patent » The Invent Blog

Patent Reexamination Numbers and PatFT, part II

Jan 142009

The USPTO PatFT page for Patent Number Search lists three examples for reexamination patent numbering:

Re-examination — RX29,194 RE29183 RE00125

However, if you type in those three “example” numbers into the search box, you get a “PN/RX29,194: 0 patents” error and two reissue patents. It is odd that the USPTO examples aren’t valid…

Anyone know of a valid re-examination number (for a project I’m working on)?

Mike Brown, in a comment, noted that “I was recently working on a re-examination, and needed to find examples. The easiest way is to search by serial number – use the “90? series for ex-parte re-examinations, and “95? series for inter-partes. For example: APN/90005727 is an ex-parte case, APN/95000050 is an inter-partes.”

However, it still didn’t answer the exact question I had. So, for my project…I dug deeper.

Once a reexamination has been concluded, the Patent Office issues a “Certificate of Reexamination” that denotes how the issued patent was corrected by the reexamination. That “Certificate of Reexam.” is then attached to the original patent’s images (but not full text) on the USPTO site. Example: USPN 5,108,388.

Frustratingly, I still ask two questions:

1. Why does the PatFT give examples for reexaminations that are either null (RX29,194) or are for reissues (RE29183, RE00125)?

2. What is a valid reissue [reexamination] number (for use on PatFT or even PAIR)? Is the PatFT page in error for listing examples? Is there another way to search?

Some example reexamination numbers…in case one of you can figure it out (from the “U.S. Patent Number Guide” generated by Michael White):

Ex Parte Reexamination #1 relates to USPN 4,104,156
Ex Parte Reexamination #7864 relates to USPN 5,343,123
Inter Parte Reexamination #1 relates to USPN 6,232,427
Inter Parte Reexamination #118 relates to USPN 6,696,316

Perhaps I should just ask Mr. White…

Update. Mr. White replied to me, noting that:

I have no idea what these so-called “example” re-examination numbers are. They are definitely not reexamination numbers. As far as I know, there is no way to search reexamination application serial numbers in PatFT. Reexamination certificates are not OCRed or indexed. (A standing complaint among professional patent searchers.) Their numbers are not searchable in the APN field. You can only retrieve them by retrieving the patent document to which they’re attached. Obviously, the person who put together these “helpful” examples was not familiar with PTO documents or data. (Probably a contractor.)

However, rexam serial numbers are searchable in Public/Private PAIR using the format “90nnnnnn” for ex parte and “95nnnnnn” for inter partes. There appear to be PAIR records for ex partes back to the mid 1980s but file wrapper documents are only available from ~2003 forward.

PatentMarvel.com – PDF Patent Copies

IP Law Practice 1 Response »

Jan 062009

New PDF Patent Downloader — PatentMarvel.com.

Added it to my Guide to Downloading Patent Copies (PDF).

Patents on Electronic Games

Historical & Interesting 1 Response »

Dec 292008

Very cool article on patents on electronic games (e.g., Simon, Atari 2600). See: Patentmania: The Golden Age of Electronic Games | Technologizer.

[Via Gizmodo]

Need MCLE credit? Use your .mp3 player.

Business & Tech Tips Comments Off

Dec 142008

For those of you whom need MCLE credit before February, one option is downloading .mp3′s from the Practicing Law Institute. A link to filtered results of just the Intellectual Property seminars is here: http://www.pli.edu/product/mp3s.asp. [Which you can sort to filter the intellectual property ones to the top]

You’d have to ask your tax guru, but it might just make that iPod you’ve always wanted a business expense…

Promote the Progress Blog adds two new patent caselaw RSS feeds

Lawsuits/Laws/Rules Comments Off

Dec 102008

Matt Buchanan over at the Promote the Progress Blog has added two new patent caselaw RSS feeds that include overview information for the latest patent opinions alongside a series of links that provide one click access to the opinion-related tools on his website, making it easy to explore the reviews you determine warrant more attention. You can even subscribe by email. Very cool! Link: http://promotetheprogress.com/feeds/

Searching by reexamination number

IP Law Practice, USPTO 3 Responses »

Dec 102008

The USPTO PatFT page for Patent Number Search lists three examples for reexamination patent numbering:

Re-examination — RX29,194 RE29183 RE00125

However, if you type in those three “example” numbers into the search box, you get a “PN/RX29,194: 0 patents” error and two reissue patents. It is odd that the USPTO examples aren’t valid…

Anyone know of a valid re-examination number (for a project I’m working on)?

