Patent management

March 31, 2008

Application, Rialto Toolkit

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 2:35 am

Rialto (Rich Internet Application Toolkit) is a cross browser ajax based JavaScript widgets library. Because it is technology agnostic it can be encapsulated in JSP, JSF, .Net or PHP graphic components.

The purpose of Rialto is to ease the access to Rich Internet Application development to corporate developers. Ideally a Rialto developer have neither need to write or understand DHTML, Ajax, DOM code or RIA concepts.

The target of Rialto is corporate web applications and not internet web sites.

Widgets library includes: forms, drag & drop, tree, data list with fix header and resizable columns, pop up, splitter and so on.

Rialto enables Single Page Application development, and is available under open source Apache License.


External links

  • Rialto, Rich Internet Application Toolkit
  • Demo

References

Patent, Charles Ginsburg

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — admin @ 1:25 am

Charles Ginsburg (1920-1992) was the leader of a research team at Ampex which developed one of the first practical videotape recorders.

Born in San Francisco, California, Ginsburg earned a bachelor’s degree from San José State in 1948. He worked as an engineer at AM-radio station KQW (now KCBS). He joined Ampex in 1951, and remained there until his retirement in 1986, holding the title Vice President of Advanced Technology.

He was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame in 1990 and the Consumer Electronics Hall of Fame in 2000.


US Patents


References


External links

  • Short bio
  • Group photo including Ginsburg and his team

References

March 30, 2008

Invention is originally, Sufficiency of disclosure

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 8:05 pm

Most patent law systems require that a patent application disclose a claimed invention in sufficient detail for the notional person skilled in the art to carry out that claimed invention. This requirement is often known as sufficiency of disclosure or enablement, depending on the jurisdiction.

Contents


Background

The disclosure requirement lies at the heart and origin of patent law. A state or government grants an inventor, or the inventor’s assignee, a monopoly for a given period of time in exchange for the inventor disclosing to the public how to make or practice his or her invention. If a patent fails to contain such information, then the bargain is violated, and the patent is unenforceable.


European law

Article 83 of the European Patent Convention states that an application must disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. Sufficiency is considered by the examiner during examination of a patent application and the requirement of Article 83 must be complied with in order for a patent to be granted. Insufficient disclosure is also a ground for opposition under Article 100(b).

Insufficiency is also a ground for revocation under Section 72 of the UK Patents Act.


United States law

In United States patent law, the patent specification must be complete enough so that a person of “ordinary skill in the art” of the invention can make and use the invention without “undue experimentation”. There is no precise definition of “undue experimentation” in U.S. patent law. The standard is determined based on the art of the invention.

In the “predictable arts”, such as mechanical inventions and software inventions, very little description is required. A mere flow chart of a piece of software, for example, is adequate. Source code is not normally required. In the “unpredictable arts”, such as chemistry and pharmaceuticals, a very complete description is required.

In a recent U.S. court case, several of Jerome H. Lemelson patents covering bar code readers were held to be invalid because the specification was not complete enough for a person of ordinary skill in the art of electrical engineering to have made and used the claimed invention at the time the patent was filed (1954) without undue experimentation. In this case the court held that a person of ordinary skill in the art was a degreed electrical engineer with two years of experience as of the filing date of the original patent application, 1954. One of the challenges of this court case, which was decided in 2005, was to find experts on the state of the art who were alive in 1954.


Best mode requirement

In the United States, the sufficiency of disclosure requirement is complemented by an additional requirement, generally not found in other national patent jurisdictions: the “best mode requirement“. According to the requirement, the disclosure must also contain the inventor’s “best mode” of making or practicing the invention. For example, if an inventor knows that a liquid should be heated to 250 degrees for optimal performance, but discloses in the patent that the liquid should be heated to “above 200 degrees”, then the inventor has not disclosed his “best mode” for carrying out the invention.

The “best mode requirement” only applies to what the inventor knows at the time the application was filed, not as to what was subsequently discovered.


Enablement

United States patent law further requires, among other things, that the patent specification “contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same.” 35 U.S.C. 112(1). The requirement “to enable” a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention is colloquially referred to as the “enablement” requirement. A patent that does not meet the enablement requirement may be declared invalid by a court.


Further reading

  • Matthew J. Dowd, Nancy J. Leith and Jeffrey S. Weaver, Nanotechnology and the Best Mode, Nanotechnology Law & Business Journal, September 2005 [1] (pdf file)
  • Matthew J. Dowd, Elimination of the Best Mode: Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater?, IPL Newsletter Fall 2005, http://www.skgf.com/media/news/news.231.pdf


See also

  • Defensive publication
  • Patentability
  • Reduction to practice
  • Unity of invention


External links

  • Art. 5 - The Description of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)
  • Art. 83 - Disclosure of the invention of the European Patent Convention (EPC)

References

Family. edit See, Platinum Hits 2000

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 1:20 pm

Platinum Hits 2000 is a 2000 popular music compilation album, released by Columbia Records, and contains all 17 tracks.


