On Nov 8, 10:37=A0am, Regis <quela...@netscape.net> wrote:
> > And I would advise you again not to lie under some stupid pseudonym on
> > the internet: *lying is a bad thing*
>
> > All "prior art" references including EPO search results are listed on
> > the US patent's front page
>
> > EPO hasn't cited any other references
>
> > The US patent prosecution history is available to anyone
>
> > EPO examiners are not smarter than US examiners, and, in this
> > particular case, EPO examiner showed his complete cluelessness and
> > made a big fool out of himself by misunderstanding and misinterpreting
> > "nonanalogous art" reference cited in good faith by patent applicant
> > himself in the initial patent filing, and then extensively discussed
> > in interview and office actions with USPTO (content of those USPTO
> > office actions and discussions being available to anyone on the
> > internet including EPO examiner)
>
> > Trying to screw little-known american inventor out of rightfully
> > deserved european patent sure looks great for EPO reputation... And
> > your posts can only add to this...
>
> > EPO is one big ripoff
>
> OK, tell me then how the US examiner, granting your patent in 2006,
> has taken into account the following two documents, cited by the EPO
> examiner in 2008 !
> Lathrop et al : "Characterization of an experimental strange attractor
> by periodic orbits", Physical review A, vol.40, Number 7, 1 october
> 1989.
>
> This second one was cited in the european search report in 2005, but
> was it discussed at the USPTO (I only see US patent references) ?
> Banbrook et al: "Speech characterization and synthesis by non linear
> methods", IEEE Transactions on speech and audio processing, Vol.7 no.
> 1, January 1999.
>
> :p- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You don't have Internet at EPO ?

All this info was publicly available from www.uspto.gov  to anyone on
the internet including EPO examiners

First reference (Lathrop et. al) ) was discovered and cited in good
faith by patent applicant himself in IDS filed in 2002.

Second reference (Banbrook) was cited in another IDS filed after EPO
search report came in 2005

Both references were considered by US examiner and made of record
(they are listed on the officially granted patent under "Other
references")

Second reference is only marginally relevant - there is nothing to
discuss about it other than the general field of research and it was
mentioned only in the passing by EPO examiner.

EPO examiner relied on the first reference (Lathrop et al :
"Characterization of an experimental strange attractor by periodic
orbits", Physical review A, vol.40, Number 7, 1 october 1989) to state
lack of novelty.
In doing so, EPO examiner made a 100% erroneous statement, confusing
imaginary "periodic orbits" characterizing the behaviour of aperiodic
chaotic strange attractor described in the reference with "periodic
signals"
To be honest, US examiner initially made the same error but was
corrected after extensive discussions and a personal interview.
The contents of those discussions are publicly available to anyone on
the internet as part of US patent prosecution history as early as
2006.

Here is the link to Lathrop et al. reference:

http://complex.umd.edu/papers/attractororbits1989.pdf

You can judge for yourself how it affects the novelty of pitch
(fundamental frequency) determination methods disclosed in US Patent
7,124,075 (if you are qualified to read and understand Lathrop et al.
paper, which is almost certainly not the case)

> And I would advise you again not to lie under some stupid pseudonym on
> the internet: *lying is a bad thing*
>
> All "prior art" references including EPO search results are listed on
> the US patent's front page
>
> EPO hasn't cited any other references
>
> The US patent prosecution history is available to anyone
>
> EPO examiners are not smarter than US examiners, and, in this
> particular case, EPO examiner showed his complete cluelessness and
> made a big fool out of himself by misunderstanding and misinterpreting
> "nonanalogous art" reference cited in good faith by patent applicant
> himself in the initial patent filing, and then extensively discussed
> in interview and office actions with USPTO (content of those USPTO
> office actions and discussions being available to anyone on the
> internet including EPO examiner)
>
> Trying to screw little-known american inventor out of rightfully
> deserved european patent sure looks great for EPO reputation... And
> your posts can only add to this...
>
> EPO is one big ripoff

OK, tell me then how the US examiner, granting your patent in 2006,
has taken into account the following two documents, cited by the EPO
examiner in 2008 !
Lathrop et al : "Characterization of an experimental strange attractor
by periodic orbits", Physical review A, vol.40, Number 7, 1 october
1989.

