking distance of each other. The schedule will be enforced, so if you can’t join us at the beginning, you’ll know where to find us in the middle (or the end)!

Cost is FREE. See you in Chicago!

If you can make it, sign up here: First Annual Techshow Blogger Bar Crawl. I look forward to meeting some of you!

I previously posted on:
First Round of Accelerated Examination Applications…100% denied?
Pro-Accelerated Examination Insight from a Reader
More thoughts on Accelerated Examination
Accelerated Examination Webinar…my notes
Accelerated Examination of Patents. Good idea? Bad?

Now the USPTO has allowed its first one:

USPTO Grants First Patent Under New Accelerated Review Option
Patent Issues in 6 Months, 18 Months Sooner Than Under Regular Process

The Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued the first patent under its accelerated examination program that began in August 2006. The patent, for a printer ink gauge, was filed with the USPTO on September 29, 2006, and was awarded to Brother, Inc on March 13, 2007. Average review time for applications in the ink cartridge technology area is 25.4 months. This patent issued in 6 months, a time savings of 18 months for the patent holder.

“Accelerated examination allows any innovator in any technology to get a full patent review and decision within twelve months,” noted Jon Dudas, under secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property. In return for cutting the time to obtain a patent decision by 25-75%, the agency asks the applicant for a better application and process. Inventors who want speedy results can get them, so long as they help improve the process.”

To be eligible for accelerated examination, applicants are required to provide specific information, known as an examiner support document, so that review of the application can be completed rapidly and accurately. In return, the USPTO issues a final decision by the examiner within 12 months on whether their application for a patent will be granted or denied.

Any invention that is new, useful, non-obvious, and which is accompanied by a written description disclosing how to make and use it can be patented. Applicants’ submissions enjoy a presumption of patentability. Thus, to reject an application the USPTO is responsible for ensuring that any evidence indicating that the invention is not new or is obvious (known as “prior art”) is identified and explaining why the invention is not patentable in view of the evidence.

Applicants have a duty to disclose to the USPTO relevant prior art of which they are aware. However, applicants are not required to search for prior art. Under the USPTO’s accelerated examination procedure, applicants are required to conduct a search of the prior art, to submit all prior art that is closest to their invention, and explain what the prior art teaches and how their invention is different.

In addition to providing and explaining any prior art references, applicants must explicitly state how their invention is useful and must show how the written description supports the claimed invention.

Under the accelerated examination program, the number of claims allowed in each application is limited and time periods for responding to most USPTO communications are shortened.

The accelerated examination procedure is designed to give applicants quality patents in less time. In exchange for quick examination, patent examiners will receive more focused and detailed information about the invention and the closest prior art from the applicants. This increased disclosure upfront by applicants will help examiners more quickly make the correct decision about whether a claimed invention deserves a patent.

[Source: www.USPTO.gov main page (which changes regularly).]

I still don’t see how the risk (and other issues mentioned in my posts above) is offset by the earlier issuance, but I’m glad to see it worked for someone…