siberkhem wordpress patent lessons

If you have been in a coffee shop and seen people using their laptop computers, then you are aware that each computer uses a personal display device that is built into the case of the laptop.

However, as computer consoles become significantly smaller (separate from input and output devices), the input and output devices must change accordingly. At one time, Apple Computer company manufactured a monitor-console combination that essentially only required a keyboard and mouse as input devices, in order to be fully functional. Unfortunately, this monitor was a “dinosaur” CRT design that added substantial weight and was not quite portable.

The new generation of computing devices, called “wearable computers”, mark the start of an effort to make computing truly a carry-around, portable experience. As the computer consoles miniaturize, the input and output devices gradually become the focus of miniaturization and portability. A laptop computer tries to solve this problem of portability by providing input devices (e.g., full-size keyboard and touchpad mouse) and output devices (e.g., monitor, about 45cm diagonal) that are built into the structure of the containing case.

In order to reduce size yet further, the large-footprint keyboard can be replaced with a one-hander, e.g., Matias or Frogpad. Unfortunately, most people don’t want to learn how to use a one-hander, thereby denying themselves this convenience toward wearable computing. Also, the monitor can be replaced by two alternative visual output devices:
1) mini-projector; and,
2) head-mounted display.

The mini-projectors currently being made (e.g., Sony) are becoming so small that very soon, cell phones will be equipped with built-in image projectors. All you will need will be a wall or piece of white paper! These new projectors can fit in ones pocket, cost about $400-1000, and display up to 800×600 (SVGA) resolution.

Similarly, head-mounted displays (HMD) are limited in resolution, depending on price. VGA and SVGA models (640×480 and 800×600) cost about $400-1000 for either monocle or both eyes. Cheaper 320×240 models cost about $100-300, but this resolution may be unacceptable for computer users. HMDs having higher resolutions, such as 1024×768, XGA, cost roughly $2k-10k, and are generally used for the military, which has plenty of budget for such expensive devices (think what YOU could do with a budget approaching a trillion dollars a year!, regardliss of the number of members of the military!). So, it is just a matter of time and patience before HMD with adequate resolution for CIVILIAN use become available.

The character of portable/wearable computing appears to be changing to the benefit of ordinary people.

Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com

A taxonomic system (an example of a part of the broader field of systematics) requires the following features:
1) a heirarchy, i.e., there is a root from which all other members (taxa) of the taxonomy derive;
2) an implicit or explicit relationship between the members, e.g., submember has more attributes than supermember; and,
3) the members are distinguished semantically, i.e., by meaning, rather than mere spelling of a word.

Another term for a taxonomy is a “classification system”. The list of the taxa of the taxonony is given in a classification schedule. In a patent classification system, the taxa represent a particularly defined concept having features that includes all of the features of the immediately superior taxon. the most superior taxon is called the root and has the broadest interpretation of the classification system, and the least number of specified features.

In the US Patent Classification System (USCS), there are over 400 classes, the root of each class is somewhat described by the name of the class, but not always. The features of the root of the class is described in the corresponding class definition. This explanatory Class Definition distinguishes the USCS from all other patent classification systems. By contrast, the European Patent Classification System (ECLA) has no separate definition of the classification groups, but rather has additional cross-references provided throughout the classification schedule. One additional distinction between the USCS and other patent classification systems (or “schemes”) is that that Class Definitions in the USCS attempt to provide refinements in the nuances of the terms used for the taxa.

When the taxonomy is supported with additional rules adding further refinement to better define the taxa of the system, this becomes an ontology. The use of Class Definitions is one step toward an ontology in the USCS. Unfortunately, it appears that top members of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as well as members of the Senate Committee of the Judiciary are oblivious to the usefulness of this elaborate system, and appear to be satisfied with a less-detailed system, such as the International Patent Classification system (IPC), to organize the placement of US Patent documents. This is quite unfortunate. Also, the USPTO has relegated qualified examiners from the Classification Division back to the Examining Corps (i.e., the “production division”), just to meet congressional goals, showing that production to USPTO management has priority over the maintenance and improvement of the USCS. Management argues that they are “forced” into this change of status, because of congressional production goals. However, when do the senior management argue to Congress about the importance of the USCS? Hardly ever.

Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com

珍道具, ちんどうぐ, pronounced “chin doogu” and meaning “unusual tool”, is a concept created by Kenji Kawakami (検事川上 ?) of Japan. There are thousands of members of the Chindogu society. One of the requirements is that the tool cannot be patented. [wikipedia.org: chindogu] These devices should be considered in any careful patent search for a similar “handy device”.

These devices can be roughly compared to the Rube Goldberg and Heath Robinson devices that perform ultimately simple tasks by complex means. These devices are also not patented.

Although humorous and certainly practical to a certain extent, they present additional problems that detract from the solution to the problem.

