Sentences with phrase «which claims the invention»

Ooty is an old British hill station at over 2,000 metres (once known as «snooty Ooty» and which claims the invention of snooker), the terminus of the Nilgiri railway.

It includes prior art in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, regardless of the problem addressed by the reference, and prior art from different fields reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the claimed invention is concerned.

Not exact matches

(An inventor would need to claim the earlier date only if prior art surfaced after the PPA's filing date but before the filing date of the regular application, or if a patent application the same invention was filed by another inventor and the PTO has to decide which applicant should get the patent.)

Not only are they familiar with the USPTO processes and procedures, they are accustomed to writing comprehensive claims, which are essential to protecting your invention from infringement and modifications that can eat away at your profits.

Dog Point Vineyard produces Marlborough wines that respect the natural integrity of the land from which they are made and, reflect the experience and Claims about hot dog invention are difficult to assess, as stories assert the creation of the sausage, the placing of the sausage (or another kind of

Drexler brings together reality and invention, which, according to her, is the human experience; she claims that «Vulgar Life is life itself.»

Recharge news While the US administration of Jimmy Carter can rightly claim the invention of the feed - in tariff, it was Germany's 1990 «Feed - in law» which provided the initial impetus to the large scale development of wind and solar technologies.

The decision both confirmed a new standard for indefiniteness, and demonstrated the new standard's effect on patents that do not indicate which measurement technique should define the scope of the invention claimed.

Baldwin claims he met Costner in April and decided to become a 10 % partner in an invention backed by CNIC which could separate oil from water.

(4) Viewed without any knowledge of the alleged invention as claimed, do those differences constitute steps which would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art or do they require any degree of invention?

[31] If I am right that the discovery of a new use for these compounds which is capable of practical application is an «invention» within the meaning of the definition, I can find nothing in the statute which would preclude a claim for these compositions.

Based on the disclosed invention, the Board considers that the skilled technician would be knowledgeable in any subject matter to which the claims are directed, such as the fields of online retailing models or techniques, e-commerce, Web development, marketing, and consumer psychology.

The specification must end with a claim or claims defining distinctly and in explicit terms the subject - matter of the invention for which an exclusive privilege or property is claimed.

The four - step approach to obviousness adopted by the Court is as follows: (1)(a) Identify the notional «person skilled in the art»; (b) Identify the relevant common general knowledge of that person; (2) Identify the inventive concept of the claim in question or if that can not readily be done, construe it; (3) Identify what, if any, difference exists between the matter cited as forming part of the «state of the art» and the inventive concept of the claim or the claim as construed; (4) Viewed without any knowledge of the alleged invention as claimed, do those differences constitute steps which would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art or do they require any degree of invention?

Introducing his Bill, Straw said: «Often such claims are for whiplash, which is not so much an injury, more a profitable invention of the human imagination — undiagnosable except by third - rate doctors in the pay of the claims management companies or personal injury lawyers.

For an application filed on or after March 16, 2013, the effective filing date of a claimed invention is the earlier of: (1) the actual filing date of the patent or the application for patent containing the claimed invention; or (2) the filing date of the earliest application for which the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of priority or the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 121, or 365.

177,000 of the two million reached the allocation stage and were put on one of the three tracks, which were perhaps Lord Woolf's most famous invention: fast track, multi-track and small claims track.

When viewed as a whole it is clear that the claimed invention is a process which uses stored information and «cookies» to enable customers to order items over the internet simply by «clicking on them».

In a case where claims to a method performed by running a suitably programmed computer or to a computer programmed to carry out the method are allowable, then, in principle, a claim to the programme itself should also be allowable (the claim must be drawn to reflect the features of the invention which would ensure the patentability of the method which the programme is intended to carry out when it is run).

That complaint is not without merit, however Apple can lay claim to transforming existing things into mainstream successes, which takes no small amount of invention in its own right.

In recent years, the USPTO has come under increasing scrutiny over the quality of its patent examinations.1 The growing push for reform of the patent system is fueled by the rapid rise of technology, financial services, telecommunications, and other innovations driving the information economy, all straining the USPTO's ability to evaluate and issue quality patents.2 Problems with patent quality occur when the Patent Office grants patents on claims that are broader than what is merited by the invention and the prior art. 3 In fact, a number of these problematic patents have been issued and publicized to much fanfare, including the infamous Smuckers» peanut butter and jelly patent where the company asserted a patent on their method of making the UncrustiblesTM crust-less peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, among others.4 These «bad» or improvidently granted patents impact the USPTO's ability to promote overall patent quality which, I will show, has serious implications for the public domain.