siberkhem wordpress patent lessons

名前 : フラン　ロリン (JP)
nom: Fran Lorin (FR)
naam: Fran Lorin (NL)
Naam: Fran Lorin (DE)
name: Fran Lorin (EN)

Four languages, but only two versions of a proper noun (my name). As a limited sampling of languages, two observations can be made regarding the use of upper-case letters: 1) in latin-based or germanic languages, the first letter of any proper noun (there are two here) is capitalized, i.e., an upper-case letter is used; and, 2) not all languages have an upper-case version of their script, but in Japanese, in particular, the katakana syllabary is used for a western name (rather than Kanji or Chinese characters, which are normally used for Japanese personal names). Similarly, Arabic has no upper-case version of their script. However, Russian and Greek scripts do.

At one time, a few hundred years ago in England, there was much debate on whether all nouns should be capitalized, or only a subset of nouns. As English-speaking people well know, capitalization is now only used in a limited number of linguistic situations: first letter of a sentence, proper nouns, acronyms (as well as initialisms and other specific kinds of abbreviations), and for emphasis. [David Crystal, "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of The English Language", 1995, University of Cambridge] A unique feature of German is that all nouns are capitalized.

It is important, when performing a text search of latin- or germanic-language documents, to take into account upper-case letters, whenever appropriate. Many text search query engines will give results that include both upper-case and lower-case letters, when only lower-case is used in the query, but will give only capitalized forms when an upper-case letter is used anywhere in the query. An example is IXQUICK.COM, a Netherlands-based search engine that typically gives about 30-50 results for any query, rather than the multitudes of results that other engines, such as Google, give.

Francis “Fran” Lorin
siberkhem.com

A Japanese researcher sought a new basic taste sensation other than the already-well-known salty, sweet, sour, and bitter identified in western culture (Indian, Chinese and Japanese had 5 or 6 named basic taste senses, e.g., “spicy”). The new fifth taste was named: umami.

Umami, a Japanese word roughly meaning “savoriness”, was narrowed to the taste sensations of particular naturally occurring amino acid-derived compounds, such as glutamate, typically found in aged or fermented foods, such as cheeses, and fish paste. Two other nucleotide-derived compounds are also contributors to umami: inosinate and guanate.

The glutamate binds to certain G protein coupled glutamate receptors [wikipedia.org: taste].

Therefore, when listening to judges in various cooking contests, such as Iron Chef, the term “taste character” and “combination of tastes” includes the five basic tastes in various proportions, particularly including various proportions of the three umami-contributing ingredients: glutamate, inosinate, and guanate.

Recently, in 2000, French researchers have apparently identified a fat receptor in the taste buds of the tongue corresponding to a “fat taste”.

Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com

One of the hallmarks of any commercial enterprise is the distinctive packaging used for its products. The packaging includes the name of the product and its source, specifically the name of the company. Of all US Patents, the packaging-related patents can arguably comprise the majority of trademark-related documents. Although there is a distinct difference between the intellectual property protection of utility-based entities, i.e., products having utility, and recognition-based entities, i.e., trademarks.

One complex packaging is that used for inkjet printer inks, e.g., Canon, HP, Lexmark, Brother, etc. These packages use combinations of paper-based, plastic and composite materials.

The U.S. Classification System has defined a set of Classes directly pertaining to packaging and the making of packaging:
Class 53 – Processes for packaging, filling packages with product
Class 492 – Processes for making paper-based packages
Class 156 – Processes for making or modifying packaging that includes an adhesive bonding step
Class 206 – Particular packaging structures
Class 220 – Particular containers

Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com

Various sources can be used to obtain a “core” corpus containing all English words, including the unabridged Oxford Dictionary. However, a suitable source is Roget’s International Thesaurus containing 256,000 words organized according to a systematic arrangement created by the meticulous Robert Roget, a surgeon.

Biologists and students of biology are quite familiar with the swede Carl Linnaeus (13 May 1707 – 10 January 1778) and his taxonomy system for classifying plants and animals, especially the unique genus-species description of a species, e.g., Homo sapiens or E. coli. However, this system was based on latinized words that Linnaeus based on observable characteristics (e.g., vertebrae, mammary), but also often completely made up.