New patent tool: PatentSurf

IP Law Practice, USPTO 1 Response »

Nov 262008

New patent tool to check out…PatentSurf.

You type in a patent number(s) in the search box and the site creates a surfable display of related patents. Interesting…

SImple, yet nicely done. Definitely worth checking out.

I just want someone to buy my idea from me…

Info For Inventors 3 Responses »

Oct 242008

I just read Marc Warnke on Entrepreneurism is not a Lottery Ticket. He nailed it right on the head. It is not a lottery ticket.

The analogy I use in explaining it to clients is that an idea is like a recipe for barbecue sauce. KC Masterpiece has no interest in your recipe…they have zillions of their own. BUT, if you take that recipe and build a business around it (e.g., catering, restaurant, bottling sauce for stores), THEN you have something that someone else would want to buy. [yes, there are exceptions to this rule, but in my experience it is generally true]

It reminds me of Guy Kawasaki’s post on “Defensibility” wherein he discusses his belief that startups overvalue the fact they have a patent application pending (or patents issued). While Matt/Doug/Me’s wrote a response to Guy’s Defensibility post (which he posted), Guy’s points are valid.

Ideas are not (typically) lottery tickets, patents are not (typically) the most valuable thing a company owns.

Are Patent Drawings Public Domain?

IP Law Practice, USPTO Comments Off

Sep 302008

“Patents are published as part of the terms of granting the patent to the inventor. Subject to limited exceptions reflected in 37 CFR 1.71(d) & (e) and 1.84(s), the text and drawings of a patent are typically not subject to copyright restrictions.” See: http://www.uspto.gov/main/ccpubguide.htm

However:

37 CFR 1.84(s) Copyright or Mask Work Notice (§ 1.71(d) says generally the same thing).
“A copyright or mask work notice may appear in the drawing, but must be placed within the sight of the drawing immediately below the figure representing the copyright or mask work material and be limited to letters having a print size of.32 cm. to .64 cm. (1/8 to 1/4 inches) high. The content of the notice must be limited to only those elements provided for by law. For example, ‘‘ 1983 John Doe” (17 U.S.C. 401) and ‘‘*M* John Doe” (17 U.S.C. 909) would be properly limited and, under current statutes, legally sufficient notices of copyright and mask work, respectively. Inclusion of a copyright or mask work notice will be permitted only if the authorization language set forth in 1.71(e) is included at the beginning (preferably as the first paragraph) of the specification.”

37 CFR 1.71(e) The authorization shall read as follows
“A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to (copyright or mask work) protection. The (copyright or mask work) owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by any one of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all (copyright or mask work) rights whatsoever.”

Thus, as usual, the answer is “it depends.”

Example: U.S. Patent No. 7290830.

“New” Test Design Patent Infringement — Egyptian Goddess

Lawsuits/Laws/Rules Comments Off

Sep 222008

Before today, to find infringement of a design patent, two tests need to be satisfied: 1) the “point-of-novelty” test and 2) the “substantial identity” test. Sun Hill Indus. v. Easter Unlimited, Inc., 48 F.3d 1193, 1197, 33 U.S.P.Q.2d 1925, 1928 (C.A.F.C. 1995); Brainard v. Custom Chrome, Inc., 872 F.Supp. 39 (W.D.N.Y. 1994).

Today, in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2008)(en banc)(Bryson, J.), the Federal Circuit reworked the test for design patent infringement, holding that:

On the basis of the foregoing analysis, we hold that the “point of novelty” test should no longer be used in the analysis of a claim of design patent infringement. Because we reject the “point of novelty” test, we also do not adopt the “non-trivial advance” test, which is a refinement of the “point of novelty” test. Instead, in accordance with Gorham and subsequent decisions, we hold that the “ordinary observer” test should be the sole test for determining whether a design patent has been infringed. Under that test, as this court has sometimes described it, infringement will not be found unless the accused article “embod[ies] the patented design or any colorable imitation thereof.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 162 F.3d at 1116-17; see also Arminiak & Assocs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc., 501 F.3d 1314, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Referring to:

Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 14 Wall. 511 (1871)
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hercules Tire & Rubber Co., 162 F.3d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
Arminak & Assocs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc., 501 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

Older Entries

The Invent Blog