Podcasts about obviousness

You cannot get a patent if your invention is obvious. This can be tricky to determine for biotech and pharmaceutical patents. There are competing standards for how this is determined. One is the "reasonable expectation of success" standard, which is a lower threshold than the "predictable results" standard. The Supreme Court refused to hear a case that would have settled this, so we're left with the Federal Circuit's ruling in the case of Vanda Pharmaceuticals vs. Teva Pharmaceuticals. Listen to this episode to learn how these tests can give different results for patentability and what it means for the future biotech and drug patents!

How to Transform Your Thinking with Insights from “Messages from Life” Founder.In this enlightening episode of the Social Chameleon Show, I sit down with the inspiring Mathias Fiedler. Mathias shares his mission to transform the way we perceive life, reminding us that it's meant to be an epic adventure filled with curiosity, joy, and wonder. Known for his project “Messages from Life,” Mathias offers daily reminders to help us break free from life's routine and focus on what truly matters. Join us as we explore his innovative approach of connecting through universal messages and learn about his ambitious goal to write the most uplifting book in the world. Whether you're on the brink of a new adventure or simply need a gentle nudge to embrace life's possibilities, this episode is sure to refresh your perspective and uplift your spirit. Tune in and let the universe guide you through Mathias' incredible journey of inspiration and growth.Enjoy the episode!YouTube:https://youtu.be/s1gMhEuez5Y Show Notes:TheSocialChameleon.Show/Mathias-Fiedler You can listen to the episode onApple Podcasts,Spotify,Overcast,Pocket Casts,Castbox,YouTube Music,Amazon Music,Audible,Substack, or your favoritepodcast platform.

Please join our Intellectual Property and Health Sciences practice groups for our podcast series focused on strategies, trends, and other happenings in post-grant proceedings.In this episode, Troutman Pepper Partners Andy Zappia, Meg O'Gara, and Duke Fitch discuss recent developments in obviousness-type double patenting and original patent requirements, and how they might impact strategies in post-grant proceedings.

The latest episode of the "Capitalist Investor" podcast featured hosts Tony and Luke with special guest Mike Hudzinski, a prominent patent attorney from Tucker Ellis LLP in Cleveland. The trio delved into the intricate world of AI, patents, and the broader economic landscape. Here are five hot topics from the episode that shed light on the future of technology, law, and the economy.1. Patentability of AI Algorithms: The Human ElementOne of the primary discussions revolved around the complexities of patenting AI algorithms. Mike Hudzinski clarified that “you can't patent a naked algorithm because it can be performed by a human.” For an algorithm to be patentable, it must produce a result that could not be achieved manually with pen, paper, and a calculator. This distinction underscores the need for a significant innovation component to secure patent rights.2. Obviousness in Software Patenting: Novelty vs. PatentabilityThe conversation moved to the difference between novelty and patentability in software. Tony and Mike discussed how small changes in code, such as a slight alteration within a complex algorithm, might not meet the threshold for patentable innovation. The key lies in whether these changes are obvious to an ordinary programmer. If a minor adjustment leads to a significant improvement, it might be considered for patenting, otherwise not.3. AI Writing Its Own Code: Legal ImplicationsAs AI technology advances, there's growing curiosity about whether AI can patent its self-generated code. Mike pointed out new federal regulations stipulating that patents must be created by humans. According to United States code, the claimed invention needs to be human-made, thus keeping AI-generated inventions outside patent eligibility. This maintains a critical human oversight in the innovation process.4. Errors and Reliability of AI: Real-World ConsequencesA discussion on the reliability of AI unraveled some of its limitations. Tony referred to an incident where an attorney cited erroneous legal information generated by AI, leading to significant problems. Mike emphasized that both professionals and students must verify AI-generated outputs. Generative AI, although powerful, relies on the data it has been trained on and is prone to inaccuracies, which can have far-reaching consequences in critical fields like law.5. Economic Impact of AI on Jobs: A Double-Edged SwordThe episode concluded with a preview of upcoming discussions on the economic impact of AI, particularly job displacement. While AI is poised to enhance efficiency and productivity in various sectors, it could also lead to job loss. As Tony noted, the implementation of AI might result in what seems like "job destruction." The conversation will continue in future episodes, exploring the balance between technological advancements and the preservation of the job market.The Capitalist Investor podcast continues to provide valuable insights into how emerging technologies intersect with legal frameworks and economic realities. Stay tuned for upcoming discussions, including public vs. private sector job dynamics and the impact of electric vehicles (EVs) on the economy.For those seeking to navigate these complex issues, the episode reaffirms the importance of staying informed and consulting with qualified professionals. Whether you're an investor, a tech enthusiast, or just curious about the future, these conversations are crucial for understanding the rapidly evolving landscape.**Disclaimer:** The opinions expressed in the podcast are for general informational purposes only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any investment, legal, financial, or tax strategy. Please consult a qualified professional about your individual needs.

