My Favorite Book on Patent Law June 3, 2010
Posted by atharkhan in : Personal , add a commentI was just asked by an friend, to recommend an introductory book on Patent Law. I recommended the same book I always do: Patent Law Essentials by Alan Durham.
Thought I’d post the name of the book on here just in case someone else out there is looking for a recommendation.
Attention: Advocates of Free Speech June 1, 2010
Posted by atharkhan in : Personal , 3commentsBarely two weeks ago, when the government of Pakistan imposed a ban on various websites, it found itself the object of global derision if not admonishment. Countless people from around the world opined on the inherent value of freedom of speech, and freedom of information. In fact, even though I had no personal stake in the substance of the underlying debate, I took issue with the restriction of access to information.
Here we are two weeks later, and just as the government of Pakistan lifted the ban on various websites, an “incident” took place in international waters off the Israel/Gaza region. (I call it an “incident” rather than “clash,” “raid,” “attack,” or an “act of self-defense” because all those words are inherently slanted in favor of one side or another, and simply distract from the point that I try to make below). At least two Pakistani journalists, and four Americans (including a former U.S. ambassador) were aboard the ships involved in the “incident.”
We are now learning from various reputable and credible sources that the government of Israel is preventing journalists from accessing the region, effectively censoring the information being received by the rest of the world.
Without taking either side, I am sure we can still agree on the basic premise that censorship is inherently counterproductive to progress of any kind. So, why has the world not reacted to this censorship and restriction of information as unequivocally as it did barely two weeks ago? Certainly, no logical person would find offensive, any statement against censorship and restriction of the free flow of information.
Therefore, to all the advocates of free speech, I say this: I don’t mind if you take either side. Call it “an act of self-defense” (as the government of Israel does), or “bloody murder” (as the government of Turkey does), or anything on that continuum. However, to keep your credibility intact, at least remain consistent and condemn the ongoing censorship and restriction of information, that is occurring in this region.
If you would like to go further and engage in true advocacy, you might want to write to your elected officials, asking them to urge the government of Israel to remove restrictions on information flowing in and out of the Gaza region. If you have never written to an elected official before, this TED talk might be helpful.
Finally, if you decide to write to your elected officials, here is a list of links you might find useful:
- President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden
- U.S. Senators
- U.S. Representatives
- State Governors
- State Legislators
- You can even tweet a message to your representatives, even if they are not on twitter.
Robertson v. Timmermans May 27, 2010
Posted by atharkhan in : IP Notes , add a commentOpinion: www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/09-1222.pdf
Notes:
- Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.200(b), a PTO regulation governing claim construction in interference proceedings, a “claim shall be given its broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification of the application or patent in which it appears.”
- When a patent applicant copies claims from another application or patent to provoke an interference, and those claims are the subject of a written description challenge during the interference, which disclosure should be used to construe the claims? Our cases now clearly hold that “when a party challenges written description support for an interference count or the copied claim in an interference, the originating disclosure provides the meaning of the pertinent claim language.”
- In Agilent, we examined two prior decisions of this court, In re Spina, 975 F.2d 854 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Spina involved an appeal from an examiner’s rejection of a claim for lack of written description support. We held that the claim, which had been copied from an issued patent in an attempt to provoke an interference, should be “viewed in the context of the patent from which it was copied.” Rowe involved an interference in which claims copied from one party’s patent into the other party’s application were the subject of a motion for invalidity based on prior art. We held that the Spina rule did not apply, but instead the claims should be interpreted in light of their host disclosure, just as they would during ex parte prosecution.
- Agilent clarified that in interference proceedings, the Spina rule applies when a claim copied from another party’s patent or application is challenged for lack of written description requirement support under § 112, ¶ 1, and the Rowe rule applies when the copied claim’s validity under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 is challenged. That is, the Board must interpret the copied claim in view of the originating disclosure for a written description challenge, and the Board must interpret the copied claim in view of the host disclosure for a validity challenge based on prior art.
- Agilent also made clear that 37 C.F.R. § 41.200(b), under which a claim is always interpreted in view of the host disclosure, does not apply in an interference proceeding when one party makes a written description challenge to a claim that another party has copied in order to provoke the interference.