Francis “Fran” Lorin
siberkhem.com

In the book by Pressman & Stim entitled “Nolo’s Patents for Beginners” 5th Edition (May 2006), in the section entitled “Hiring a Patent Searcher”, the authors have listed six reasons why patent searches are never perfect:

1: cannot search all pending applications since only those at least 18 months old are published (and then not all of those either)
2: hard copies of patent documents can be missing (geez, I guess that’s true if you don’t use a computer!)
3: the searched areas may not contain foreign, non-patent or exotic patent documents (well, if you only search US documents, you won’t find any foreign ones, duh!; also, if you manually search the foreign art shoes in the USPTO, they do not normally contain complete sets of foreign patents/non-patent documents either, they never did, and, now, they never will)
4: very recently issued patents have not yet been placed in the files (earth to Nolo: the US patent “files” no longer exist!, so is this what you are teaching “beginners” about patent searching?, mentioning the “patent files”; why not explain the updatedness of the patent DATABASES?)
5: patents may not be properly classified (geez, finally; now we might be getting somewhere; maybe we can explore this serious systemic problem, which is true for the ENTIRE patent database?!)
6: an invention may have been used publicly (well, yes, that’s true, but who ever requests a “patent search” to cover publicly displayed concepts/”inventions”?; in the same vein, why not also include whether the “invention” is a “perpetual motion machine” or is contrary to laws, morality, etc.?; and why ask for such a “patent search” anyway?)

now, what about the possibility that the patent searcher is simply not familiar with the technology and takes into consideration the wrong search areas or looks for the wrong features/elements in their search results? – and what about when the searcher is too short on time to look at the proper portions of the patent documents in their search results to determine relevancy? – and what about if the requester mischaracterizes the search request (maybe because the search requester failed to provide key information)? – shouldn’t these events be included in the list provided by these authors leading to a less-than-perfect search?

Furthermore, this book, at the top of page 65, states that licensed patent searchers, called “patent agents”, “often dig deeper than might at first appear necessary“. What the heck does that mean? – based on what evidence? – and what does “deeper” mean, or “might at first appear necessary”?, i.e., compared to what? Are we to assume that simply because someone is an agent, that they will necessarily dig deeper in any given patent search? I think not.

Perhaps the authors mean that “deeper” means following the various threads that a patent document provides, such as classifications, inventor names, company names, related documents, etc.? – but this book does not appear to define the term “deeper” – yet this is supposed to be a book for “beginners” – thanks a lot, attorneys Pressman and Stim for your help and guidance!

I think that choosing a patent searcher involves a lot more that simply knowing whether that person is an “agent” or not, and I am not quite sure whether being an “agent” really means that that person will dig any “deeper” than anyone else – I have not seen any data proving it – and how would the population sample to build such evidence be selected? – also, I know that patent searching questions and issues are not part of the examination that the patent agent is required to take; certainly there is nothing in the exam that proves the searching skills of the test-taker.

Perhaps Nolo and its authors should try to back up their claims with statistics rather than confuse helpless beginners in this already complex field.

Francis “Fran” Lorin
siberkhem.com

The 2005 book by David Hitchcock entitled: Patent searching made easy: how to do patent searches on the Internet and in the library, is missing from the Shirlington branch of the Arlington County, VA library system at least as of today (Sunday, April 13, 2008) – the book was first added to the collection on February 12, 2007. The book cannot currently be found anywhere (that is, any easy-to-check area of the library) – Can we assume that this book is so valuable that someone would actually “steal” it?

I do not know what the contents of this book are, but I hope it does not show up “accidentally” in the Public Search Room at the US Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, VA – otherwise, I will probably assume that some unscrupulous member of the patent searching community did a less-than-holy act – also, if true that the book was indeed “stolen”, it would demonstrate the dog-eat-dog world of patent searching

This kind of behavior would belong with the kind of behavior seen on many college campuses where students “hide” important library resources to prevent fellow students from being able to use them, and thereby “benefit” by the inability of their classmates to complete necessary coursework

Could this book have been checked out from the Shirlington branch and not returned? – well, no, since this facility is well computerized – and, according to the computer records, this book has NEVER been checked out since it was first added to the collection – so why is it missing?

yes, the world of patent searching is already a tough field, with mere high school and college graduates entering it as newbies and presenting themselves rapidly as “experts” to undiscriminating patent search firms – and there are plenty of them, all over the world

as you can see, this missing library book (which I can probably easily find and purchase in a nearby Borders or Barnes and Noble bookstore) has conjured up various implied unsavory perceptions of mine in the world of patent searching – well, I made a request to this library branch to notify me when this book becomes available – so, we’ll see if/when it shows up, or a new copy is purchased

Francis “Fran” Lorin
siberkhem.com

Japan has a historic preoccupation with gems and their organized structure. Here just four examples of how Japan has incorporated gems and their metaphors into their culture:

1) the term “ruby” denotes the small size of furigana, the kana that are placed either above or alongside Kanji or Chinese characters, to assist readers in the correct pronunciation of the characters;

2) the megacompany Mitsubishi, has a name that means “three diamonds”, where “bishi” means diamond;

3) the classification system for Japanese patents includes themes and “facets”, where the facet is a metaphor borrowed from gemology, i.e., the facets of gem crystals; and,

4) the latest MVC-based (model-view-controller) computer programming language called Ruby was first developed in Japan.

Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com