There is a new standard for determining whether a design is obvious (and not patentable).  The "old" rigid test called the Rosen-Durling test has been supplanted by a more flexible approach under the recently decided case of LKQ Corporation vs GM Global Technology Operations LLC. In this episode, learn how this new test is applied and why more of your design patent applications might get rejected for obviousness. ------- E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament Phone/Text: (424)281-0162 YouTube Channel LinkedIn

The law may be changing soon on how to determine whether your new design is patentable. Learn what the controversy is behind the patentability standard for design patent obviousness. Does the case of KSR v. Teleflex apply to design patents like it does for utility patents. Or will the Rosen/Durling Test still reign supreme!  --- E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament Phone/Text: (424)281-0162 YouTube Channel LinkedIn

Episode 152:This week we're continuing with:The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-LeninismWritten for the Vietnamese curriculum and translated by Luna NguyenYou can purchase a copy and support translation of the further curriculum here:https://www.banyanhouse.org/product/ebook-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-marxism-leninism[Part 1 - 5]Introduction to the Basic Principles of Marxism[Part 6 - 10]Part I: The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-LeninismChapter 1: Dialectical Materialism[Part 11 - 16]Chapter 2: Materialist Dialectics I. Dialectics and Materialist Dialectics II. Basic Principles of Marxist Dialectics III. Basic Pairs of Categories of Materialist Dialectics 1. Private and Common 2. Reason and Result 3. Obviousness and Randomness 4. Content and Form[Part 17 - This Week]Chapter 2: Materialist Dialectics III. Basic Pairs of Categories of Materialist Dialectics 5. Essence and Phenomenon - 00:30 a. Categories of Essence and Phenomenon - 00:30Annotation 155: 1:01 - 3:04 b. Dialectical Relationship Between Essence and Phenomenon - 3:04Annotation 156: 4:22 - 12:05 c. Meaning of the Methodology - 12:06Annotation 157: 12:28 - 14:22 6. Possibility and Reality - 17:44 a. Categories of Possibility and Reality - 17:44 b. Dialectical Relationship Between Possibility and Reality - 18:12Annotation 159: 18:52 - 22:26 c. Meaning of the Methodology - 22:57Annotation 160: 23:50 - 24:16[Part 18 - 25?]Chapter 2: Materialist Dialectics[Part 26 - 30?]Chapter 3: Cognitive Theory of Dialectical MaterialismFootnotes:5) 3:59Philosophical Notebooks, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914-16.6) 14:37Philosophical Notebooks, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1914-16.7) 23:21To N. D. Kiknadze, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, written after November 5, 1916.

Episode 151:This week we're continuing with:The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-LeninismWritten for the Vietnamese curriculum and translated by Luna NguyenYou can purchase a copy and support translation of the further curriculum here:https://www.banyanhouse.org/product/ebook-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-marxism-leninism[Part 1 - 5]Introduction to the Basic Principles of Marxism[Part 6 - 10]Part I: The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-LeninismChapter 1: Dialectical Materialism[Part 11 - 15]Chapter 2: Materialist Dialectics I. Dialectics and Materialist Dialectics II. Basic Principles of Marxist Dialectics III. Basic Pairs of Categories of Materialist Dialectics 1. Private and Common 2. Reason and Result 3. Obviousness and Randomness[Part 16 - This Week]Chapter 2: Materialist Dialectics III. Basic Pairs of Categories of Materialist Dialectics 4. Content and Form - 00:24 a. Categories of Content and Form - 00:24Annotation 150: 0:57 - 17:50 b. Dialectical Relationship Between Content and Form - 17:52Annotation 151: 18:26 - 19:21Annotation 152: 19:39 - 22:25Annotation 153: 22:47 - 25:09 c. Meaning of the Methodology - 25:10Annotation 154: 26:02 - 29:04[Part 17 - 25?]Chapter 2: Materialist Dialectics[Part 26 - 30?]Chapter 3: Cognitive Theory of Dialectical MaterialismFigures:Figure 1 - 3:51A material object can be described in terms of content, inner form, and outer form.Figure 2 - 11:36Figure 3 - 20:30Quantity changes in Content lead to quality shifts in Form.Footnotes:4) 3:26See Annotation 10 and Annotation 108.

chp 33 Government Itself Is Immoral James Corbett chp 34 The Obviousness of Anarchy John Hasnas

Episode 150:This week we're continuing with:The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-LeninismWritten for the Vietnamese curriculum and translated by Luna NguyenYou can purchase a copy and support translation of the further curriculum here:https://www.banyanhouse.org/product/ebook-the-worldview-and-philosophical-methodology-of-marxism-leninism[Part 1 - 5]Introduction to the Basic Principles of Marxism[Part 6 - 10]Part I: The Worldview and Philosophical Methodology of Marxism-LeninismChapter 1: Dialectical Materialism[Part 11 - 14]Chapter 2: Materialist Dialectics I. Dialectics and Materialist Dialectics II. Basic Principles of Marxist Dialectics III. Basic Pairs of Categories of Materialist Dialectics 1. Private and Common[Part 15 - This Week]Chapter 2: Materialist Dialectics III. Basic Pairs of Categories of Materialist Dialectics 2. Reason and Result - 0:39 a. Categories of Reason and Result - 0:39Annotation 136: 1:17 - 4:51 b. Dialectical Relationship Between Reason and Result - 4:53Annotation 137: 5:51 - 10:12Annotation 138: 10:19 - 10:46Annotation 139: 10:55 - 12:01Annotation 140: 12:56 - 13:34 c. Meaning of the Methodology - 13:34Annotation 141: 14:02 - 14:26Annotation 142: 15:07 - 17:02 3. Obviousness and Randomness - 17:03 a. Categories of Obviousness and Randomness - 17:03Annotation 143: 17:12 - 17:58Annotation 144: 18:16 - 18:59Annotation 145: 19:21 - 20:03 b. Dialectical Relationship Between Obviousness and Randomness - 20:05Annotation 146: 20:20 - 20:36Annotation 147: 20:54 - 23:07Annotation 148: 23:46 - 24:41 c. Meaning of the Methodology - 24:42Annotation 149: 25:25 - 26:48[Part 16 - 25?]Chapter 2: Materialist Dialectics[Part 26 - 30?]Chapter 3: Cognitive Theory of Dialectical MaterialismFigures:Figure 1 - 1:56Metaphysical vs. Materialist Dialectical conceptions of development. Figure 2 - 2:39Metaphysical vs. Materialist Dialectical conceptions of frying and eating an egg. Figure 3 - 6:17Direct Reasons stem from immediate relations.Figure 4 - 6:45Indirect Reasons have an intervening relationship between the Reason and the Result. Figure 5 - 7:50Internal Reasons stem from internal relationships. Figure 6 - 8:14External Reasons stem from external relations. Footnotes:2) 12:55Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Friedrich Engels, 1880.3) 23:25Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Friedrich Engels, 1886.

