Consider a Spherical Patent IP and Patenting in Technology Business 1st Edition by Joseph E Gortych ISBN 143988806X 9781439888063

Consider a Spherical Patent IP and Patenting in Technology Business 1st Edition by Joseph E Gortych – Ebook PDF Instant Download/Delivery: 143988806X, 9781439888063
Full download Consider a Spherical Patent IP and Patenting in Technology Business 1st Edition after payment

Product details:

ISBN 10: 143988806X 
ISBN 13: 9781439888063
Author: Joseph E Gortych

Get Critical Insight into the Modern Patenting Scene We are now living in the “IP Era of the Information Age” where technology businesses are placing increasing emphasis on intellectual property (IP) as a way to add to their bottom lines. As a consequence, those working in a technology business or organization will inevitably be thrust into working

Consider a Spherical Patent IP and Patenting in Technology Business 1st Table of contents:

CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW AND UNDERVIEW
1.1 SIMPLIFICATION VERSUS OVERSIMPLIFICATION
1.2 THE SPHERICAL PATENT
1.3 THE COMMON WORKER DRIVES INNOVATION
1.4 THE ADVERSE IMPACT OF ÜBERPRODUCTIVITY ON INNOVATION
1.5 THE EVOLUTION (AND DEVOLUTION) OF PATENTING IN TODAY’S ECONOMY
1.6 THE IP BAZAAR
1.7 THE PERVASIVE NATURE OF IP INTERCONNECTIONS AND INTERACTIONS
Figure 1.1 The IP interconnections between some of the main functions of a technology business.
Figure 1.2 The IP interactions between a technology company and some example external entities.
1.8 THERE IS NO ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL PATENTING SYSTEM
NOTES
REFERENCES
CHAPTER 2 THE IP UNIVERSE
2.1 IT’S MORE COMPLICATED THAN YOU THINK
2.2 THE IP BIG BANG
2.3 BUSINESS ENTROPY: THE DISORGANIZATION OF THE ORGANIZATION
2.4 TO HAVE ENTROPY OR NOT TO HAVE ENTROPY
2.5 MANIFESTATIONS OF PATENTING SYSTEM ENTROPY
2.6 HOW HARD CAN IT BE?
2.7 LOGIC IS DANGEROUS
NOTES
REFERENCES
CHAPTER 3 BEYOND THE SPHERICAL PATENT
3.1 SURFACE FEATURES
Figure 3.1 A spherical patent and its surface features.
3.2 WHAT LIES BENEATH
3.2.1 Statutory subject matter
Figure 3.2 Two spherical patents being smashed together to reveal their underlying main requirements.
Table 3.1 Statutory subject matter
3.2.2 Novelty
3.2.3 Effective filing date
3.2.4 Nonobviousness
3.2.5 Utility
3.2.6 Enablement
3.2.6.1 Case study: enablement problem with an overly broad claim
Figure 3.3 A front section of an injector device as depicted in Figure 15 of the ′669 patent, showing a syringe 32 supported within a pressure jacket 31.
3.2.7 Written description
3.2.8 No public use
3.2.9 No sale
3.2.10 Inventorship
3.2.11 No inequitable conduct
3.3 THE EXAMINER FIELD OF VIEW
Figure 3.4 The patent examiner’s field of view with respect to the main requirements.
Table 3.2 The examiner field of view
3.4 THE SELF-IMPOSED BUSINESS VALUE REQUIREMENT
NOTES
CHAPTER 4 PATENT PORTFOLIO THERMODYNAMICS
4.1 PATENT VALUE
4.2 PATENT PORTFOLIOS
4.3 THE CLASSICAL IDEAL PATENT GAS
Figure 4.1 Patent portfolio balloon containing spherical patents that create patent pressure and give the patent portfolio its value.
Figure 4.2 A hypothetical statistical distribution of patent value in a patent portfolio, akin to the Maxwellian velocity distribution of atoms in a balloon.
4.4 THE MEGAEXPENSE OF CREATING A MEGAPORTFOLIO
NOTES
REFERENCE
CHAPTER 5 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM PATENT MECHANICS
5.1 CLASSICAL PATENT MECHANICS
5.2 A BRIEF CLASSICAL PATENT MECHANICS VIEW OF THE PATENTING PROCESS
5.3 A CLOSER (BUT STILL BRIEF) LOOK AT THE PATENTING PROCESS
5.4 QUANTUM MECHANICS INTERLUDE
