9

In addition to the myriad of programs that already do this (http://pcsupport.about.com/od/filerecovery/tp/free-file-recovery-programs.htm), here is a website explaining the exact process that the patent claims to have invented (which, according to archive.org, was written in 2002): http://www.ntfs.com/disk-scan.htm It also fails under the "non-obvious" ...


7

Hire a professional. 1) Neither question you ask can be answered with the information you gave, and even if you posted your application I doubt anyone would be willing to wade through it to give you an opinion for free. You have no idea how much effort what you are asking for requires, or what level of detail in the information you supply is required to ...


4

I would agree that taking the plain meaning of the claim wording, it is DH specific. If calculating DH with a bit somewhere flipped requires first: a) calculate DH, then b) flip a bit, then I would say you have calculated DH in the process and fulfilled that claim requirement. For the storing step, I imagine most people would think storing a value X as the ...


4

A short answer to your question is that employing different statistical methods could be sufficient novelty - but it depends on whether such a switch in approach would be a natural move for "one of ordinary skill in the art." Is such a move somehow counter-intuitive, or even contra-indicated? Is the result unexpected? More significantly, though, prior art ...


4

It is unfortunately common for US examiners to combine 3 or more documents to argue obviousness. I recall once having 6 documents cited in combination (which, predictably, we did not react kindly to). While there is generally some need for the examiner to articulate why the combination is made, there is a wide range of ways they can do so. MPEP § 2143 ...


4

It just means that any single small non-obvious aspect makes the "whole" invention non-obvious. Or the other way around, for obviousness, the combination of all elements needs to be obvious, not only some, or some combinations, or one half and the other half but not combining those halfs, etc. It's only a stilistic element to underline the importance of ...


3

Many if not most patents are improvements on existing technology. While US5005266 patents a particular method of self-locking carabiner, it by no means patents the general idea of self-locking carabiners or every possible mechanism. In this case, the new patent has a different method of locking closed the pivoting gate mechanism. It is pretty clearly ...


3

No. One of the basic sections of the patent law is 35 USC 102. It describes some of the requierements for getting a patent, especially novelty. While the law is mostly short and doesn't offer a lot of explanation, there is a manual for patent examination (MPEP). The relevant section is this one. A claimed invention may be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ...


3

First, call the supervisor (SPE). His/her name and number should be listed at the end of each office action. Most likely the SPE will set up an interview with you, the examiner and the SPE. During the interview you can try to argue your point, but if that is not immediately fruitful, let me suggest another approach: Try hard to understand precisely what ...


3

What concrete steps can be taken / avoided to convey that the invention is not obvious? I would avoid writing that you used "existing technology". Most inventions are improvements on something that previously existed. As you mention "unexpected result" is one key to not being found obvious. There is also "obvious to try". If there are manageable hand full ...


3

I agree with Maca that, by definition, if any specific example that falls under the scope of a claim is obvious, the claim is obvious. Examiners do not need to find "full scope" obviousness, applicants need to have full scope non-obviousness. Some judges in district courts get a very small number of patent cases ever. Can you image a response to a 103 ...


3

Yes. You already cited the correct source, a further one would be art. 54 (2), (3) EPC: (2) The state of the art shall be held to comprise everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other way, before the date of filing of the European patent application. (3) Additionally, the content of ...


2

The independent claims all appear to be significantly more specific than you state. Can you provide evidence that the specific configuration described in the independent claims was actually in use before the priority date? Whether the transfer of some known technology into a different application area is obvious or not, strongly depends on the circumstances ...


2

The fact the your invention is built entirely from existing items does not preclude it from being patentable. The items being relatively easy to assemble in the desired fashion doesn't either. At the same time, I feel obliged to point out that the patent may not mean a whole lot if it's as easy as you imply to buy the pieces individually and assemble them ...


2

Yes - in a way the '489 patent is from a refiling of the '496 patent. Technically, the later patent was issued from an application that was a continuation of the application that resulted in the earlier patent. You can read that in the fine print on the front of the later patent. In a continuation application the specification and drawings are generally ...