Question: What are the factual inquiries of obviousness enunciated by the Court? Answer: Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying factual inquiries. The factual inquiries enunciated by the Court are as follows: (A) Determining the scope and content of the prior art; (B) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (C) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 10.2019. Depending on future… The post MPEP Q & A 286: What are the factual inquiries of obviousness enunciated by the Court? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What are some examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness? Answer: Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable… The post MPEP Q & A 276: Examples of exemplary rationales of a prima facie case of obviousness appeared first on Patent Education Series.

The Obviousness of Anarchy (PDF) Original, von John Hasnas Die Offensichtlichkeit der Anarchie (PDF) Übersetzt von Libertäre Deutsche Jugend: twitter.com/libertaeredeju Vertont von: Smokin_Area

If you keep highlighting that which is agreed as such, nothing changes.

John Hasnas is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and Georgetown's McDonough School of Business, and the executive director of the Georgetown Institute for the Study of Markets and Ethics. John has written some of my favorite pieces of academic legal writing including The Myth of the Rule of Law, The Obviousness of Anarchy, and recently Ten Questions about Democracy. What makes John's work unique is that most legal scholarship is dry, and boring—usually, it seeks promote some minor incremental change in a niche area of the law. John's work forces the reader to think from first principles about the very nature of law and government. It's what the founders of this country did, and what few serious thinkers do today. John's website: https://sites.google.com/georgetown.edu/john-hasnas/home Georgetown Institute for the Study of Markets and Ethics: https://global.georgetown.edu/georgetown_units/georgetown-institute-for-the-study-of-markets-and-ethics –––– Support the podcast and join the Honest Offense community at https://honestoffense.locals.com Other ways to support the podcast: https://www.ericcervone.com/support Follow Eric on Twitter and Instagram @ericcervone

Partner Stephanie Lodise, Ph.D., and Patent Agent Tracy Palovich, Ph.D., break down the differences between obviousness rejections and obviousness-type double patenting rejections. They then provide important prosecution strategies how to respond to each type of rejection so as to maximize patent protection Questions & Comments: slodise@bakerlaw.com

Please join Troutman Pepper's Intellectual Property and Health Sciences Practice Group for the sixth installment of the podcast series focused on strategy, trends, and other happenings at the PTAB. In this episode, Maia Harris, a partner in the firm, moderates a lively discussion with fellow firm partners Frank Liu and Dustin Weeks. Our speakers discuss evidence of secondary considerations of non-obviousness and the burden of proving a nexus to the patented claims. Be on the lookout for the next episode in our podcast series.

This podcast discusses the recent judgement by the Delhi High Court to restrain Best Crop Science LLP and NATCO Pharma Ltd. from launching Chlorantraniliprole (‘CTPR'). The court has declined permission to manufacture and sell CTPR during the pendency of the suit.Audio Source: An article published on LKS website in October 2021 https://www.lakshmisri.com/insights/articles/patents-delhi-high-court-rules-on-disclosure-vis-a-vis-invalidity-on-ground-of-obviousness/#Authors:  Malathi Lakshmikumaran, Executive Director (LKS), and Archana Viswanathan, Principal Associate (LKS)Voice: Gunmeher Juneja, Principal Associate (LKS)www.lakshmisri.com

Obviousness proves to be tricky for partial product designs. After the Federal Circuit's ruling, what is the future of secondary considerations? And will the guidance on primary references make it harder to obtain design patents? More on Emily Bullis. SPEAKERS Wayne Stacy, Emily Bullis Wayne Stacy 00:00 Welcome, everyone to the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology's Expert Series podcast. I'm your host Wayne Stacy, the Executive Director for BCLT. And today we're here to talk about the world of design patents and the rule on what qualifies as a primary reference. It seems that the Federal Circuit in the Campbell Soup case gave us unique guidance, things that we don't don't hear a lot from the Federal Circuit. So we brought today Emily Bullis of Fenwick to discuss this. Emily is a patent prosecution expert, with that rare specialty in the prosecution of design patents in both the US and abroad. So welcome, and thank you for joining us, Emily. Emily Bullis 00:44 Morning. Thanks, Wayne. Thanks for having me. Wayne Stacy 00:46 So, you know, maybe we start with a little bit of a negative question here. But how did the PTab get it so wrong? Emily Bullis 00:55 Yeah, so I think we need to look at this in the wider context of how the PTO handles design patents, the allowance rate for designs is is incredibly high. I think the most recent number I saw on the PTO website was something like 85%. So for the most part, these these applications are not receiving art rejections, when we do get pushback from the examiner, it's usually on, you know, minor drawing inconsistencies, or, or wanting a fix to the broken line statement. But for the most part, we're really just not seeing art rejection. So these cases are getting allowed very regularly. I also think it's a little trickier in this case, than normal, because these these two patents at issue are for multi article designs, which is fairly unusual as well. The drawings both show this this soup dispenser that you might see in the grocery store, as well as a portion of the can itself this this cylindrical object, but not all of that is claimed, there are a ton of broken lines here, which which indicate unclaimed subject matter. And in each of the patents, the area that's actually claimed is it's it's really minor, it's just some vertical lines in the label area. It's a portion of the cylindrical object. And in one of the two patents, it's these these little tabs that are keeping the can in place. So I think coupling the fact that this is a multi article design, with the large number of broken lines here kind of creates even more ambiguity than there is for for more straightforward products. It makes the scope of the design patent harder to parse. Wayne Stacy 02:39 Let me bring everyone up to speed on something that's pretty fundamental. And that's really the the guard for issuance of both utility and design patents. And that's obviousnes

https://youtu.be/KTfbnEIXqls ... the hallmark of an anarchist society is one where no man may legally compel someone who is not a convicted criminal to do anything, since that would be aggression against an innocent man's person or property....under anarchism there can be no coercion of the noncriminal... Murray N. Rothbard Libertarian Forum v. 1, p. 538 The Anarchist Handbook: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B095DVF8FJ/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_0MK1TP7EVANQVG474V83 Sal: https://www.saltheagorist.com/ Pete: https://linktr.ee/peterrquinones The Obviousness of Anarchy: https://odysee.com/@libertariantruther:0/The-Obviousness-of-Anarchy-John-Hasnas-22:1 The Book of Questions: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0761177310/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_TJ17X5F68GMKBDATQ90R LBRY / Odysee: https://odysee.com/@KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone:b/Anarchist-Handbook-Lessons:2 BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/wYqyJewDyeLP/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/7ojHQ13kbLI7BEy0xmxjBX Minds: https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1248457777969954816?referrer=KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone Archive: https://archive.org/details/ah-sal

The Anarchist Handbook: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B095DVF8FJ/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_0MK1TP7EVANQVG474V83 Sal: https://www.saltheagorist.com/ Pete: https://linktr.ee/peterrquinones The Obviousness of Anarchy: https://odysee.com/@libertariantruther:0/The-Obviousness-of-Anarchy-John-Hasnas-22:1 The Book of Questions: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0761177310/ref=cm_sw_em_r_mt_dp_TJ17X5F68GMKBDATQ90R ------------------- If you find value in the content, please consider donating to my PayPal KeithKnight590@gmail.com LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone:b BitChute: KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone https://www.bitchute.com/channel/keithknightdonttreadonanyone/ Minds: https://www.minds.com/KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone/ MeWe: mewe.com/i/keithknight25 Flote: https://flote.app/VoluntaryistKeith Gab: https://gab.com/Voluntarykeith Twitter: @an_capitalist The Libertarian Institute: https://libertarianinstitute.org/dont-tread-on-anyone/ One Great Work Network: https://www.onegreatworknetwork.com/keith-knight

Isaac Morehouse is the CEO of Crash, the career launch platform, and the founder of Praxis, a startup apprenticeship program. https://isaacmorehouse.com/ ------------------------------------------- If you find value in the content, please consider donating to my PayPal KeithKnight590@gmail.com LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone:b BitChute: KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone https://www.bitchute.com/channel/keithknightdonttreadonanyone/ Minds: https://www.minds.com/KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone/ MeWe: mewe.com/i/keithknight25 Flote: https://flote.app/VoluntaryistKeith Gab: https://gab.com/Voluntarykeith Twitter: @an_capitalist The Libertarian Institute: https://libertarianinstitute.org/dont-tread-on-anyone/ One Great Work Network: https://www.onegreatworknetwork.com/keith-knight --------------------------------------------------------------- The Obviousness of Anarchy https://odysee.com/@libertariantruther:0/The-Obviousness-of-Anarchy-John-Hasnas-22:1 The Myth of the Rule of Law https://odysee.com/@libertariantruther:0/MYTH-OF-THE-RULE-OF-LAW:4 Do We Ever Really Get Out of Anarchy by Alfred Cuzan https://odysee.com/@libertariantruther:0/DO-WE-EVER-REALLY-GET-OUT-OF--ANARCHY__-by-Alfred-G.-Cuzan-8:1 Human Action by Mises https://odysee.com/@libertariantruther:0/Ludwig-von-Mises-Human-Action:2 That Which Is Seen, That Which is Unseen https://odysee.com/@libertariantruther:0/Seen-and-Unseen:0

Episode: 2020 The screwdriver: archetype of subtle obviousness.  Today, let's talk about screwdrivers.

I decided to read one of my favorite essays of all time, The Obviousness of Anarchy, by John Hasnas, so that an audio version can be enjoyed by all.

I decided to read one of my favorite essays of all time, The Obviousness of Anarchy, by John Hasnas, so that an audio version can be enjoyed by all.

“The Myth of the Rule of Law” was written by John Hasnas and originally published in 1995 in the Wisconsin Law Review no. 199. I read it (with a few mumbles and mistakes) in its entirety from https://www.copblock.org/40719/myth-rule-law-john-hasnas/ Thanks to Prof Hasnas for writing this excellent essay, as well as another called "The Obviousness of Anarchy", both of which were profoundly influential on my thinking.

