Source: https://anticipatethis.wordpress.com/2009/01/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 07:24:14+00:00

Document:
U.S. Patent Office to Host Roundtable on Deferred Examination.
The USPTO is conducting a roundtable to determine whether the support expressed for deferral of examination is isolated or whether there is general support in the patent community and/or the public sector generally for the adoption of some type of deferral of examination. The number of participants in the roundtable is limited to ensure that all who are speaking will have a meaningful chance to do so. The USPTO plans to invite a number of participants from patent user,practitioner, industry, and independent inventor organizations, academia, industry, and government. The USPTO also plans to have a few ‘‘at-large’’ participants based upon requests received in response to this notice to ensure that the USPTO is receiving a balanced array of views on deferral of examination.
The roundtable is open to the public, but participation in the roundtable is by request, as the number of participants in the roundtable is limited. While members of the public who wish to participate in the roundtable must do so by request, members of the public who wish solely to observe need not submit a request. Any member of the public, however, may submit written comments on issues raised at the roundtable or on any pertaining to deferral of examination, for consideration by the USPTO. Persons submitting written comments should note that the USPTO does not plan to provide a ‘‘comment and response’’ analysis of such comments as this notice is not a notice of proposed rule making.
USPTO’s Internet Web site before the roundtable. The written comments and list of the roundtable participants and their associations will be posted on the USPTO’s Internet Web site.
The deadline for receipt of requests to participate in the roundtable is 5 p.m. on Thursday, February 5, 2009. Requests to participate at the roundtable are required and must be submitted by electronic mail message through the Internet to robert.bahr@uspto.gov. All requests to participate at the roundtable should indicate the following information: (1) the name of the person desiring to participate and his or her contact information (telephone number and electronic mail address); and (2) the organization(s) he or she represents.
U.S. Pat. No. 6,650,315: Mouse device with a built-in printer.
1. A mouse device for use as an input device of a computer, said mouse device comprising: a housing in which recording paper is loadable; and a printer unit provided within the housing for printing on the recording paper print information received from the computer; wherein said printer unit comprises: a paper loading section in which the recording paper is loaded; feeding means for feeding the recording paper loaded in the loading section; a print head for printing on the recording paper fed by said feeding means; and a discharge port through which the recording paper is discharged by said feeding means out of the housing after printing by said print head.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,377,249: Belt buckle gun holder.
1. A belt buckle adapted for use as a holder for a gun, comprising means for receiving a gun, said means also retaining said gun on said buckle, some of said means comprising a cover over said gun and being releasable to permit said gun to be withdrawn from said buckle.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,841,328: Airplane Hijacking Injector.
1. Injector apparatus comprising, a general frame; a rigid sheet having an opening extending therethrough; means to secure said rigid sheet to said frame; a door; means to moveably secure said door to said rigid sheet; a resilient cushion supported by said rigid sheet; link means pivotally secured relative to the frame; bumper means on said link means to move said door relative to said rigid sheet; a hypodermic syringe having a plunger slidably disposed therein; a hollow needle attached to said hypodermic syringe, said plunger being arranged to force fluid through said hollow needle; means securing the syringe to said link means; means to pivot the link means relative to the frame such that the bumper engages the door and the needle is urged through the resilient cushion; and means to move the plunger to eject fluid through the hollow needle.
As indicated in this previous AT! post, we had participated in the USPTO’s Continuing Education for Practitioners (CEP) Pilot Program. As part of the pilot, the USPTO solicited comments and suggestions from participants relating to the perceived positive and negative aspects of the pilot. Below is a summary and analysis of the pilot, including comments and suggestions received from the participants, that was provided today by the USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED).
USPTO continuing education courses are intended to be a free source of information concerning recent changes to USPTO rules and procedures, revised patent statutes, and helpful hints concerning practice before the USPTO. The CEP Pilot Program presented three educational courses: (1) USPTO Examination Guidelines Following KSR v. Teleflex; (2) Common Errors in Petitions Practice; and (3) Electronic Signatures and Powers of Attorney in the USPTO. Additional courses are planned based on the suggestions provided during the CEP Pilot Program.