Figure 5.1 (a–c) Classical versus quantum views of the uncertainty in the state of an unmeasured object using a two-state coin system.
5.5 QUANTUM PATENT MECHANICS AND THE VALIDITY UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE
Table 3.2 The examiner field of view
5.6 TO THE USPTO, AUNT BETTY AND INTEL ARE EQUAL
5.7 MEASURING VERSUS FILTERING
Figure 5.2(a) The classical patent mechanics view of the USPTO.
Figure 5.2(b) The quantum patent mechanics view of the USPTO.
5.8 LET’S PARTE!
5.9 THE PRESUMPTION OF VALIDITY
5.10 IF A PATENT ISSUES IN A FOREST…
5.11 MEASURING PATENT VALIDITY
Figure 5.3 The federal court system as the ultimate measurer of patent validity.
5.12 WHAT, THEN, DOES THE PATENT OFFICE MEASURE?
NOTES
CHAPTER 6 PROVISIONAL PATENT APPLICATIONS REVEALED
6.1 INTRODUCTION
6.2 MORE BASIC INFORMATION
6.3 MORE ABOUT THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE
6.4 THE SPHERICAL PROVISIONAL PATENT APPLICATION
6.5 INTERVENING PRIOR ART
Figure 6.1 Time line illustrating the various dates in the example patent filing scenario when the patent remains “unmeasured.”
Figure 6.2 Time line similar to Figure 6.1, but with the provisional patent application effective filing date nullified, resulting in the destruction of the patent by the intervening prior art reference.
Figure 6.3 Time line similar to Figure 6.2, but with a sale/disclosure date for the invention destroying the patent when the effective filing date of the provisional patent application gets nullified.
6.6 THE PROVISIONAL-TO-NONPROVISIONAL CONVERSION PROBLEM
6.7 THE NEW-MATTER PROBLEM
6.8 EFFECTIVE FILING DATE AND FIRST TO FILE
Figure 6.4 Time line similar to Figure 6.3, and showing, along with Figure 6.5, how a competitor’s provisional patent application filed after the “first-filed” provisional patent application can become the first-filed provisional patent application.
Figure 6.5 Time line showing how the regular patent application goes “poof!” once the effective filing date of the provisional patent application goes “blam!” Thus, the competitor patent application becomes the first-filed patent application.
6.9 THE SCENARIO FROM CHAPTER 5 REVISITED
Figure 6.6 Time line of the scenario mentioned in Chapter 5 where the first inventor to invent and to file loses out to someone who invented second and filed second.
Figure 6.7 The time line of Figure 6.6 wherein B’s disclosure serves as prior art that catches up with and blows up A’s first-filed patent application.
6.10 HOW BAD PROVISIONAL PATENT APPLICATIONS HAPPEN TO GOOD PEOPLE
6.11 IT’S NOT ALL BAD NEWS
NOTE
CHAPTER 7 THE DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD OF INFRINGEABILITY AND VALIDITY
7.1 INFRINGEABILITY-VALIDITY BALANCE
7.2 THE INFRINGEABILITY-VALIDITY CURVES
Laser toaster detailed description
Figure 7.1 Infringeability/validity (I/V) graph.
Figure 7.2 The laser toaster, which looks remarkably like a conventional toaster.
Figure 7.3 A close-up, cross-sectional view of one of the heating assemblies of the laser toaster.
7.3 CLAIM ZONES
7.3.1 Zone 1
IP-BITT: “BITT if we practice the prior art, we can’t be an infringer”
7.3.2 Zone 2
Sidebar: Which Type of Claim Is Worse: Zone 1 or Zone 2?
7.3.3 Zone 3
7.3.4 Zone 4
7.3.5 Zone 5
7.4 FAIRNESS AND THE INFRINGEABILITY-VALIDITY BALANCE
7.5 CLAIMS FOR PIONEERING INVENTIONS
7.6 BUREAUCRATIC QUANTUM TUNNELING
Figure 7.4(a) Under a classical patent mechanics view, the patent requirements form an impenetrable barrier to any and all patent applications that do not meet the requirements.