“The Myth of the Rule of Law” was written by John Hasnas and originally published in 1995 in the Wisconsin Law Review no. 199. I read it (with a few mumbles and mistakes) in its entirety from https://www.copblock.org/40719/myth-rule-law-john-hasnas/ Thanks to Prof Hasnas for writing this excellent essay, as well as another called "The Obviousness of Anarchy", both of which were profoundly influential on my thinking.

Mando, Link, Big Sky, R Phillipe rift, CBB & NFL & college review avid picks

You've thought long and hard about how your company's clinical stage invention is novel over anything that's ever been done before. Your analysis is finished, right? Not even close. The novelty barrier to patentability can be high, but the obviousness barrier can be even higher. Stephanie Lodise discusses the concept of “inherent obviousness” and strategies for avoiding it. Questions & Comments: slodise@bakerlaw.com

What comes to mind when you think of “hot topics” in patent law? Subject matter eligibility? Obviousness? Damages? Quietly, administrative law has moved to the top of the list of issues that consume the attention of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court in patent cases. This podcast will explain how that happened, what to expect in the future, and what lessons we can learn and apply in patent disputes. Questions & Comments: johnmurphy@bakerlaw.com

With the global pandemic is full swing and many looking for answers, we continue to look outwardly for what we need.Freedom, love, security and serenity. We look to feel safe and we forget we already have the answers but if you look to the sky you will not find fish. Knowledge is power and you already have everything you need, you just need to know where to look, in this podcast I will share with you some of my observations and how I have being re-framing the new normal as an opportunity, come join me as I discuss....  

Question: How can a provisional obviousness rejection be overcome? Answer: A provisional obviousness rejection can be overcome by: Arguing patentability over the earlier filed application; Combining the subject matter of the copending applications into a single application claiming benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 of the prior applications and abandoning the copending applications Filing an affidavit […] The post MPEP Q & A 192: Overcome Provisional Obviousness Rejection appeared first on Patent Education Series.

* Use coupon code PODCAST25 for 25% off this webcast * https://www.theknowledgegroup.org/webcasts/obviousness-type-double-patenting/ Join us for this Knowledge Group Online CLE Double Patenting Webinar. The emergence of new court rulings in the U.S. and Canada continues to shape the applicability and scope of the obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) doctrine, which is meant to prevent patentees from unjustly extending patent rights by owning multiple patents on the same invention. Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued two significant decisions - Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc. - which provide guidance on when ODP does not invalidate patent term extensions (PTEs). In Canada, where there is no terminal disclaimer, upcoming changes to the Patent Rules will impact procedures commonly used to prevent double patenting. Counsel to patent applicants and owners should be in the know of the recent court rulings and other developments involving ODP to better manage potential threats and opportunities regarding patent term and validity. This Webcast produced by The Knowledge Group will provide patent practitioners with an in-depth analysis of the evolving ODP landscape in the USA and Canada. They will examine the implications of recent U.S. Court rulings in Ezra and Breckenridge and other ODP updates while offering insights on how to best protect a client's interests from significant ODP issues in the U.S. and Canada. For any more information please click on the webcast URL at the top of this description.

On July 10, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions appealing decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board addressing the Administrative Procedure Act, claim construction, and obviousness.TQ Delta, LLC v. Dish Network LLC, Docket No. 18-1799 (CAFC July 10, 2019) - http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1799.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdfCisco Sys., Inc. v. TQ Delta, LLC, Docket No. 18-1806 (CAFC July 10, 2019) - http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-1806.Opinion.7-10-2019.pdfU.S. Patent No. 8,611,404https://patents.google.com/patent/US8611404B2

Cable Green : "The Obviousness of Open Policy" | Steve Hargadon | Feb 1 2012 by Steve Hargadon

On June 21, 2019, the Federal Circuit issued two precedential opinions regarding patent law: Hyosung TNS Inc. v. ITC and Forum US v. Flow Valve, LLC. The court addressed amendments to cease and desist orders, prior art as evidence, the domestic industry requirement under § 1337, and claim validity in reissued patents.

Then in this week's podcast I take on the same idea but this time emphasizing the common sense nature, or "obviousness" of our behavior given the frameworks we are operating inside of.

This week's podcast is an exploration of, well, obviousness. In particular, I share how the black and white path of knowing or not knowing what to do is one of the simplest and most reliable ways to navigate through life.

This is a guest post from Pepper Hamilton Partners John P. Isacson and N. Nicole Stakleff. John can be contacted at isacsonj@pepperlaw.com and Nicole can be contacted at stakleffn@pepperlaw.com. The Federal Circuit recently… The post Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Just Became Less of a Problem for Innovators appeared first on DrugPatentWatch - Make Better Decisions.

In this episode I go through how to respond to obviousness rejections by using secondary considerations.  Secondary considerations for non-obviousness include reasons for patentability, including: commercial success, long felt but unsolved need, failure of others, skepticism by experts, praise by others, teaching away, copying by others, synergistic effects, inoperative combination, and lack of suggestion.

If the the Patent Office sends you an rejection based on obviousness, how should you respond? If the combination of previous products still don't have all the the features of your invention, then you might want to consider using the All Limitations/Elements Test in your response. Listen to find out how!

In this episode I introduce obviousness rejection responses. Your application can be rejected for lack of utility, lack of novelty, and obviousness.  If the examiner says that your invention is obvious, how are you supposed to respond?  This will be the first of likely many episodes of how to respond to these kinds of rejections. 