For those who have read a biography of Linnaeus, it will be obvious that Linnaeus was a very well known person in his time, and considered by many to be something of a genius. He is often referred to as the “Father of Taxonomy” for his many works leading to the ordered structure for the classification of the Plant Kingdom and for laying the groundwork for the taxonomies of the Animal and other Kindoms. His surname, Linnaeus, is a latinization of “linde”, for the “linden tree” (a “lime” tree) that was present on the property of his childhood home. In those days of the early 1700s, a surname was required to enter a higher-education school. However, most people in Sweden at the time obtained their “family names” from the first name of their fathers combined with the “sson” suffix. Therefore, Carl’s name was originally Carl Nilsson, since his father was Nils Ingmarsson, who in turn was the son of Ingmar Bengtsson. [wikipedia.org: "carl linnaeus"]

Recently, with the new technology for rapidly determining genetic make-up (i.e., DNA sequencing), a clearer relationship between different organisms has been revealed by comparing their DNA sequences, rather than the previous observed characteristics. This has led to the new hierarchical classification system called cladistics, from the Greek word “klados”, meaning “branch”. Alternatively, the term “phylogenetics” can also be used for the same classification system. Since the changes in the genetic profile of organisms can be observed through time, both within the same species or varieties, and across species, this system is based on evolution. Common ancestry can be observed by similar classification under this system. In addition, newly created species and varieties, e.g., H1N5 virus, can be readily identified and changes or mutations can be compared with related known species and varieties. [wikipedia.org: cladistics]

By contrast, the classification of patent documents has not yet found any similar well-structured system that is universal, efficient and usable. Therefore, patent searchers must, unfortunately, acquaint themselves with three major systems (i.e., ECLA/IPC, USCS and JPOCS) and some minor systems (e.g., Derwent) to locate relevant documents.

Francis “Fran” Lorin
siberkhem.com

Verbs establish the presence of sentences. In patents, particularly, declarative sentences (containing verbs) describe an invention.

An application writer uses the most appropriate verbs throughout the specification to explain and define the inventive features. The verbs used in patents should be unambiguous and avoid emotion. This helps to clarify the meaning of the sentences when interpreted by readers of the patent, e.g., courts, juries, other inventors, and patent users, etc.

There have been attempts to categorize verbs, e.g., Saussure, Jakob Grimm’s “strong and weak Germanic verbs”, Roget (i.e., Roget’s Thesaurus) and by other linguists and philosophers. Recently, Beth Levin made an attempt to classify English Verbs in her “preliminary investigation” ["English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation"; Beth Levin, 1993, University of Chicago press]. In her book, she describes verb classes in which verbs are grouped according to their relationship with a subject and, where relevant, an object, i.e., “alternation“. In Part 1, she describes various types of alternations and in Part 2, she lists the classes of verbs.

For example, in Part 2, Chapter 35, entitled “Verbs of Searching“, she describes six classes: Hunt, Search, Stalk, Investigate, Rummage, and Ferret. The various alternations associated with these verb classes are described in Part 1, Section 2.11. The verbs in the “Search Class” include: advertise, check, comb, dive, drag, dredge, excavate, patrol, plumb, probe, prospect, prowl, quarry, rake, rifle, scavenge, scour, scout, search, shop, sift, trawl, troll, watch.

The verbs in this class are related by requiring use of the preposition “for” in a prepositional phrase that includes the object being “searched”, e.g., A searched for OBJECT in B or A searched B for OBJECT, but NOT in the following alternant form: A searched OBJECT in B.

The verbs classes for “find” and “reveal” are the “Get Verb Class” and “Characterize Verb Class”, based on their types of alternation.

At this time, the categorization of verbs continues to be studied based on various linguistic attributes and grammatical constructions. In the meantime, thesauri, such as Roget’s Thesaurus and Rodale’s Synonym Finder are good starting points for finding related words, including verbs, in an effort to find the verb that best describes a particular action or relationship in an invention.

Francis “Fran” Lorin
siberkhem.com

The linguistic constructions collectively called “modals” have a limited, but important, place in the written portion of patents. Modals are generally found in the background and brief description of the invention (e.g., objectives of the invention) portions of the patent specification, but not generally in claim recitations.

Modals include verbs and adverbs that express the concepts of possibility, probability, necessity, obligation, and permission. Core verbs (i.e., “auxiliary verbs”) expressing modality are: may, might, can, could, will, would, shall, should and must ["Adverbs and Modality in English", Hoye, 1997, 058221535-8].

Modals can also be described as showing emotion (e.g., imperatives) and, in some cases, predicting the future (e.g., probability and possibility). In the Background portion of patents, the application writer describes a general “need” for the invention and how this need “will” be fulfilled. Here are a few examples:

There has been a long standing need for …, which this invention fulfills.
An objective of this invention is to be able to ….
This invention will ….

By contrast with predicting a future possibility or probability, patents describe actual inventions, i.e., a concept that has been (supposedly) reduced to practice and is expected to work as described in the detailed portion of the specification, including any necessary experimentation within the capability of someone of ordinary skill in the art.

In the detailed description of the invention, a general modal expression can be used to describe the possibility of using alternatives in an invention. This sentence/paragraph construction should be included to avoid overly limiting the legal protection only to the known embodiments described in the specification. Here are examples:
The device can include alternative …. (features, materials, arrangements, etc.)
The material can be modified by substituting … with … (features, materials, etc.)