Track listing

  1. Say My Name (Maurice’s 2000 Bass Mix) - Destiny’s Child
  2. Maria (Spanglish Radio Edit) - Ricky Martin
  3. Doo Wop (That Thing) (Radio Edit) - Lauryn Hill
  4. Freakin’ It - Will Smith
  5. You Sang To Me (Radio Edit) (Remix) - Marc Anthony
  6. Fortunate (The Naked Uncut Remix) - Maxwell
  7. I Wanna Love You Forever (Soul Solution Radio Edit) - Jessica Simpson
  8. Crash and Burn (Radio Edit) - Savage Garden
  9. Bring It All to Me (Main Version) - Blaque
  10. Bounce With Me - Lil’ Bow Wow
  11. Let’s Get Married - Jagged Edge
  12. Shackles (Praise You) - Mary Mary
  13. Don’t Call Me Baby (Original Mix) - Madison Avenue
  14. A Pura Dolor (Version Balada) - Son By 4
  15. Lullaby - Shawn Mullins
  16. I Think God Can Explain - Splender
  17. Don’t Give Up (Original Radio Edit) - Chicane (feat. Bryan Adams)

References

March 26, 2008

Filed in one, United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 2:05 pm

United States ex rel. Gerald Mayo v. Satan and His Staff, 54 F.R.D. 282 (1971), is a well-known and unusual court case.

Gerald Mayo filed a claim before the United States district court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in which Mayo alleged that “Satan has on numerous occasions caused plaintiff misery and unwarranted threats, against the will of plaintiff, that Satan has placed deliberate obstacles in his path and has caused plaintiff’s downfall” and had therefore “deprived him of his constitutional rights”. This is prohibited under several sections of the United States Code. Notably, Mayo filed in forma pauperis - that is, he asserted that he would not be able to afford the costs associated with his lawsuit and that they therefore should be waived.

In its decision the Court first noted that the jurisdictional situation was unclear. While no previous cases had been brought by or against Satan and so no official precedent existed, there was an “unofficial account of a trial in New Hampshire where this defendant filed an action of mortgage foreclosure as plaintiff”, a clever reference to the short story The Devil and Daniel Webster. The court suggested that the defendant (who had claimed in that story to be an American), should he appear, might have been therefore estopped from arguing a lack of personal jurisdiction.

The Court also noted that the case was certainly appropriate for class action status, and it was not then clear that Mayo could properly represent the interests of the entire (immense) class. Ultimately, though, the Court refused the request to proceed in forma pauperis on what might be considered a technicality: the plaintiff had not included instructions for how the U.S. Marshal could serve process on Satan.

The case has been cited several times, and has never been overturned or contradicted.


See also

  • The Devil and Daniel Webster
  • The Man Who Sued God

References

Originally filed, Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 10:25 am

The Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act is a United States federal law passed in 1990.

A provision of the Act states that a person or organization indebted to the United States, against whom a judgment lien has been filed, is ineligible to receive a government grant. Noncompliance, depending on severity and frequency, may be punished by fine or even incarceration.

The Act can be found in the United States Code at .


See also

  • Debt compliance

Become the basis, Data entry clerk

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 6:15 am

A data entry clerk is a member of staff who reads hand-written or printed records and types them into a computer. They are sometimes employed on a temporary basis, but most large companies which have large amounts of data will hire on a near-permanent basis.

Examples:

For a mailing company, data entry clerks might be required to type in reference numbers for items of mail which had failed to reach their destination, so that the relevant addresses could be deleted from the database used to send the mail out. If the company was compiling a database from addresses handwritten on a questionnaire, the person typing those in would be a data entry clerk.
In a cash office a data entry clerk might be required to type expenses into a database using numerical codes.
The number of data entry clerks is declining as it becomes easier for people in other positions to enter data as it emerges.

References

March 25, 2008

Yet enacted, Vancouver Building Bylaw

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 10:10 pm

Vancouver is currently the only municipality in Canada that enacts its own building codes. Other cities instead use the National Building Code of Canada and the provincial codes that are derived from it. Vancouver’s code is also derived from these but includes some local changes. The current Code was enacted on November 1, 1999.

Because of copyright issues, the city does not make it available online, but it can be purchased at the Enquiry Centre at City Hall.


