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
12/714537 - non final rejection
« Patents
« Technology
| Tue, 10 May 2011, 10:59pm | #1 |
|---|---|
|
|
| Offline | Link |
| Wed, 11 May 2011, 7:33pm | #2 |
|---|---|
|
"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. |
| Offline | Link |
| Wed, 11 May 2011, 11:07pm | #3 |
|---|---|
|
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 | Link |
| Sun, 14 Aug 2011, 6:52am | #4 |
|---|---|
|
The reply to the non-final is overdue .... Mark |
| Offline | Link |
| Sun, 14 Aug 2011, 5:25pm | #5 |
|---|---|
|
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 | Link |
| Sun, 14 Aug 2011, 7:23pm | #6 |
|---|---|
|
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
|
| Offline | Link |