Commander Divine just finished a rough draft of his new book “Launch,” which was originally conceived as being for young adults. He realized that it was actually useful for anyone, young or old, at the point of launching a new career, a new project or heading off in a new direction of any kind. Today, in this solo episode, he gives us a peek inside his process and his upcoming book. Find out: More about how your “Background of Obviousness” or BOO can shape your endeavors right off the bat The importance of finding a mentor to help you get going in the right direction How to connect to your inner witness to unravel all the stories that you think you “know” about yourself Listen to this episode to hear Mark’s advice to teenagers and to everyone on the verge of starting something new.

Commander Divine just finished a rough draft of his new book "Launch," which was originally conceived as being for young adults. He realized that it was actually useful for anyone, young or old, at the point of launching a new career, a new project or heading off in a new direction of any kind. Today, in this solo episode, he gives us a peek inside his process and his upcoming book. Find out: More about how your "Background of Obviousness" or BOO can shape your endeavors right off the bat The importance of finding a mentor to help you get going in the right direction How to connect to your inner witness to unravel all the stories that you think you "know" about yourself Listen to this episode to hear Mark's advice to teenagers and to everyone on the verge of starting something new.

Question: How can applicants rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges? Answer: Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges by showing the criticality of the claimed range. In addition, an applicant can rebut a presumption of obviousness based on a claimed invention that falls within a prior art range by showing “(1) [t]hat the prior art taught away from the claimed invention…or (2) that there are new and unexpected results relative to the prior art. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the… The post MPEP Q & A 129: How Applicants Can Rebut a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness Based on Overlapping Ranges? appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Michael Strong joins us this week to talk about the role that capitalism and social entrepreneurship play in alleviating global poverty.We also discuss special economic zones, startup cities, the right of exit, mechanisms of public choice, and seasteading.Show Notes and Further ReadingStrong is the author of Be the Solution: How Entrepreneurs and Conscious Capitalists Can Solve All the World’s Problems (2009) and The Habit of Thought: From Socratic Seminars to Socratic Practice (1997).Strong’s articles “Naomi Klein, Young Earth Creationist” and “Towards a Hierarchy of Moral Outrage”.Here’s our Free Thoughts episode with Bruce Benson.John Hasnas’s essay “The Obviousness of Anarchy”.  See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Two special little guests join the show with Sean Vincent and Jason Kull.  They happen to be Mark's children and they fulfill a wish to come on their dads show and talk.  After that, the show kicks into high gear welcoming Sean and diving head first into the Robert Mueller FBI investigation of Trump and Russia. Mueller impaneled a Grand Jury  and Mark thinks this protects him against any chance that Trump could fire him. Then, Mark brings up a facebook post regarding Sean Vincent and something he said to the affect of "people should handle their personal finances better". Jason, Mark and Shawn discuss how this affects people. It jogs Mark's memory regarding the 2008 crash and how a lack of handling personal finanace with a realistic view is what lead to the crash. Also Mark reads a note left to a waitress about blue lives matter.  Mark discusses the first amendment and the value of blue lives matter. All this and much more on this episode of the Q.

Question: What must any nonstatutory double patenting rejection made under the obviousness analysis make clear? Answer: Any nonstatutory double patenting rejection made under the obviousness analysis should make clear: (A) The differences between the inventions defined by the conflicting claims — a claim in the patent compared to a claim in the application; and (B) The […] The post MPEP Q & A 97: Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection Made Under Obviousness Analysis appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: What must any nonstatutory double patenting rejection made under the obviousness analysis make clear? Answer: Any nonstatutory double patenting rejection made under the obviousness analysis should make clear: (A) The differences between the inventions defined by the conflicting claims — a claim in the patent compared to a claim in the application; and (B) The reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in the claim at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the patent. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can… The post MPEP Q & A 97: Nonstatutory Double Patenting Rejection Made Under Obviousness Analysis appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List one of the underlying factual inquiries of obviousness. Answer: The factual inquiries enunciated by the Court are as follows: Determining the scope and content of the prior art; and Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Chapter Details: […] The post MPEP Q & A 65: Underlying Factual Inquiries of Obviousness appeared first on Patent Education Series.

Question: List one of the underlying factual inquiries of obviousness. Answer: The factual inquiries enunciated by the Court are as follows: Determining the scope and content of the prior art; and Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. Chapter Details: The answer to this question can be found in chapter 2100 of the MPEP. This chapter covers Patentability. The answer is from the 9th Edition, Revision 07.2015. Depending on future changes to the MPEP, the question and answer may or may not be applicable in… The post MPEP Q & A 65: Underlying Factual Inquiries of Obviousness appeared first on Patent Education Series.

In this episode of the Litigation Quality Patents® Podcast, Craige talks about a case where the Patent Office, in an Inter Partes re-examination, rejected a technology patent by correctly construing most claim terms but improperly ignoring evidence of industry praise and licensing. The federal circuit reviewed the case and upheld the anticipation rejections, but reversed the obviousness rejections. This federal circuit decision continued the trend of emphasizing the importance of objective evidence of non-obviousness.  Craige's special guests are, Richard Bragg, a Patent Attorney practicing in the Minneapolis area, Mike Heinrich, an attorney and consultant in engineering and intellectual property areas and Dr. John Leighton, an associate attorney at Thompson Patent Law.  Litigation Quality Patents® Podcasts The Litigation Quality Patents® Podcast, hosted each week by Craige Thompson (a.k.a., “The Examiner Whisperer”) contains substantive discussion designed to keep you current with what’s going on in the world of patents, encompassing everything from patent prosecution and re-examination to patent licensing and litigation.  

