Printed Publication Bars (JWB)

From Bill Goodwine's Wiki
Revision as of 12:14, 23 March 2011 by Josh Bradley (talk | contribs) (Created page with "*In re Baxter **Referenced a technical report **only only <u>infer</u> invention from report, arguably not described in it. **Ruling: Inference is sufficient – someone with or...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search
  • In re Baxter
    • Referenced a technical report
    • only only infer invention from report, arguably not described in it.
    • Ruling: Inference is sufficient – someone with ordinary skill in the art is enabled
  • In re Klopfenstein
    • 14-slide presentation displayed at a conference
    • shown twice but not archived
    • IS a printed publication because there was no ban on taking notes/copying slides
    • the public at the presentation were people skilled in the art, therefore a public presentation
  • Pickering v. Holman
    • Patentee published experimented results (testing)
    • ‘Published’ has no experimental exception
  • Mehl/biophile Intl Corp. v. Milgraum
    • Two sources: Instruction manual (other related application), and Article on tissue damage to guinea pigs
    • Laser to remove hair
    • Instruction manual not a printed publication, but article was
    • Manual missing an element of invention, not enabling
    • Article was not explicit but is the only way to do it
  • Jockmus v. Leviton
    • Product catalog
    • German product, written in French, US patent
    • Light that looks like a candle
    • Distributed to people interested in art (targeted audience)
  • SRI International v. Internet Security Systems
    • SRI had patent for way to detect intrusion on a network
    • created two reports before critical date and patent referenced both
    • One of the reports was discussed at a conference, which invalidated patent
    • Second of reports was put on a server, which could only be accessed if someone pointed you to it, did not invalid patent