Source: http://patentfirmindia.blogspot.com/2011/07/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:06:20+00:00

Document:
4. Where online transmission cannot be initiated or could not be completed for whatever reasons, document can be handed over or send by post to Patent office within the stipulated time frame.
In case of Individual Applicant Govt has proposed to provide assistance in E-filing to those for whom e filing is not convenient. And Controller has been vested with power of direct acceptance of their Patent documents in other forms and manner than explained above.
It's good news for businesses which are planning to protect their business methods as they are to be considered as patentable subject matter as per the recent United States Supreme Court ruling in Bilski v. Kappos case. In response to the Supreme Court's decision, the USPTO has published interim guidelines for examiners on how to evaluate a patent application claim which falls within the scope of patentable subject matter based on 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The current standard in examining the business method claims has been relaxed for claims to be patentable subject matter unlike earlier examination prior to the ruling when business methods were curtailed. The guideline instructs examiners 1) to determine what the applicant has invented and is seeking to patent, 2) to conduct thorough search of the prior art before evaluating the claimed invention and also 3) to determine if the claim complies with the subject matter eligibility requirements.
The claim needs to demonstrate on how it meets the criteria of machine or transformation test or show evidence that the abstract idea can be practically applied to become patent eligible; claims which doesn't meet the criteria cannot be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Machine or transformation test is a test of patent eligibility and the claims need to qualify either of the two main criteria (1) the business method is implemented with a use of machine or (2) transforms an article from one state to another. To simplifier it further, claims should relate to systems or software that implements the business method or transform a particular article into a different state or thing.
The court felt that the machine or transformation test overly narrowed the inventions that could be patentable but nevertheless felt that the test is a useful and important clue but could not be the only test in determining patentable subject matter. Hence examiners as per the guideline, can reject claims even if it meets the criteria of machine or transformation test based upon 35 U.S.C. § 101. Even mere field of use limitations cannot convert a claim which is not patent eligible into a claim that is patent eligible. The patentability process doesn't stop here as the examiner needs to examine the claim for compliance against requirements § 102, 103 and 112.
As a next step, examiners would look for novelty in the invention by comparing the prior art and the claimed invention. If no differences are found between them they would label it non patentable even after satisfying the § 101 patent eligibility as it lacks novelty under § 102. Also examiners would assess the differences made out between the prior art and the claimed invention to determine if the invention was non-obvious during the time of invention to be complacent under § 103. The examiner would need to determine if the claimed invention complies with § 112 for adequate written descriptions.
Hence examiners should avoid focusing on issues of subject matter patent eligibility under § 101 to the detriment of considering compliance with requirements of novelty, non-obviousness, and adequate written description under § 102, 103 and 112 respectively. Only in extreme cases, examiners would reject patents under § 101. After reviewing the claimed invention under all the requirements § 101, 102, 103 and 112, the examiner would list all the reasons and bases for rejecting claims in the First Office action. The First Office action would clearly mention the findings, summary and the reasons for the rejection.
Bilski has opened the possibility of claims that do not meet § 101 might still be patent eligible. The subject matter § 101 requirement would just not be the sole deciding factor as there are many other factors like novelty, non-obviousness, adequate written description which are to be considered. The guidelines ensure that examiners evaluate claims in a logical order and the subject matter requirement should be evaluated first and other requirements in a sequence. This provides inventors an opportunity to resolve the patentability issue before it gets rejected and helps them to save time and money.
Carmel Irudayanathan is an editor for the law firm of Kunzler Needham Massey & Thorpe. Learn more about patentable subject matter at kunzlerip.com.
The Patents Act 1977 implements a statutory regime whereby an employee of a company may become entitled to a measure of financial reward or compensation where the employer has obtained a large benefit from a patented invention made by an employee. The measure of compensation relies upon the contribution made by the employee to the patent.
An invention is made by an employee is usually owned by the company for which they work. This is the case where an invention is made during the ordinary course of the employee's duties and either i. it could be expected that a patentable invention would result from that work; or ii. a special obligation or duty was owed by the employee to the employer. In short then, if an employee creates a patentable invention outside the ordinary course of his usual job specification, it is likely that he owns the right to apply for a patent, and the proceeds of exploitation of the patent. If the employee's job was to design and invent, it is more likely that the invention is owned by the employer; equally an invention made by a senior employee or company officer whose engagement foresees a furtherance of the company's interests, is also likely to an invention owned by the company rather than the employee.
Where the employee applies for a patent where the employer was entitled, the employer is entitled to a transfer of the patent and vice versa.
Exploitation of a patent granted to an employee brings with it the unusual benefit of obtaining immunity from infringement proceedings in respect to the use of the employers' copyright and design rights in exploiting the patent.
An entitlement for compensation arises regardless of the country in which a patent is obtained by an employer. Where the invention is of ‘outstanding benefit' to an employer, the employee becomes entitled to a fair share of the benefit. The benefit must be derived from the patent, and not simply the invention. The size and nature of the employer's undertaking is taken into consideration in determining whether an outstanding benefit has been derived. An outstanding benefit is considered to be one that is superlative return or something out of the ordinary.
When an employee contributes to an invention, the patent right – and the right to apply for the patent – rests either with the employer or the employee. If the employee owns the right to apply, they are entitled to the proceeds for exploitation. In the event that the employer owns the right to apply, the employee may be entitled to fair value compensation as a statutory reward for their labours. In addition, there may be joint inventors who are entitled to apply for a patent together.