Professor John Hasnas of Georgetown University says the rule of law is a myth perpetrated by governments to make their populations more compliant. This is another have-your-mind-blown episode.Read "The Myth of the Rule of Law," "The Depoliticization of Law," and "The Obviousness of Anarchy" by Professor Hasnas.

In this episode of the Litigation Quality Patents® Podcast, Craige warns patent owners facing reexamination procedures to beware of picking the wrong patent counsel! As you're about to hear, choosing counsel lacking experience in overcoming obviousness rejections, in a post KSR world, is a recipe for disastrous consequences. Craige also offers Litigation Quality Patent tips and guidance on how patent owners can check out the capabilities of their reexamination counsel. Craige's special guest is Richard Bragg, a Patent Attorney practicing in the Minneapolis area. Listen to the Podcast: EPISODE 23 - The Examiner Whisperer - Ex Parte Antor Media - Sep 12 2013 Litigation Quality Patents® Podcasts The Litigation Quality Patents® Podcast, hosted each week by Craige Thompson (a.k.a., “The Examiner Whisperer”) contains substantive discussion designed to keep you current with what’s going on in the world of patents, encompassing everything from patent prosecution and re-examination to patent licensing and litigation.

Gary C. Ganzi, JD '08, discusses ways in which to improve patent quality as well as viewing patent quality from a public policy perspective. To learn more about Suffolk Law's IP Concentration, visit http://law.suffolk.edu/academic/ip/.

Economics of Police Brutality by Art Carden http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=174 All of the world's problems could be solved is we had clearly defined ownership The contradiction of "public property" and the unaddressed fears of ownership WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT (AFTER A BIT OF INSPECTION) http://completeliberty.com/chapter3.php Psychology of Ownership http://www.logicallearning.net/libpsychologyofo.html Competition is a civilizing force; externalities explained (they're all around us) The Obviousness of Anarchy by John Hasnas http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/hasnas.pdf Riding shotgun with a cop; the-end-justifies-the-means argument to provide "security" Part 1: http://freekeene.com/2008/10/21/conversation-with-shane-maxfield-kpd-lt-part-15/ Part 2: http://freekeene.com/2008/10/22/conversation-with-shane-maxfield-kpd-lt-part-25/ Part 3: http://freekeene.com/2008/10/23/conversation-with-shane-maxfield-kpd-lt-part-35/ Part 4: http://freekeene.com/2008/10/24/conversation-with-shane-maxfield-kpd-lt-part-45/ Part 5: http://freekeene.com/2008/10/25/conversation-with-shane-maxfield-kpd-lt-part-55/ Security comes with respect for individuals rights, not violation of them 'Competing' police forces follows from a privatized system (no "public property") The ills of socialized/communized "services"--denying individuals self-responsibility Crime is the Health of The State, The Kaptain's Log by Kapt Kanada, aka Manuel Miles http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2007/tle446-20071202-09.html Statists practices of the fine arts of theft, rape, murder, arson, and duplicity The Statist "justice" system grows with the creation of more unjust laws, i.e., those that infringe on individual rights Government people protecting their own, essentially ensuring their own security, not yours The practice of coercing you in order to "help" you; the immense propaganda needed to keep the sham going Ayn Rand's contradictions about government and objective laws http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html Anarchy simply means "no rulers"--no tyrants allowed The government is a naive floating abstraction; the meme of government isn't much different than the meme of God, except that government translates directly into violence Projecting one's fears onto the marketplace, creating gangs of armed thugs in one's mind to somehow maintain the meme of government (which is a giant gang of armed thugs, btw) More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime And Gun-Control Laws by John R. Lott Jr. http://tinyurl.com/elg5u For a rights-respecting person, the freedom to defend yourself is absolute Peaceful coexistence is impossible with the gang called government Defining one's terms: "competing governments" as contradictory A coercive monopoly in the realm of justice essentially ruins society Rand's (and big "O"bjectivists') strain of authoritarian sociopathy Basically, people's fear of conflict with other people enslaves them and perpetuates government A coercive monopoly of "justice" services, i.e., government (even one funded voluntarily) will always provide unjust and incompetent and expensive "services" One case in point: Laws against private electricity production commerce; Jon Udell's Interviews with Innovators: Jock Gill - On Energy, IT, Markets and Society http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail3825.html My experiences with the local mafia with a flag--parking ticket Nazis--who look to make criminals out of rights-respecting individuals The brilliance of Ayn Rand was that she taught individuals to think independently and to use logic according to the main metaphysical laws (identity, causality, and non-contradiction) Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff, Harry Binswanger http://scholar.google.com.mx/books?id=_znYGPoNe2wC&dq=subject:%22Objectivism+(Philosophy)%22&lr=&as_brr=0&hl=en&rview=1&pgis=1 Objectively speaking, the coercive monopoly of government is a authoritarian mythology that contradicts the virtue of justice The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts by Harry Binswanger http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=CB02B Seeing "police" for what they are: individuals who join a gang that violates individual rights and only pays lip service to the virtue of justice (enough to hoodwink those they rule over and maintain their coercive monopoly) Central planning is authoritarian sociopathy writ large--in which fears and love of domination deny freedom of choice The most vile form of mysticism: the murderous meme of government, which has no "procedural safeguards" Government as the preeminent violator of individual rights: denying people's capacity to choose a real upholder of justice So naturally, real upholders of justice will be seen as threats to government Understanding individual rights is simple: Don't hit people, don't take their stuff, and honor your promises (though no involuntary servitude is valid) "Our Enemy, The Party" by SEKIII posted by Wally Conger http://wconger.blogspot.com/2008/10/our-enemy-party.html The ills of "partyarchy," i.e., vote-chasing and power-seeking; the absurd oxymoron of politician libertarianism "The hopeless utopia of minarchy" Distinction between politics and ethics, objectively speaking http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html Seeking freedom via the State is wrong; to be consistent, one must favor not only abolition over gradualism but also market over power as the means to achieve freedom SEKIII: "The State loses by each free transaction committed in defiance or evasion of its laws, regulations and taxes; the State gains by every compliance with, acceptance of, and payment to its institutions. Thus does agorism create anarchy and partyarchy preserve the State." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-economics Objectivists will always lose their argument for government to their more statist comrades Coffee and chocolate are the key to long life by Richard Gray, Science Correspondent http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/health/3223650/Coffee-and-chocolate-are-the-key-to-long-life.html bumper music "Letter From The Government" by Brother Ali http://www.brotherali.com/  http://www.myspace.com/brotherali to comment, please go to http://completeliberty.com/magazine/category/91697    

I had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Andy Van Schaack from Vanderbilt University about Education and Instructive Technology. We spoke specifically about what technology can and cannot do to aid education and learning. We spoke about how it's even more important to go beyond just research-based learning and look at evidence-based instruction, working with what we know about psychology and brain function to maximize learning in the classroom and beyond.Technology tends to work best when it amplifies human capabilities, but real learning involves being able to take new information and apply it in novel situations.The tests we're often given in school tends to value cramming versus encoding information for long term retrieval and use, so teachers and students alike have to be on the look out for testing that requires recall of information, or merely recognizing the appropriate answer.The core issue here is the following: The best learning occurs when there are more opportunities to respond with feedback. Teachers are invaluable to provide feedback to students, but we have to find a way to do this is a positively reinforcing way that mentors students as they seek mastery of subjects and material.Dr. Van Schaack is the educational advisor for LiveScribe, which has developed a new computing platform- the Pulse pen- a computer in a pen. The pen uses special paper that comes in an ordinary spiral notebook; it records fairly high fidelity audio that syncs up perfectly with the words written on the page. The audio and "picture" of the written notes are then transferred to your PC as a PDF file, where you can listen to the lecture and see the notes being wirtten at the same time. This means you can jump to the exact place in a lecture where a teacher talks about what's going on the mid-term, for example, without having to listen to the whole lecture again. If students also use the Cornell Notetaking system, they can end up with better and more effective notes than ever before, making learning easier, especially in complex subjects. Not only that, the notes are searchable for key terms, so you can go exactly to the spot you need in a notebook to look up a particular piece of information as needed.I purchased one of these for my boys, hoping it will help us teach them how to take more effective notes in class, and I have to say that the kids have actually been debating over who gets to take the pen to school with them each day. I'm afraid I'm going to have to buy another one, shortly! I've used it for a community meeting I attended and blogged about for the Philadelphia Inquirer, and was very pleased with the results.The first part of our interview focuses on using technology in education and what it can and cannot accomplish; the second half, which will be released by the end of this week, will discuss the Livescribe Pulse Smartpen in more detail, including what kind of mental load notetaking has on the brain, how fast we can process information, the research data about why we take notes in the first place, and how we should be using them, and we talk about how capturing information is fundamentally useless without access.Links to things discussed on this episode:*Listener feedback*Check out Ken Robinson's presentation at TED in 2006. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design. It started back in 1984 as a conference bringing together people from those three worlds. Since then its scope has become ever broader, and I always learn a ton from the talks there- some of the best material available on the web;The Obviousness of Social and Educational Research Results- NL Gage* Frontline Report- Kids Growing Up Online * BBC News: Basic Sums Stress 1.3Million AdultsCornell Note Taking technique- Record Reduce (or question) Recite Reflect Review Recapitulate SampleClick Here to listen to Dr. Andy Van Schaack- Understanding Instructional Technology, Part I

Government is disorder; no government is order (and sanity) This brilliant essay sums it up--from both an empirical/legal point of view as well as a logical one "The Obviousness of Anarchy" by John Hasnas http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/hasnas.pdf http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/hasnasj/?action=viewpublications&PageTemplateID=109 bumper music "You Look Good To Me" by the Oscar Peterson Trio from We Get Requests album http://www.vervemusicgroup.com/artist/releases/default.aspx?pid=10113&aid=2867 to comment, please go to http://completeliberty.com/magazine/category/91697  

Can you trust the media? Military survey says... The U.S. Military Index http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4198 "The Obviousness of Anarchy" http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/hasnas.pdf Are militaries EVER necessary? Doomsday clock Rational defense in a voluntary society The memes of war promoted by "new atheists" "Religion, Politics and the End of the World...For readers who weren'’t able to attend the Truthdig debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges, we now have full coverage. So sit back, relax and enjoy the fireworks." http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070617_religion_politics_and_the_end_of_the_world/ Chris Hedges: I Don’t Believe in Atheists Posted on May 23, 2007 "Chris Hedges reads from his essay at the Truthdig debate “Religion, Politics and the End of the World” on May 22, 2007 (Page 3)" http://www.truthdig.com/report/page3/20070523_chris_hedges_i_dont_believe_in_atheists/ Insane state of the State in China a little satirical bumper music "Warriors of the World United" by Manowar ( http://www.manowar.com/ http://www.myspace.com/manowardefendersofsteel to comment, please go to http://completeliberty.com/magazine/category/91697  

Patents I