Figure 7.4(b) Under a quantum patent mechanics view, bureaucratic quantum tunneling allows a patent application that does not meet the requirements to tunnel through the patent requirement barrier.
7.7 CLAIM DISTORTION
Figure 7.5 System diagram showing how the USPTO and the courts act as imperfect claim processors.
7.8 CLAIM FUZZINESS
Figure 7.6 Schematic diagram illustrating the variation in the scope of a claim and showing how a product can fall within or outside the claim based on how the claim is construed.
7.9 PATENT QUALITY
NOTE
CHAPTER 8 LOST IN IP SPACE
8.1 THE EXPONENTIAL GROWTH OF PATENTING
Figure 8.1 USPTO data of filed patent applications and issued patents since 1940.
Figure 8.2 The automobile IP space illustrating the exponential growth of automobile-related inventions.
8.2 THE FRACTAL NATURE OF INNOVATION
Figures 8.3 (a–f) Apollonian gasket illustrating the fractal nature of how an IP space fills with improvement patents.
Figure 8.4 Larger view of an Apollonian gasket, illustrating how an IP space can be the subspace of a larger IP space.
8.3 PATENTING IN DENSE IP SPACES
8.4 THE CLASSICAL IDEAL IP SPACE
Figure 8.5 Cartoon view of an IP space that contains spherical patents.
Figure 8.6 IP space diagram illustrating an ideal IP space where the prior art defines allowed and forbidden regions where patents can and cannot reside.
8.5 IP SPACE UNCERTAINTY
8.6 IP BLACK HOLES
Figure 8.7 An IP black hole sucks innovation and money out of the IP space in which it resides.
Sidebar: Possible IP Space Black Hole
8.7 WHAT ABOUT US?
8.8 PATENT WAVES AND TECHNOLOGY WAVES
Figure 8.8(a) Patent waves of core, improvement, and commercial implementation IP precede the first generation product.
Figure 8.8(b) Improvement patents precede the corresponding generations’ product.
8.9 THE TRANSITION FROM CORE TO COMMERCIALIZATION PATENTS
Figure 8.9 Another view of how core, improvement, and commercialization patents fill the IP space.
8.10 KNOW THY IP SPACE
8.11 PRIOR ART AND PATENT APPLICATION PREPARATION
8.12 THE MYTH OF SEEKING THE BROADEST CLAIMS POSSIBLE
8.13 THE FREEDOM TO OPERATE
NOTES
CHAPTER 9 PATENT SYSTEM OPERATIONAL REALITY
9.1 EXISTENTIAL REASONS FOR PATENTING
9.2 PATENTING OUTSIDE SHANGRI-LA
Table 9.1 IP Best-Practice Buzz Words and Phrases
9.3 HOW TO KILL INNOVATION
9.4 STATUS QUO INERTIA
CASE STUDY: The Omnibus Provisional Application
9.5 TOP-DOWN AND BOTTOM-UP CHANGE
9.6 BUSINESS-LEGAL-TECHNICAL BALANCE
Figure 9.1 A graph of the dynamic range of operational details of a patenting system. It plots the normalized attention span versus the operational details in frequency fD and shows the business, legal, and technical zones.
9.7 THE CANONICAL PATENTING SYSTEM
Figure 9.2 The basic functional elements of the canonical patenting process.
9.8 GENERATION AND DOCUMENTATION
9.9 NO INNOVATOR LEFT BEHIND
9.10 DOCUMENTING INNOVATIONS IS NOT OPTIONAL
9.11 DOCUMENT EVERYTHING
9.12 THE IN-SOURCING AND OUTSOURCING OPTIONS
9.13 THE IP PROJECT MANAGER
9.14 THE NEED FOR PARALLEL PROCESSING
9.15 A DEEPER LOOK INTO THE INNOVATION REVIEW PROCESS
9.16 THE PATENT APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS
Figure 9.3 The yin and yang roles of the detailed description and claims sections of a patent.
9.17 TYPES OF PATENT CLAIMS
9.18 CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
9.19 BUSINESS REVIEW OF PATENT APPLICATIONS
NOTES
CHAPTER 10 THAT’S OBVIOUSNESS!
10.1 THE REQUIREMENT FILTERS REVISITED
10.2 THE HISTORY OF OBVIOUSNESS
10.3 TWO SUPREME COURT OBVIOUSNESS DECISIONS
10.4 THE KSR CASE
10.4.1 The patented invention
Figure 10.1 Figures 1 and 3 from the Engelgau patent.
10.4.2 The IP space context