In the one-sentence recitation of a patent claim, words describing a probability or possibility should be avoided, since they can render the claims as being unclear or indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112.

Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com

Numerical ranges are a very important part of many patent claim recitations, and they can be pivotal in the determination of non-obviousness, one of the three requirements of patentability (see Graham v. Deere and 35 U.S.C. 103, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966)).

However, factors and orders of magnitude express extreme ranges of numerical values.

A “factor” is a numerical multiplier of a subject numerical value. For example, a factor of 2 implies a doubling, a factor of 3 implies a tripling, and a factor of 10 implies an increase of ten times the subject value.

Also, an increase by a “factor of 10″ implies an increase of an “order of magnitude“. A factor of 100 increase implies two orders of magnitude. Thus, orders of magnitude are expressed by that are exponential powers of 10.

To bring orders of magnitude into some perspective, let us compare the size of nuclei to the size of atoms. This calculation has implications in various nuclear, chemical, biological, electronic, and physical fields. The size of atoms vary according to their atomic and molecular surroundings, i.e., their interactions with neighboring and nearby atomic and nuclear entities. Atoms can be in a state of bonding, e.g., ionic or covalent bonding, which can affect the atom size when compared to a ground or nonbonded state. Also, varying pressure or temperature can affect the size of atoms, e.g., states at the critical point of a material differ from those at supercritical or subcritical conditions, perhaps even if only a small amount.

By contrast, the size of the nucleus remains substantially constant regardless of chemical bonding or physical conditions of the surrounding. This is because the nucleus is surrounded by an atmospherical “blanketing” layer of electrons rotating and spinning around the nucleus. Chemical reactions have essentially no effect on the nuclei.

The sizes of atoms range 32pm for the smallest, He or Helium (a noble gas), to 225pm for Ce or Cesium (an alkali-metal). A picometer, pm, is 10E-12 m or one-trillionth of a meter. The corresponding nuclear sizes are 4fm and 12.8fm, based on the formula d=2.5(nuclear mass)(E(1/3)) [wikipedia.org, "nuclear size"]. A femtometer, fm, is 10E-15 or one-thousand-trillionth of a meter.

Thus, the relative sizes of atom to nucleus for He and Ce, are 8000:1 and 2000:1. Similarly, for the heaviest atom, U or Uranium, the corresponding atomic and nuclear sizes are 175pm and 30fm for a relative atom-to-nuclear size of 6000:1.

In order to better visualize these relative sizes, one might use a 100m soccer field as a comparative diameter (a “metaphor”, say) for the atom, a relative order of magnitude of 3, equal to 1000:1 relative size, corresponds to a nuclear size of 10cm. For He, Ce and U, the relative nuclear sizes in this metaphor are 1.2cm, 5cm and 1.7cm!

Comparing results in terms of factors, or especially or orders of magnitude differences, when arguing unexpected results to support unobviousness of an invention, is quite difficult for a patent examiner or administrative judge to ignore and dismiss.

Other comparisons might be made with the sizes of leptons, such as electrons, or of neutrinos, or of quarks, or even of macro-objects such as galaxies or other celestial or astronomical groups. However, the electrons and neutrinos represent a size that might be beyond comparison with current technology.

If not already, then perhaps the concepts of factors and orders of magnitude should be added to students Standards of Learning (SOLs) for eighth graders in the U.S.? Also, adequate metaphors should be applied as well to enable the students to adequately visualize these kinds of relationships. Consider the trillion dollar U.S. Budget, terabyte and petabyte storage drives, the 10-100 trillion cells in a human adult, etc as further examples for new comparisons and metaphors. Or is it already so? At least one book has already been published that gives plenty of such comparisons for teaching school students.

Francis “Fran” Lorin
siberkhem.com

Back during my freshman and sophomore years at Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU, not to be confused with Central Michigan University), one of the undergraduate requirements was a course called “Introduction to Computing” (or something very close to it) – it was a basic computer course for anyone entering the colleges of engineering (Carnegie Institute of Technology) or science (Mellon Institute of Science).

The computer classes were held in Science Hall (now called Wean Hall) [http://www.flickr.com/photos/coffeelab/9639385/], where the computers were also located. The computer language was FORTRAN-WATFOR. The advanced computer classes that were offered included ALGOL, PL/1, APL, LISP and BASIC, and my local Explorer Club in Forest Hills borough (near Churchill, where I lived) at a Westinghouse payroll processing facility next to Route 376 (on Edgewood Road, off Brinton Road), was teaching COBOL to any junior and high school students who attended the meetings. A “borough” is a municipality in Pennsylvania (and a few other states) somewhat similar to a township. The various boroughs and townships throughout Pittsburgh had somewhat distinct characteristics resulting from the combination of architecture, topography, roadways, culture, cuisine, history, etc., that collectively give this city its own special charm.