It is important to remember that any public disclosure of a patentable invention prior to an application puts a patent application at risk. Disclosures should only be made after a non-disclosure agreement has been signed by the party receiving the information about the invention.
Leigh Ellis is a business solicitor and intellectual property solicitor advising on management of intellectual property rights disputes and infringement. Based in London, he is provides legal advice on technology and technical issues.
In Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited, F.3d 1284; 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 19416; 79 USPQ2d 1583 (Fed. Cir. August 2, 2006), the CAFC held patent claim 6 invalid under the fourth paragraph of 35 USC 112 for failing to further limit the claim from which it depends.
Claim 1 reads as follows: "1. [R-(R*,R*)]-2-(4-fluorophenyl)-[beta],[delta]-dihydroxy-5-(1-methylethyl)-3-phenyl-4-[(phenyla mino)-carbonyl]-1H-pyrrole-1-heptanoic acid n4 or (2R-trans)-5-(4-fluorophenyl)-2-(1-methylethyl)-N,4-diphenyl-1-[2-(tetrahydro-4-hydroxy-6-oxo -2H-pyran-2-yl)ethyl]-1H-pyrrole-3-carboxamide; n5 or pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof."
Claim 2 reads as follows: "2. A compound of claim 1 which is [R-(R*R*)]-2-(4-fluorophenyl)-ß-d-dihydroxy-5-(1-methylethyl)-3-phenyl-4-[(phenylamino)carb onyl]-1H-pyrrole-1-heptanoic acid."
Claim 6 reads as follows: "6. The hemicalcium salt of the compound of claim 2."
The important points are that claim 2 is limited to an acid compound, and that claim 6 attempts to define the salt of the acid compound of claim 2 by refering to claim 2. The Court found claim 6 invalid because it interpreted claim 6's reference to claim 2 to require claim 6 to include all limitations of claim 2, and therefore to define an acid. However, claim 6's recitation "hemicalcium salt" does not define (and in fact is inconsistent with) an acid.
We recognize that the patentee was attempting to claim what might otherwise have been patentable subject matter.[note 7 omitted] Indeed, claim 6 could have been properly drafted either as dependent from claim 1 or as an independent claim - - i.e., "the hemicalcium salt of atorvastatin acid." But, we "should not rewrite claims to preserve validity." Nazomi Commc'ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("[I]f the only claim construction that is consistent with the claim's language and the written description renders the claim invalid, then . . . the claim is simply invalid."). Ranbaxy correctly argues that claim 6 fails to "specify a further limitation of the subject matter" of the claim to which it refers because it is completely outside the scope of claim 2. We must therefore reverse the district court with respect to this issue and hold claim 6 invalid for failure to comply with § 112, ¶ 4.
The opinion also notes in footnote 3 that both parties stipulated that claim 6 was in fact a dependent claim. However, the stipulation was not a factor in the court relied upon it in its legal reasoning.
What this means in practical terms (unless this holding is overruled, and barring unusual facts) is that any claim in the form: "A first 'thing' of the second 'thing' of claim X" has a good chance of being invalid if the first 'thing' is not a species of the second 'thing.' In particular, claims like "2. A salt of the acid of claim 1" are likely invalid. The 'may' caveat exists for two reasons. As the opinion states, the parties stipulated that claim 6 was a dependent claim. Otherwise, it might have been construed as an incorporation claim. I find this possibility unlikely in view of the Court's reasoning. Second, a specification thoeretically could expressly define "acid" to also include within its meaning "salt" since a patentee can be his own lexicographer. I doubt many issued patents having this type of claim contain such a definition.
Clearly, a large number of issued patent claims are likely invalid in view of this decision. An obvious course of action for all patentees in view of this decision is to review their portfolio of patents, licenses, and due diligence files, to see which U.S. patents and applications have claims of this nature, and then determine suitable follow up actions. Such actions would include canceling licenses, reissuing patents, presenting new claims in continuation applications, and proceeding with commercial activity otherwise precluded.
If you have any other questions or need further information please feel free to contact us via email at http://www.neifeld.com.
Former chair of the Interference Committee and current chair of the Services Subcommittee of the Interference Committee of the American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association (AIPLA). Member of the AIPLA, American Bar Association, Maryland Patent Lawyers Association, and the Patent Information Users Group. Extensive experience in "specialty matters" in the U.S. patent office, such as appeals, petitions, reexaminations, reissues, public protests, and extensive experience in foreign prosecution, and interferences and related litigation. Extensive experience in due diligence work, including investigations, database searching, and opinions.
Admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the Virginia State Courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
Widely published in IP law publications, frequent lecturer to patent attorneys on patent law topics, and an active member of the patent bar associations. Founder and moderator for the popular "patentinterference" group on the groups.yahoo.com/group/patentinterference web site, which is a forum for general information on patent law and practice with a focus on patent interference issues.
Co-founder of the www.PatentValuePredictor.com automated patent valuation service, co-inventor of the underlying macro-economic model for valuing patents, and programmer of some of the code powering the automated valuations.
Five years of scientific research in applied physics areas of electro-optics, III-V materials, microwaves, vacuum deposition technology, superconductors, and electronics directed towards the U.S. Army's electronics, communication, and signal processing needs.

References: v. 
 § 101
 § 101
 § 101
 § 102
 § 101
 § 102
 § 103
 § 112
 § 101
 § 102
 § 101
 § 101
 § 101
 § 101
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 112