The second way to improve the USPTO.gov website would be to double check all of the information provided as facts.

For example, the Full-Text Database FAQ (among other pages) notes that (emphasis added):

Patents from January 1976 to the present offer the full searchable text, including all bibliographic data, such as the inventor’s name, the patent’s title, and the assignee’s name; the abstract; the full description of the invention; and the claims….

Patents from 1790 to December 1975 offer only the patent number, issue date, and current US patent classification in the text display, and can be searched only within those fields. However, this limited text display also includes a hyperlink to obtain full-page images of all pages of the patent.

While the page says that only patents January 1976 to the present are full text, a little digging reveals that the first full-text patent is U.S. Patent No. 3,555,944, issued January 19, 1971.

However, a quick review of the first design patent issued in 1976 (D238,315) reveals that it is not full text.  Odd.

The solution would be to update that FAQ page (and everywhere else the topic is discussed) with the actual patent numbers and/or coverage of the Full-Text Database.

Update (2010.07.27):  In digging through some old notes, I previously noted that the earliest full-text patent was 3,572,436.  Perhaps they are slowly working backwords through the database…

Jul 232010
 

A couple post-Bilski podcasts to link to:

  • Patents in the Supreme Court: Bilski v. Kappos – A “panel podcast/debate” between Professor John Duffy (George Washington Law School) and David Olson (Boston College Law School), moderated by Professor Adam Mossoff (George Mason School of Law).
  • This Week in Law – Episode 68 – “Whiz Bang Click” – “Bilski decision and the validity of business method patents, improving the Patent Office, finding relevant prior art, and more.”  Host: Denise Howell, Guests: Erik Heels, J. Matthew Buchanan and Stephen Nipper.
 

Pharma Patents blog on Three Easy Solutions to the McKesson Problem.

 

This really is the best summary of 35 U.S.C. §101 caselaw as it relates to software and/or business method patents:

@erikjheels on:  A Mere Mortal’s Guide To Patents Post-Bilski (Or Why §101 Is A Red Herring)

Bookmark it.

 

I’ll be on This Week in Law (video podcast) this Friday, along with J. Matt Buchanan (Promote the Progress blog) discussing Bilski and whatever other interesting topics come up.

If you have any topics to suggest:

Watch/listen in online:  http://live.twit.tv/

When:  Friday, July 9th at 11 a.m. Pacific/noon Mountain/1 p.m. Central/2 p.m. Eastern

 

I doubt any readers of this blog don’t know that the Supreme Court decided In re Bilski on Monday.

Rather than summarize the case like every other patent blog…I’ll link to what everyone else is saying:

 

Back in the “ReThink(IP)” days, we had a frequent meme called “Things we hate about uspto.gov.” Sadly, most of those “things” are still issues.

I thought it might be fun to revisit that list (and expand on it) via a series of posts here that I will tag with “uspto” and “feedback”. Perhaps the new, friendlier USPTO will fix some of them. We can only hope.

—————-

Issue:  TESS times out on a user if the user stops using it for a very short period of time. While that, itself, is quite annoying (I can’t think of any other website I use that tells me that my session has “timed out”), the REAL annoying part is that the time out page doesn’t return you to the TESS search page. Instead, it dumps you back to the USPTO home page, requiring the user to navigate back to the TESS search page.

Solution: Return the user to the TESS landing page so they can continue searching.

 

Via this press release, the USPTO and Google have teamed up to distribute bulk USPTO data via a Google page:  http://www.google.com/googlebooks/uspto.html.

The good news:  easier access to USPTO data.

The bad news:  it is BULK data.  Don’t expect it to be sexy, or easy to access/use.

Let’s hope that Google (or someone else) starts doing some cool things with the BULK data…

Thoughts?  The comments are open.

 

Per the press release:

USPTO Launches Page on Facebook

Agency’s profile will deliver the latest news, photos and videos from the USPTO

Washington – The Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today launched its official page on Facebook. Intended to engage the public and the intellectual property community directly and provide real-time information, the USPTO’s page on Facebook will offer a series of regular updates from the Agency on a range of issues, and gives Facebook users the chance to comment on, discuss, and offer feedback to the USPTO about announcements and initiatives. The page can be found at www.facebook.com/uspto.gov.

“Technology has profoundly impacted the way we all consume information and communicate with one another,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos.  “I’m confident our Facebook presence will complement the USPTO Web site as a means of communicating and connecting with the public and our stakeholders in the intellectual property community.  With more than 400 million people on Facebook, we knew it was an important place for us to be.”

The USPTO’s page on Facebook will not replace the Agency’s Web site (www.uspto.gov) as the official source of USPTO information.   Rather, the Facebook page will provide a new channel for the public to connect with the USPTO.

In addition to communicating directly with the USPTO, Facebook users can expect to see an array of content and information, including press releases, posts from Director Kappos’ “Director’s Forum” blog, event information, photos and video.

I. Claims 1-12, drawn to de-natured micronised type 1 native collagen,
classified in class 530, subclass 356.
II. Claim 13, drawn to a method of wound healing, classified in class 424,
subclass 7S.06.
 

The problem:  If you perform a search engine search for a patent statute/rule, the USPTO’s copy of the statute/rule doesn’t appear in the search results.

  • Example:  Google search for 37 CFR 1.28.  In the results, the “bitlaw” copy of the rule is #1, and a number of pages on the USPTO’s website are #2 (none of which are the actual rule itself).

Why?  It’s a Search Engine Optimization (SEO) problem.

  • The actual USPTO page that includes Rule 1.28 has a title of “§ 1.28 Refunds when small entity status is later established; how errors in small entity status are excused. – Appendix R Patent Rules”.
  • The page itself, doesn’t include “37 CFR 1.28″ on it.

The fix?

  • Rename the page “37 CFR § 1.28 Refunds when small entity status is later established; how errors in small entity status are excused. – Appendix R Patent Rules”
  • Include “37 CFR 1.28″ on the page itself, preferably towards the top of the page.

I bet that making that simple change would make the USPTO’s page for the Rule show up at the top of the search results.

Agree?  Disagree?  The comments are open…

[update (2010.05.13):  Someone asked me "why does it matter?"  The answer to that question is that people tend to default to what is easy to find (e.g., the bitlaw copies of the regulations/statutes).   Instead, they should (to make sure the information they are using is the most current and accurate) always default to the USPTO copies of the information.

In my opinion, the USPTO needs to take steps to "try" to be #1 in Internet searches for its own source materials so as to satisfy its statutory duty to disseminate patent/trademark information to the public, particularly where the fix is so simple.]

© 2012 The Invent Blog Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha