TheEEStory.com

News, Reviews and Discussion of EEStor Inc.
12/714537 - non final rejection « Patents « Technology
 
Tue, 10 May 2011, 10:59pm #1
Mark
EEcclesiastical
Skull
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Thu, 04 Apr 2013
Posts: 1028

http://www.theeestory.com/files/12714537_reject...

Looks like Jun 'Jet' Li wants Weir to narrow the claims.

Mark

Last edited Tue, 10 May 2011, 11:08pm by Mark

Offline


Wed, 11 May 2011, 7:33pm #2
Prof Neilson
EESUrient
Skiracer2
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Wed, 03 Apr 2013
Posts: 1528

"No claims are allowed."

That is a tough one. Better have a really good lawyer.

Yikes!


All I want for Christmas is a Graphene / Ionic Liquid Electrical Generator.

PNeilson@NeilsonLabs.com

Offline
Wed, 11 May 2011, 11:07pm #3
WolverineFan
EEager
Registered: Sep, 2008
Last visit: Tue, 15 Nov 2011
Posts: 304

Where's our patent guy? Didn't BRUNO'790 (5,116,790) expire in November 2010 and isn't BRUNO'674 (5,242,674) about to expire in June 2011?

They also make linking to a patent pretty hard don't they? Sheesh.

PAIR doesn't seem to list the patent expiration date, instead leaving that as an exercise to the reader. Just trying to figure out if I'm understanding the 17/20 rules correctly. 2015 should be a nice year, since then we just have 20 to worry about (mostly).

Thanks!


As of Feb 1, 2011 I'm officially no longer a believer. I even went back to my first post here on Sept 16, 2008 and found that somewhere along the line I gave EEStor an extra MONTH to prove it to me. They failed.

Offline
Sun, 14 Aug 2011, 6:52am #4
Mark
EEcclesiastical
Skull
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Thu, 04 Apr 2013
Posts: 1028

The reply to the non-final is overdue ....

Mark

Offline
Sun, 14 Aug 2011, 5:25pm #5
EEventually
EExhilarating
Ninjaneer
Registered: Mar, 2009
Last visit: Fri, 13 Dec 2013
Posts: 3696

This is one where they talk about specific lanthanum chemistry but lanthanum never appears in the example CMBT compositions. I find this interesting.


“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.”- Michael Crichton

Offline
Sun, 14 Aug 2011, 7:23pm #6
CapMan
EESUrient
Registered: Aug, 2008
Last visit: Thu, 26 Jan 2012
Posts: 1447

WolverineFan wrote:

Where's our patent guy? Didn't BRUNO'790 (5,116,790) expire in November 2010 and isn't BRUNO'674 (5,242,674) about to expire in June 2011?

They also make linking to a patent pretty hard don't they? Sheesh.

PAIR doesn't seem to list the patent expiration date, instead leaving that as an exercise to the reader. Just trying to figure out if I'm understanding the 17/20 rules correctly. 2015 should be a nice year, since then we just have 20 to worry about (mostly).

Thanks!

Just because a patent is expired, doesn't mean it can't be used as prior art.

Is that your question?

Last edited Sun, 14 Aug 2011, 7:35pm by CapMan


CapMan
email: ---

Offline