Nice presentation. Thanks for sharing. Just curious to know does one require to put a specific argument any where in the application as to the characteristics of novelty, inventive step and utility aspects of the invention?
I like to share a common problem faced by newbies drafting the descriptions. It is about the Interpretation of a rule related to patent drawings : 37 C.F.R. 1.84 : (4) The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts. Question : 1. Is the View and Drawing mentioned referring to one angle of looking at one particular embodiment drawing or does it mean any and every view for all drawings , views of all embodiments within the detailed description? 1. Some have interpreted the rule to mean that exactly the same part of a particular embodiment must be referenced using exactly the same reference number within the description for that particular embodiment. So, different numbers can be used to reference the same part with some differences in form in different embodiments. For example, one number range per embodiment. And I can find such granted patents. 2. Others , which appears to be the majority, interpreted it to mean the same part must be referred to using exactly the same reference number and by View it means views across all embodiments. There are also such granted patents . Where the rule is creating confusion: 1. It uses the word drawing. What is drawing ? One drawing ? If one drawing, it can mean just one embodiment. Or does it mean every drawing? If the word DrawingS is used, it could mean views of all embodiments. 2. What is meant by a View? A view of one embodiment or views across all embodiments? 3. I see the problem originates from the fact that English allows for different interpretations no matter how clearly it is written. And the Best Practices supersede possible alternative literally valid interpretations. So it depends ultimately on the judge and then the federal judge. Why is there no clarity? What is the best practice?
Hi there, wonderful lecture, I have a question can we 'add the computation experiment or simulation in the methodology section of the patent, or do we need to do a physical experiment for a patent application? thank you
you probably dont care but does someone know of a method to log back into an instagram account..? I somehow lost my account password. I love any help you can give me
@Rocky Jay thanks so much for your reply. I found the site thru google and I'm in the hacking process now. Looks like it's gonna take quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.
*Almost EVERY patent firms in Singapore I talked to Do Not Want to sign NDA.* What can I do? They are saying their professional code of conduct is that they are supposed to keep it secret. Then I asked them, why do NDAs exist? They are saying by virtue that they are certified patent agents or lawyers, client confidentiality is guaranteed. How stupid do they think I am? There is a purpose for NDAs but Singapore has little such culture for patent drafting. If these lawyers were the inventor they would not have said what they said.
Dear Soumili Is there a rule covering how reference numbers need to be narrated in the detailed description? I mean, is there a rule to follow where when describing the invention, reference numbers being mentioned must be mentioned in ascending order only? For eg. Can we describe in this way : Car 100 comprises an engine 120 and a carriage 110. Or is it that we must write it this way : Car 100 comprises a carriage 110 and an engine 120? Must the numbers be mentioned in ascending order only?
Audio quality is very poor, and speaker in many sentences let’s her volume drift down at the end to unintelligible levels. The audio sounds like it was recorded at too low a bit rate or over Skype and very digitized making it unintelligible combined with her accent and non American English pronunciations.
Sadly, I have to agree with you. It seem to be a very very great presentation, but the accent and the sound quality makes it equally hard to understand. I mean, I can understand, but I have to focus too much on the translation than the real content.
Very Good Explanation
Thanks and welcome
Informative presentation
Nice presentation. Thanks for sharing. Just curious to know does one require to put a specific argument any where in the application as to the characteristics of novelty, inventive step and utility aspects of the invention?
Excellent job
Naona this is where to find you
I like to share a common problem faced by newbies drafting the descriptions.
It is about the Interpretation of a rule related to patent drawings :
37 C.F.R. 1.84 :
(4) The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.
Question :
1. Is the View and Drawing mentioned referring to one angle of looking at one particular embodiment drawing or does it mean any and every view for all drawings , views of all embodiments within the detailed description?
1. Some have interpreted the rule to mean that exactly the same part of a particular embodiment must be referenced using exactly the same reference number within the description for that particular embodiment. So, different numbers can be used to reference the same part with some differences in form in different embodiments. For example, one number range per embodiment. And I can find such granted patents.
2. Others , which appears to be the majority, interpreted it to mean the same part must be referred to using exactly the same reference number and by View it means views across all embodiments. There are also such granted patents .
Where the rule is creating confusion:
1. It uses the word drawing. What is drawing ? One drawing ? If one drawing, it can mean just one embodiment. Or does it mean every drawing?
If the word DrawingS is used, it could mean views of all embodiments.
2. What is meant by a View? A view of one embodiment or views across all embodiments?
3. I see the problem originates from the fact that English allows for different interpretations no matter how clearly it is written. And the Best Practices supersede possible alternative literally valid interpretations. So it depends ultimately on the judge and then the federal judge.
Why is there no clarity? What is the best practice?
Hi there, wonderful lecture, I have a question can we 'add the computation experiment or simulation in the methodology section of the patent, or do we need to do a physical experiment for a patent application? thank you
Nice presentation
👍 thumbs up from my side🙂👏
Thanks a lot
Beautifully explained, many thanks
you probably dont care but does someone know of a method to log back into an instagram account..?
I somehow lost my account password. I love any help you can give me
@Jesse Kenzo Instablaster =)
@Rocky Jay thanks so much for your reply. I found the site thru google and I'm in the hacking process now.
Looks like it's gonna take quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.
@Rocky Jay It did the trick and I actually got access to my account again. I am so happy:D
Thanks so much you saved my ass !
@Jesse Kenzo No problem xD
Medam pls do a video in hindhi language. Or telugu
I interested to learn patent drafting is there program, online?
could you help me in patent drafting
*Almost EVERY patent firms in Singapore I talked to Do Not Want to sign NDA.* What can I do? They are saying their professional code of conduct is that they are supposed to keep it secret. Then I asked them, why do NDAs exist? They are saying by virtue that they are certified patent agents or lawyers, client confidentiality is guaranteed. How stupid do they think I am? There is a purpose for NDAs but Singapore has little such culture for patent drafting. If these lawyers were the inventor they would not have said what they said.
Dear Soumili
Is there a rule covering how reference numbers need to be narrated in the detailed description? I mean, is there a rule to follow where when describing the invention, reference numbers being mentioned must be mentioned in ascending order only? For eg. Can we describe in this way :
Car 100 comprises an engine 120 and a carriage 110.
Or is it that we must write it this way :
Car 100 comprises a carriage 110 and an engine 120?
Must the numbers be mentioned in ascending order only?
Thank you. UA-cam Sri Utami IP Consultant.
Audio quality is very poor, and speaker in many sentences let’s her volume drift down at the end to unintelligible levels. The audio sounds like it was recorded at too low a bit rate or over Skype and very digitized making it unintelligible combined with her accent and non American English pronunciations.
Sadly, I have to agree with you. It seem to be a very very great presentation, but the accent and the sound quality makes it equally hard to understand. I mean, I can understand, but I have to focus too much on the translation than the real content.