A total of 864 registered patent practitioners (652 attorneys, 212 agents) were accepted as volunteers to participate in the CEP Pilot Program. Of the 864 volunteers, 513 (59.4%) completed the program by the September 23 initial deadline. A total of 669 volunteers (77.4%) completed the program by the September 30 extended deadline, and 195 (22.6%) did not complete the full program as of October 1. Among registered patent agents, the completion rate was 176 of 212 (83.0%); the completion rate among registered patent attorneys was 493 of 652 (75.6%). A total of 764 volunteers (88.4%) accessed the system during the course of the pilot.
Four hundred six (406) volunteers provided written feedback concerning the CEP program. In general, users indicated they liked hearing the USPTO perspective on matters and helpful hints on practice before the office. Course content and presentation received high grades, but participants noted a number of areas where delivery of the courses through the Learning Management System could be improved.
The USPTO is working on system improvements to address concerns and suggestions provided by the pilot participants. For example, a large number of volunteers requested that slides be made available for printing prior to viewing the accompanying video; we plan to do so. Additionally, navigation between the video segments and the verification questions should be improved, user access to the courses after the user has completed the course should become more straightforward, and low-bandwidth versions of the courses will be prepared. Future CEP courses will be developed in accordance with subjects suggested by participants.
Final rules concerning Continuing Education for Practitioners are currently under consideration. Further announcements will be made as developments occur.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,419,345: Hairpiece.
two flexible pins, each said pin insertable through an opposite end of the passageway of said hinge-type segments, thereby attaching said first component to said second component such that insertion and withdrawal of said pins from said passageway renders the hairpiece removably attachable to the head as a cover for said central scalp bald area.
Welker Bearing Co. v. Phd Inc.
The generic terms “mechanism,” “means,” “element,” and “device,” do not connote sufficiently definite structure to avoid means-plus-function treatment.
The U.S. District Court (E.D. Virginia) granted summary judgment of noninfringement of Welker Bearing Co.’s U.S. Patent Nos. 6,786,478 (“’478 patent”) and 6,913,254 (“’254 patent”) in favor of PHD, Inc. The CAFC affirmed the summary judgment, stating that the district court correctly construed the critical claim element of the ’254 patent as a means-plus-function limitation subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
The technology of the Welker patents relates to locating pins for inserting into a work piece to position and hold the work piece on an assembly line. Specifically, Welker claimed pin clamps that hold a work piece securely in place during welding and other manufacturing processes. The critical claim language was the phrase “said assembly characterized by a mechanism for moving said finger along a straight line into and out of said locating pin perpendicular to said axis A in response to said rectilinear movement of said locating pin”. In determining that PHD did not infringe Welker’s patents, the district court construed a “mechanism for moving said finger” limitation in the claims as a means-plus-function limitation subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
“Means-plus-function claiming applies only to purely functional limitations that do not provide the structure that performs the recited function.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, a patentee’s use of the word “means” in a claim limitation creates a presumption that 35 U.S.C. § 112 paragraph 6 applies. TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The use of means-plus-function language requires an identification of “the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.
The CAFC noted that the term “mechanism” standing alone connotes no more structure than the term ‘means.’” No adjective endowed the claimed “mechanism” with a physical or structural component. Further, the claims at issue provided no structural context for determining the characteristics of the “mechanism” other than to describe its function. The court also held that the unadorned term “mechanism” is “simply a nonce word or a verbal construct that is not recognized as the name of structure and is simply a substitute for the term ‘means for.’” Accordingly, the CAFC agreed that the district court properly applied means-plus-function treatment to the term “mechanism”.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 112
 § 112
 v. 
 § 112
 v. 
 § 112