Question re patent terms
Alan
"apparatus". I cannot find these in the standard patent (e.g., USPTO)
glossaries.
David Kiewit
> "apparatus". I cannot find these in the standard patent (e.g., USPTO)
> glossaries.
35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title.
'Process' = method
'Machine (and usually manufacture)' = apparatus
--
David Kiewit, Reg. Patent Agent
www.patent-faq.com
(1) 727 866 0669
5901 Third Street South
St. Petersburg FL US 33705
>
>
Alan
>
> 'Process' = method
> 'Machine (and usually manufacture)' = apparatus
>
implementation of the method?
Barry Margolin
<17413ab3-4f46-4536...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Alan <jalan...@verizon.net> wrote:
A method can be a process performed by a human being. For instance,
accounting methods have been patented.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
David Kiewit
implementation of the method?<<
Not necessarily. It can be, but usually isn't
If you have an old, known method that is used to make a new piece of
hardware, the hardware (=apparatus) may be patentable, even though the
method is old.
If you have a known piece of hardware (e.g., a computer) and you figure out
a way of doing something new with it, the method of doing that thing may be
patentable, but the computer is just a computer.
AES
> hardware, the hardware (=apparatus) may be patentable, even though the
> method is old.
>
> If you have a known piece of hardware (e.g., a computer) and you figure out
> a way of doing something new with it, the method of doing that thing may be
> patentable, but the computer is just a computer.
Suppose that if you took ten individuals "skilled in the relevant art"
(i.e., professionally engaged or trained in the relevant field) and
asked them for a way to make said "new piece of hardware" referred to in
the first paragraph above, that at least 3 or more of the 10 would
independently propose the "old, known method".
Or suppose that if you took ten similar individuals and asked them for a
way to do said "something new" in the second paragraph, at least 3 or
more of the 10 would independently propose using said "piece of
hardware".
Then clearly NO patent should ever be issued in any of these
situations, because NO true "invention" is involved -- simply standard
employment of standard professional skills by those competent in the art.
More deeply, there is no need for society to grant the kind of
monopolistic powers involved in a patent -- powers that can do massive
damage to innocent third parties and hinder the making of useful
contributions by others -- in these situations, in order to obtain the
useful results involved, because anyone who needs these useful results
can simply send RFPs, or requests for bids, to ten practitioners of the
art, and be assured of getting those useful results. **Granting the
patent does nothing useful for society or for the world**.
But of course, this is not at all how our present patent system
works . . .
Alan
written down in less than 500 words? Or not at all?
Steve Marcus
"Alan" <jalan...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:420a94cb-aac1-4d6d...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> I suppose no definitions of "apparatus", "method", etc. are
> written down in less than 500 words? Or not at all?
You suppose incorrectly.
Go to a law library. Consult Chisum on Patents, Volume 1, Section 1.02
(which is a textbook on patent law). It contains a definition of "machine,"
and points out that "apparatus" is essentially a synomyn per another patent
law text, Walker on Patents.
Steve
--
The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
should not be construed as either. This posting does not
represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
Arnoud Engelfriet
> I suppose no definitions of "apparatus", "method", etc. are
> written down in less than 500 words? Or not at all?
The ultimate question is what you would like to have protection for.
In other words, who is likely to infringe and how will they do this?
This depends on both the competitor and the nature of the invention.
If the competitor is manufacturing products and your invention
improves the product, you patent the product. If he would be able
to manufacture in an optimized manner, you patent the method of
manufacture.
Often, when you have a method, you can also patent an apparatus or
device that implements the method. For example a method of
transmitting data and a transmitter, or a method of manufacturing
and a machine for manufacturing. But this requires that both are
new and nonobvious. Sometimes you can only patent a new use or
a new method.
Arnoud
--
Arnoud Engelfriet, Dutch & European patent attorney - Speaking only for myself
Patents, copyright and IPR explained for techies: http://www.iusmentis.com/
Arnoud blogt nu ook: http://blog.iusmentis.com/
Alan
would refer me to another textbook.
Alan
Steve Marcus
> Thanks Steve. That was very helpful. I guess Walker on Patents
> would refer me to another textbook.
>
> Alan
So far your question has been answered by several folks who work as patent
professionals (attorneys/agents). You have consistently rejected every
scrap of free info that was sent your way.
Walker will indeed cite to other reference sources, just as Chisum cited to
Walker. But by my reckoning, people seeking free advice, who receive it and
then reject it out of hand, aren't entitled to have information endlessly
spoon fed to them. And just in case you're interested, post here and ask
whether my usual modus operandi is to be as helpful as I possible can be, or
not. You're one of the few people asking for "help" in this forum that
pissed me off enough for me not give it.
Since you rejected the "easy way" (aka internet) to obtain your answer, try
the old fashioned way: go to a library and read a book.
Alan
I do appreciate the others that gave some quick definitions.
However, as you might imagine, having a source for these patent
definitions would be much more valuable.
If you are pissed off by my questions . . . well, nobody said
you have to respond. Last time I checked, this forum did not belong
exclusively to you.
Alan
Steve Marcus
I'm not pissed off at your questions. I'm pissed off at your attitude. You
asked questions. People took the time to answer them. You expressed
annoyance at the answers - they weren't "good enough" for you.
Now you want people to provide you with a source for the information as well
as the information itself. And to provide the information in a given number
of words. So rather than spending time in an effort to meet your imposed
parameters (imposed, I might add, as though you had purchased my services at
the going rate), I expressly directed you to a source from which you could
obtain your information. You objected to that - apparently you can't be
bothered with going to a source. You think that some sort of right has been
bestowed on you that entitles you to have other people do work at your
bidding. In your "I want, I want, gimme, gimme" post, you also displayed a
rather sophomoric understanding of how legal definitions work. Legal
definitions and principles are the result of numerous sources (case law
precedent, treatises and legislative histories are just a few examples) and
sometimes are in a state of change. So when I pointed out to you that
Chisum cited other sources, instead of understanding that it would be
valuable for you to check out more than a single source, you responded with
a flippant comment, instead of a "thanks for your time and the information."
I suggest you re-examine the behavior you've exhibited on this thread.
Behave the same way in life, and you'll not get very far.