Anyway, the IBM 360/370 mainframe computer could be seen behind a large glass window in the computer center from the area where the multipage perforated printouts were delivered with the recipient’s computer name on the first page. The computer printouts were placed on shelves next to many Hollerith card punch machines. Each Hollerith card held one FORTRAN statement of up to 80 characters. We used rubber bands for small programs and show boxes for large ones. Once in a while someone would drop a box and find out this it could take almost as long to reorder the cards (especially if they were not numbered sequentially, which was optional at the time of coding) as it was to retype the entire program. That was always an expensive mistake!

Initially there was one card reader, then two, in the printout/card puncher room. After the stack of cards were read, we generally waited about an hour or more for the printout. In the late 1970’s, a DEC PDP-10 and/or 11 minicomputer with tape reels was added to the repertoire, which added the programming language CP/M.

Later, in my junior and senior years, 1978-1980, a new room was built to house the new terminals that initially only provided a paper printout, then some terminals with small orange-text-only CRT monitors with no mice, and, after I graduated, large full-color LED monitors.

It took a second computer course (as a technical elective) called “Fundamentals of Computer Design” which used PASCAL. I absolutely loved PASCAL, especially since it used the BEGIN and END statements to make a program block, whereas in FORTRAN, incessant GOTOs and labels were always needed that made the FORTRAN outputs very difficult to read and complicated to debug.

When I took my third computer course, a required chemical engineering problem solving course called “Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation II“, I used PASCAL instead of FORTRAN, which all my classmates used. I used far less time to write and debug my programs, which included using Newton’s Approximation Method in differential analysis.

One unique feature the FORTRAN offers, which is not found in other programming languages, even today (yes, FORTRAN is still alive and well!), is the use of the COMPLEX data type. This feature makes many mathematical calculation involving complex equations possible (e.g., optics analysis, alternating circuit analysis, etc.).

Ah, those were the days..

later, more about computing, including supercomputers, software, semiconductor processing, networks, interface devices and systems, and related patents, etc.

Francis “Fran” Lorin
siberkhem.com

Three essential general characteristics must be considered when analyzing an inventive concept (to prepare a patent search or an application) or a patent (to prepare a validity search): metaphor, significance and heirarchy.

Metaphor: in linguistics, a metaphor is the comparison or substitution of a word having a representation in one subject area or environment, with a word from a different subject area or environment. One kind of metaphor that is commonly used in France (and elsewhere in Europe) is to describe something enjoyable as “delicious” regardless of whether any taste is actually involved, as in the expression: “That movie was simply delicious”.

Thus, a “metaphor” is use of a word denoting a concept in one setting in another setting. This sets up a comparison between the two settings. For example, in the use of the word “delicious”, one might extend the comparison between a taste experience and a non-taste experience, by describing an experience or situation as being “spicy” or “bland”, thereby comparing the taste and non-taste experiences.

In patent analysis, the usual corresponding term for a metaphor is “analogy”, leading to the comparative term “analogous”. This term is frequently used to compare subject matter that has some similarity. For example, in a major court case in the early to mid 1800s, two patent holders had claims reciting the same invention! The invention was a still, or boiler, involved in the production of a liquid food product for consumption. One of the patents was for producing milk while the other was for producing beer. Although I do not have the citation for this court case (I am still looking for it), it was very important in that the US Patent Office was chastized by the court for failing to prevent this situation from occurring.

The response by the US Patent Office was to make sure that patent examiners considered analogous art areas in their search for the inventive concept. This also led to the creation of US Patent Classes directed to function-based rather than industry-based subject areas. For example, Class 99 (added in those early days in response to this court case) is directed to Foods and Beverages: Apparatus. Thus patent examiners were then instructed to search this class rather than the previously segregated classes directed to dairy and to beer production.

Significance: in determining patentability, an examiner seeks a significant feature, element or relationship on which to base their reasons for allowance of a patent application. The word “significant” is not actually used, but it is directly related to the concept of a “flash of genius” or “inventive feature”. The significant feature and the field of application of the feature determine the search areas for the inventive concept.

Heirarchy: when comparing somewhat unrelated subjects or elements or features, the US Classification System has established an arbitrary heirarchy that ensures that a patent application goes to the most qualified patent examiner for examination, and that the issued patent is placed in the “correct” classification area according to heirarchy. A patent searcher can find this heirarchy given in the uspto.gov website. Thus, when an inventive concept applies to more than one subject matter or to different technical fields, the heirarchy should guide the searcher to the most appropriate classification areas to consider.

Francis “Fran” Lorin
siberkhem.com