2

the applicant is a supplier of forensic software, their primary product is a tool to search computer hard disks for artefacts of computer use (internet history primarily). the functionality in the patent can be seen in many other forensic programs such as Encase, FTK and Netanalysis all these programs have been around for a good while.


2

At least the majority of the claims here were covered by Norton Utilities v1.0 in 1982. UnErase/FileFix specifically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Utilities#1.0


2

You may also find that filing the algorithm with the copyright office is useful because it makes the content a matter of public record. Copyright isn't going to protect a procedural mechanism because mechanics are the domain of patents, but as a prophylactic, it may be quite effective, and provides iron-clad evidence of the date of the public disclosure. ...


2

Obviousness is a tricky concept with respect to patentability. In my experience it is a common reason for rejection. The threshold I see generally applied is would someone with "ordinary skill in the art" find the combination of the two ideas obvious to implement. Since you state: However, to someone familiar with both A and B, it would be obvious that ...


2

Consider the following scenario: Prov1 - Filed on 1 July 2016 NP1 - Filed on 1 June 2017, claiming priority to Prov1 NP2 - Filed on 1 July 2017, claiming priority to Prov1 Once NP1 is published, it is prior art as of 1 July 2016 (the filing date of Prov1). So if a claim of NP2 does not have a valid priority claim to Prov1, it must be novel/non-obvious ...


2

As DonQuiKong said - “as a whole” means the whole claim needs to be considered rather than looking at it piecemeal or neglecting an element. A claim to something with an A a B and a C can’t be analysed as if it only claimed an A and a C. It does not mean "all of the claims". Each separate claim is judged for obviousness on its own.


2

Like any patent, one has to study the claims to know what is protected by the patent. In the case of the linked Israeli patent, I can't read the patent so there is no way to comment on the claims. As to patentability in general, a patent needs to be novel, non-obvious and useful. Novel means no one has publicly described the invention in the past. Non-...


1

Using a better example. Postulate that Alice's invention would never work because it assumes something that is untrue. It is a device that moves you directly from any arbitrary stage of sleep to another arbitrary state of sleep by making a specific but undefined soft sound. It is not a perpetual motion machine but current science has found no way to do this ...


1

I think your example is contrived. The way you explain it, Alice's invention actually would function given a working power source. No one, in my experience would patent such a device with claims specifying Bob's perpetual motion machine if another power source would also work. You would claim a generic power source and then maybe have a dependent claim ...


1

Design patents are definitely subject to obviousness. A glass beverage bottle with an indented right-hand spiral would presumably be obvious in light of a similar bottle with a left-hand spiral. Many millions of dollars hung in the balance on whether or not Apples's D618,677 design patent on the iPhone was or wasn't obvious in light of previous art. ...


1

To infringe on a claim you have to implement each and every aspect of that claim. Long and complicated claims are generally easier to circumvent. Looking at the claim you quoted, the following section stands out to me. generating a functional product datasheet including at least one of a second product ordering link for accessing the product ordering ...


1

For the case of post-AIA US (i.e. applications filed on/after Mar 16, 2013), same inventor's prior application is not prior art until 1 year after publication date. Pre-AIA, not sure? In other jurisdictions, same inventor's prior application generally counts as prior art for novelty purposes as of date of filing (an in-built way to avoid double-patenting), ...


1

Thats not a patent, that's a patent application. Which means, it doesn't protect anything yet and might never. See this question for more information. Furthermore, the abstract and description of a patent can contain anything. The protection of a patent is defined by the claims. The independent claims of the patent application currently read as follows ...


1

The excerpt you quote is from a dissent in the 1990 case, not the majority opinion.


1

If content is novel which is evident from your extensive search then you should file a PCT application with china or other india as searching authority (less fee option), based on PCT search report you can make more informed decision. since said thesis was published after you filing it should be not concern, but you are advised to search non-patent lit. (e....


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible