通信与计算机领域伪代码一致性审查研究

通信、计算机领域的发明专利审查过程中,针对权利要求书中涉及伪代码的情形存在不同的审查观点.在对伪代码与自然语言、标记性程序语言进行辨析,以及对现行发明专利审查规范进行分析溯源的基础上,提出应站在技术人员的角度,按专利审查的一般标准,判断其是否符合专利申请的撰写规定和授权条件,权利要求是否清晰,再进行一致性审查的建议,对其他领域类似情形的发明专利审查具有借鉴意义.     

Patenting propagated data signals: what hath God wrought?

The US Patent Office is now issuing patents on propagated data signals that embody computer programs. Result: patent infringement can now occur in a mouse click. While patents have always been available for new and useful processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter, the extension of patent law to computer data signals is new. After losing a series of battles in the courts, the Patent Office now considers a computer program embodied in a carrier wave to be a manufacture, and hence patentable subject matter. This rather surprising development provides a powerful weapon against software patent infringement over the Internet; and it represents a dangerous snare for the telecommunications industry. Is there anything beyond the reach of patent law? The Supreme Court remains steadfast in this: patents cannot be obtained for abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena     

Intellectual property and patent abstracts

The author explains how examiners at the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) treat applications for inventions that seem to violate accepted scientific principles. In order to be entitled to a patent, an invention must be useful, novel, and non-obvious. In order to obtain a patent, the inventor must submit a specification that describes the invention in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can make and use the invention (without having to engage in undue experimentation). Inventions that indeed violate the laws of physics are not patentable because: (1) they are not useful (i.e., they do not work); and (2) the inventor is unable to properly describe how to make and use a device that violates the laws of physics. However, it is not always so easy to separate those inventions that do indeed violate the laws of physics from those inventions that only appear to violate such laws. Examiners at the PTO use a document called the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) when examining an application for a patent. The author reproduces two of the more pertinent sections of the MPEP that relate to the issue of determining whether an invention is useful.     

Cyberjustice: patent infringement

There are intangible factors that make it difficult to predict the ultimate outcome of any given patent litigation. The key analysis for any infringement action must include an examination of infringement (literal or under the doctrine of equivalents), laches, validity, and damages. The author pinpoints critical “tips” that may help engineers and corporate management determine the likelihood of success of any given patent infringement action     

A do-it-yourself approach to securing patent protection, part 1 in a series on protecting your inventions with limited resources

This series will present some procedural guidance for inventors and entrepreneurs who would otherwise either not pursue protection for their inventions, or would file a patent application pro se without the input of a qualified patent practitioner. Having a professional patent practitioner draft and file a patent application can be beyond the budget of many inventors. The topics discussed in the series will focus exclusively on patents and will not cover other forms of intellectual property (IP) such as trademarks and copyrights. The series will provide tips for such inventors in order to minimize the risk of: devaluing an invention, jeopardizing chances of allowance of a patent during prosecution, having a patent application being deemed unpatentable or lacking enablement, or having a patent being deemed unenforceable against infringement. The material presented here is meant to be informational and in no way serves as legal advice. Individuals who are interested in discussing their innovations in detail should consult a qualified patent practitioner. Part 1 of the series explores the issues involved in securing provisional patent protection at the nascent stage of invention. This is a way to defer costs for inventors and entrepreneurs. I explain the Provisional Patent Application (PPA), patentability requirements including what defines a patentable invention, how to search for patentability, and a suitable PPA disclosure.     

Down and out in Ham lake

This paper presents a cautionary tale to all inventors who surrender their patents in return for funding. The paper relates the experience of Corliss Orville Burandt, who claims to have invented a method called variable valve timing. Burandt discovered that Honda's intelligent VTEC engine used a technique that he believes is identical to his patent. He also claims that four other major auto companies have recently filed for patents on concepts that would infringe his patents. Unfortunately, Burandt found out that he didn't own the patents and that Investment Rarities Inc., which had initially provided funds to develop his inventions, had failed to pay the US Patent and Trademark Office in maintenance fees that were due on the 12 patents Burandt had assigned to the company in exchange for funding. This case should serve as a lesson to all inventors not to assign the patent to their development partners, but instead to give them an exclusive license. That way, the inventor maintains control over the invention, can monitor and ensure payment of maintenance fees, and can work language into the contract that stipulates that the exclusive license can be terminated if the licensee does not make a reasonable effort to commercialize the technology.     

Patent Do's and D'oh!

The process of getting a US patent goes something like this: you work with your patent lawyer or agent to prepare an application that describes your invention in exhaustive detail; the Patent Office rejects all of your claims in curt, dismissive terms; your counsel says not to panic and, in most cases, persuades the patent examiner to allow at least some claims; and, finally, two or more years after you first filed, agony gives way to ecstasy and the beribboned patent deed issues forth. But legal traps along the way may deprive the unwary of some or even all patent riots. Worse, you may not learn of a mistake until years later, after the patent has issued, when some alert lawyer asks a few innocent-sounding questions about a conference paper you gave and, shortly after, asks the court to invalidate your patent. The author describes how the most common mistakes fall into three categories: those that threaten US rights, those affecting foreign rights, and the effects of patent filings on trade secrets.     

Patent prescription: a radical cure for the ailing [US patent policy]

This work discusses the problems with the current patent system in the US. While the US patent policy makes it easier to obtain patents, to enforce patents against others, and to extract large financial awards from such enforcement, it has become harder for those accused of infringing patents to challenge the patents' validity. To address the problem, a patent policy reform program was initiated based on three proposals: first, create incentives and opportunities for parties to challenge the novelty and nonobviousness of an invention before a patent is granted, second, provide multiple levels of application review, with examiners devoting successively more time and effort as an application proceeds to higher levels, and third, in cases involving claims of patent invalidity based on the existence of prior act, replace juries with judges who could call on experts for guidance. The first two proposals aim to make the PTO more effective at a reasonable cost. The third addresses the reality that since even the best of all possible PTOs will make mistakes, a court system capable of correcting them is necessary.     

全球NPE知识产权风险及我国应对策略

随着知识经济时代的到来,专利的货币价值凸显,专利权也成为非专利实施主体(Non-Practicing Entities,NPE)的重要获利工具。NPE通过禁令和诉讼相结合的方式频繁向实体企业施压,对我国信息通信产业发展造成严重的不利影响,包括绞杀我国产业微薄利润、突破最高专利累积费率的限制、严重危害我国产业创新能力。在此情况下,美欧等国家和地区从立法、执法、司法方面对专利相关法律制度进行调整和细化,明确法律制度的适用范围和边界,为本国产业创新发展提供良好的契机。因此,我国应从此前的被动防御性法治思路逐渐向主导引领型法治思路转变,加强对于NPE的法律规制。     

Formalism, First Amendment Expression, and the General Law Doctrine

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the press is not exempt from laws of general application that apply to all citizens equally, particularly when those laws affect media business operations. In cases where content or newsgathering have been implicated, the Court has avoided a rigid application of the general law doctrine, preferring to protect expression through more rigorous means. However, in recent cases involving First Amendment rights, the Court has moved toward aformalistic view of the general law doctrine. This legal formalism, a jurisprudential approach that values syllogistic reasoning over close inquiry into the effects of particular restrictions on expression, is a development that could endanger First Amendment values.     

The telecommunication and information industries: US patent policy and the criterion of non-obviousness

In this topic discussion paper, the legal and public policy issues surrounding the “novel” and “non-obvious” criterion that the US Patent and Trademark Office uses in awarding a patent are explored. The application of the latter criteria for granting a patent – that the invention be “non-obvious” – has been a significant concern for many firms in the telecommunications and information industries. Following an introduction discussing the Constitutional basis of intellectual property rights and the criteria employed by the US Patent and Trademark Office in awarding patent rights, this paper will explain the modern evolution of the legal expression “non-obviousness”, up to, and including, the most recent patent appeals case (and potentially the one having the most far-reaching impact on patent granting) heard by the US Supreme Court, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex. Inc. et al. In the next section, a review of three major national policy reports on reforming the US patent system (two national reports and one by an academic economist) – focusing on the expert recommendations pertaining to the implementation of the legal expression of “non-obviousness” – is undertaken. Lastly, the final section of the paper offers a patent policy discussion associated with the latest interpretation of the “non-obviousness” criterion, and explains possible policy effects on the competitive environment of the telecommunications and information industries.     

The invention of the transistor

The invention of the transistor almost 50 years ago was one of the most important technical developments of this century. It has had profound impact on the way we live and the way we work. The first part of this paper covers the events that led to the discovery of the transistor effect and the invention of the point contact transistor in December of 1947. It continues with the development of the theory of the junction transistor in early 1948 and the fabrication of the first grown junction transistor in 1950. It is fair to say that this event completed the invention of the transistor and developed a fundamental understanding of how it worked. The second part of the paper describes the major hurdles that had to be overcome and the major breakthroughs that had to be made to turn an exciting invention into a far reaching technical innovation. This phase took approximately another 10 years. By that time, high performance, high reliability transistors could be manufactured in large quantity and at low cost. Importantly the foundation had been laid for the invention of the integrated circuit and the dramatic development of the microelectronics industry. The final part of the paper suggests some of the reasons why such an important technological innovation could occur in a relatively short period of time and be such an unqualified success. Finally, there are some comments on how much further this technology can go and when its rapid progress may come to an end     

关于不支持和缺特征法条的适用性探讨

本文首先提出不支持和缺特征法条的定义并进行解析,进一步指出上述法条的适用范围,然后对涉及不支持和缺特征法条的实际案例进行分析,从而对专利申请的权利要求撰写提供有益的参考。     

浅谈电声领域专利的撰写技巧

针对电声领域就如何提高专利申请文件的撰写质量进行了研究和分析,结合电声领域的特点,对权利要求和说明书的撰写进行了细致的分析说明,对电声领域中专利审查的特别规定通过案例进行了研究,并介绍了电声领域专利申请中的一些注意事项.     

A million dollar idea-and your next job [intellectual propertyengineers]

The legal world has many opportunities for engineers and other technically trained people. With the burgeoning of patent applications and patent-related disputes, and the greater complexity of inventions, the demand for intellectual property (IP) engineers will only increase. Some work as patent agents, which means they file patent applications on behalf of inventors and practice before the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO); others go to law school and become patent attorneys; and still others work as examiners for the PTO, or some other country's patent office, where they analyze, research, and ultimately decide on the patentability of patent claims     

计算机专业学生培养计算思维方式探究

计算机专业学生能力的培养,从某种角度来说,计算思维的逐步形成比掌握某种高级语言,简单的参与到某个实际项目的开发中更为重要。学生掌握高级语言是学会使用开发的工具。实际项目的开发虽然能够提升学生的实践能力,但是在学生未来的学习和工作中,难以遇到完全相同的项目和完全相同的开发过程。而掌握了计算思维,可以理清对问题的理解,对用户需求转换成开发约束的过程。能够进行思维拓展,验证规律。同时计算思维也可以提升学生的综合素质。所以要培养学生的计算思维。本文就计算思维的内涵、作用以及具体实施方案进行了详细的阐述。     

微型传声器中国专利申请状况分析

以CNABS数据库公开微型传声器技术领域相关的专利文献为基础,对中国的微型传声器技术的专利申请进行了统计分析,并介绍了几个主要申请人的重点发明专利,为中国传声器行业的技术发展提出建议,同时对业界人员专利布局工作给出参考。     

From Private to Public: Reexamining the Technological Basis for Copyright

This article calls into question the technologically determinist view that the invention of the printing press inevitably led to the development of copyright. The rise of the merchant class and the Reformation created a political environment favorable to protectionist trade measures such as the early printing privileges. Later, as public sentiment turned against the printing monopolies created by these privileges, the first copyright law was passed to limit the power of publishers and eliminate the private administration of copyright. Policy makers need to understand the historical circumstances surrounding the origins of copyright rather than be swayed by the technologically determinist rhetoric that frames the current debate. Copyright owners are now using technology and changes in the law to expand their control over content and privatize copyright once more.