External links

  • General Information on the VBBL

References

Patentgesetz, Patent Act

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 9:35 pm

A Patent Act is a country’s legislation that controls the use of patents. There have been numerous Patent Acts:

Canada:

  • Canadian Patent Act

Germany:

  • German Patents Act (”Patentgesetz“)

United Kingdom:

  • Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

United States:

  • Patent Act of 1790
  • Patent Act of 1793
  • Patent Act of 1836
  • Patent Act of 1952
  • Patent Reform Act of 2005 (currently pending legislation; not yet enacted)
  • Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act of 1980

References

Country. Sometimes that, Mount Barker Country Fire Service

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 6:20 am

Contents


Other CFS Brigades on Wikipedia


Brigades in Mt Lofty group

  • Aldgate Country Fire Service
  • Burnside Country Fire Service
  • Bridgewater Country Fire Service
  • Bradbury Country Fire Service
  • Ironbank Country Fire Service
  • Mylor Country Fire Service
  • Stirling Country Fire Service
  • Upper Sturt Country Fire Service


Brigades in the Heysen group

  • Littlehampton Country Fire Service
  • Mount Barker Country Fire Service
  • Nairne Country Fire Service
  • Hahndorf Country Fire Service
  • Echunga Country Fire Service
  • Meadows Country Fire Service
  • Brukunga Country Fire Service


See also

  • Country Fire Service
  • Country Fire Authority

March 23, 2008

Controls, Johnson bar (vehicle)

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — admin @ 7:35 pm
This article is about a hand lever used in various vehicles, for other uses of the term, see Johnson bar (disambiguation).

A Johnson bar is a hand lever with several distinct positions and a positive clutch to hold the lever in the selected position. The positive clutch is typically activated with a spring-loaded squeeze handle on the lever so that only one hand is needed to release the clutch, move the lever, then reengage the clutch.

Many steam locomotives have valvetrain controls which are set using a Johnson bar as referenced in Fred Eaglesmith’s Back There: Hey Porter, tell that engineer, tell him this train’s too slow. Tell him to let go that Johnson bar. I got places I got to go.

Many trucks and buses use a hand brake which is controlled with a Johnson bar. These are sometimes called “Johnson bar brakes”.

Truck drivers used to call lever controls on air-operated trailer brakes “Johnson bars”.

On Caterpillar Tractors the forward / reverse lever is also called a Johnson bar.

Some light general aviation aircraft use Johnson bars to actuate flaps and wheel brakes; a small number of older aircraft also have landing gear actuated by Johnson bars.


See also

  • Cutoff

Of the patents, Strowger

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — admin @ 3:50 pm

Strowger can refer to:

  • Strowger switch
  • Automatic telephone exchange equipment manufactured by the Strowger Automatic Telephone Exchange Company or using the principles initially suggested by Almon Brown Strowger.
  • Almon Brown Strowger, whose patents of 1891 were used for the first commercial installation of an automatic telephone exchange in 1892.

References

Germany: German Patents Act, Congress of Polonia in Germany

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 9:00 am

The Congress of Polonia in Germany (Polish: Kongres Polonii Niemieckiej, German: Polnischer Kongress in Deutschland e.V.) is a national umbrella organisation, representing Polish Germans in Germany.


See also

  • Polonia


External links

  • http://www.kongres.org/

References

Generally, Preparation time

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 12:35 am

In policy debate, preparation time (prep time) is the amount of time given to each team to prepare for their speeches. Prep time may be taken at any time in any interval. Preparation time is also referred to as alternate use time.

Although preparation time varies from tournament to tournament, in high school each team is generally given between 5 and 8 minutes of prep time depending on the state and tournament; in college, each team is generally given 10 minutes of prep time. At some collegiate tournaments, for example the University of Texas at Dallas, alternate use time is used giving the debaters a total of 16 minutes and eliminating the mandatory cross examination periods. This time can be used as preparation time or to ask questions during the normal cross examination periods.

Some judges will allow the team taking preparation time to continue asking questions of their opponent. However, because most judges will not require the other team to answer, these questions are generally clarification-oriented rather than combative, unlike those asked in cross-examination. Many judges disapprove of using alternative use time for non-alternate use activities—for example, asking questions of the other team or presenting more arguments.


References

  • Cheshire, David. (2001). How to Cut Prep Time Use. Rostrum. Retrieved December 31, 2005.

References

March 19, 2008

Patent application, On-sale bar

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 10:30 pm

The on-sale bar of 35 U.S.C. 102 is a United States patent law term that means if an invention has been for sale for over one year, it is no longer patentable.

Contents


35 U.S.C. 102(b)

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -

(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or


MPEP 2133.03(b) “On Sale