Figure 10.2 Figure 1 from the Asano patent.
10.4.3 The path to the Supreme Court
10.4.4 Claim 4 of the Engelgau patent
10.4.5 Claim 4 collapses to an invalid state
10.5 USPTO EXAMINATION GUIDELINES FOR OBVIOUSNESS
10.6 OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
10.7 THE “SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS” WORMHOLE
10.8 WORMHOLE LIMITATIONS
Figure 10.3 (a) Classical patent mechanics plot of obviousness versus inventiveness. (b) Quantum patent mechanics plot of obviousness versus inventiveness.
10.9 INVENTION QUENCHING
10.10 THE OBVIOUSNESS/NONOBVIOUSNESS INTERFAOE
Figure 10.4 Front page of Hunt’s patent on the safety pin.
Figure 10.5 Figures from Johan Vaaler’s paper clip patent.
Figure 10.6 Figures from Jay Sorensen’s cup-holder patent.
10.11 FITTING PATENTS INTO A DENSE IP SPACE
NOTES
CHAPTER 11 INVENTIONS AND INVENTORS
11.1 WHERE AND HOW DO MOST TECHNOLOGY WORKERS LEARN ABOUT IP?
11.2 THE IP ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
IP Education at Boston University
11.3 IP TRAINING AND EDUCATION
11.4 IP AND TECHNOLOGY WORKER PROFESSIONALISM
11.5 IP ZANSHIN
11.6 AWARDS AND REWARDS
11.6.1 Case Study: The Employee Inventors Law in Germany
11.7 THE IP PERFORMANCE METRIC
11.8 CHANGING THE IP CULTURE
11.9 AWARDS VERSUS REWARDS
11.10 THE IMPORTANCE OF INVENTORSHIP1
11.11 THE GENERAL RULE OF INVENTORSHIP
11.12 MANAGING EXPECTATIONS ABOUT INVENTORSHIP
11.13 INCLUSION RATHER THAN EXCLUSION
11.14 THE ORDER OF INVENTORS
11.15 THE COEFFICIENT OF SHAME
11.16 WHEN IS AN INNOVATION PATENTABLE?
11.17 MENTORING
NOTES
CHAPTER 12 INDEPENDENT INVENTORS1
12.1 INTRODUCTION
12.2 THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST PROBLEM
12.3 THE LACK OF MONEY PROBLEM
12.4 THE ENFORCEMENT PROBLEM
12.5 CHESTER CARLSON
12.6 DR. BRIAN CALDWELL, INDEPENDENT INVENTOR
12.7 INDEPENDENT INVENTOR RIOT ACT
The Independent Inventor Riot Act
NOTES
CHAPTER 13 CENTRAL ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES AND PATENT STRATEGIES
13.1 CALLING THE COPS
13.2 THE NO-PATENTING COP
13.2.1 Trade secret protection as the better option
13.2.2 Products based on publicly available technology
13.2.3 The ill-conceived no-patenting COP
13.3 THE BOTTLENECK IP COP
Figure 13.1 First page of Texas Instruments’ US Patent No. 4,662,746.
Figure 13.2 First page of Texas Instruments’ US Patent No. 5,247,180.
13.3.1 Patenting beyond the core technology
13.4 THE COMMERCIALIZATION COP
Figure 13.3 Cover page of IBM’s US Patent No. 5,307,410.
13.5 NEW PRODUCTS FROM AN OLD TECHNOLOGY COP
Figure 13.4 Cover of the Kell patent on 3D television from 1950.
13.5.1 Example company: RealD, Inc.
13.5.2 Other examples of the new products/old technology COP
13.6 ASSERTIVE LICENSING COP
13.6.1 Academically based assertive licensors
CASE STUDY: The Rochester Patent
13.6.2 Assertive licensing by proxy
13.7 THE CROSS-LICENSING COP
13.8 THE ONE PRODUCT, ONE PATENT COP
Figure 13.5 Cover page of the Caldwell and Bittner patent application.
13.8.1 Large companies can effectively employ this COP
13.9 PATENTING PRODUCT COMPONENTS COP
13.9.1 The automotive industry and patenting components
Figure 13.6 Lens diagram from US Patent No. 6,700,645.
13.9.2 Patenting every possible component: Apple and the iPhone®

People also search for Consider a Spherical Patent IP and Patenting in Technology Business 1st:

consider a spherical patent ip and patenting
    
consider a spherical bacterium falling in water
    
consider a spherical gaussian surface of radius r
    
consisting of patent law
    
a patent is an intellectual property right

Tags: Joseph E Gortych, Spherical, Patent