This second one was cited in the european search report in 2005, but
was it discussed at the USPTO (I only see US patent references) ?
Banbrook et al: "Speech characterization and synthesis by non linear
methods", IEEE Transactions on speech and audio processing, Vol.7 no.
1, January 1999.

:p

On Nov 7, 5:03&#4294967295;am, Regis <quela...@netscape.net> wrote:
> On Nov 5, 12:21&#4294967295;am, Rick <richardcort...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 4, 7:58&#4294967295;am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:> hamilton &#4294967295;<hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> > > >What was the patent examiner thinking !!
>
> > > >He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license
> > > >plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided
> > > >there was no prior art.
>
> > > That is the basic problem with the USPTO today. &#4294967295;There are huge numbers of
> > > patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless
> > > examiners.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > No idea if this was true but I was told that the in European system,
> > patents are granted more as an official record of who did what when.
> > That is, they weren't as rigorously examined as was the case for US
> > patents prior to ~1980. The resolution of infringement was to battle
> > it out in court using the patents as little more then official
> > documentation.
>
> > Regardless of the facts, someone somewhere apparently decided, I bet
> > it was a lawyer, the US should adopt that model. Heck, for a lawyer it
> > makes sense. I mean you were only getting 1/3 of all civil liability
> > cases and OJ's Superbowl Ring. With the new system you get 1/3 of
> > everything made sold or bartered in the US! You would be as big as the
> > US government.
>
> > Rick
>
> The EPO has been created in 1973... And since then, although it may
> not be perfect (I'm sure you could find "stupid" grants at the EPO
> too), the quality of search reports and legal certainty of granted
> patents is generally recognised.
> Back to the origin of this thread, I'd advise a potential buyer to
> read the EPO search report beforehand...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And I would advise you again not to lie under some stupid pseudonym on
the internet: *lying is a bad thing*

All "prior art" references including EPO search results are listed on
the US patent's front page

EPO hasn't cited any other references

The US patent prosecution history is available to anyone

EPO examiners are not smarter than US examiners, and, in this
particular case, EPO examiner showed his complete cluelessness and
made a big fool out of himself by misunderstanding and misinterpreting
"nonanalogous art" reference cited in good faith by patent applicant
himself in the initial patent filing, and then extensively discussed
in interview and office actions with USPTO (content of those USPTO
office actions and discussions being available to anyone on the
internet including EPO examiner)

Trying to screw little-known american inventor out of rightfully
deserved european patent sure looks great for EPO reputation... And
your posts can only add to this...

EPO is one big ripoff

On Nov 5, 12:21&#4294967295;am, Rick <richardcort...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 7:58&#4294967295;am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:> hamilton &#4294967295;<hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> > >What was the patent examiner thinking !!
>
> > >He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license
> > >plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided
> > >there was no prior art.
>
> > That is the basic problem with the USPTO today. &#4294967295;There are huge numbers of
> > patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless
> > examiners.
>
> <snip>
>
> No idea if this was true but I was told that the in European system,
> patents are granted more as an official record of who did what when.
> That is, they weren't as rigorously examined as was the case for US
> patents prior to ~1980. The resolution of infringement was to battle
> it out in court using the patents as little more then official
> documentation.
>
> Regardless of the facts, someone somewhere apparently decided, I bet
> it was a lawyer, the US should adopt that model. Heck, for a lawyer it
> makes sense. I mean you were only getting 1/3 of all civil liability
> cases and OJ's Superbowl Ring. With the new system you get 1/3 of
> everything made sold or bartered in the US! You would be as big as the
> US government.
>
> Rick

The EPO has been created in 1973... And since then, although it may
not be perfect (I'm sure you could find "stupid" grants at the EPO
too), the quality of search reports and legal certainty of granted
patents is generally recognised.
Back to the origin of this thread, I'd advise a potential buyer to
read the EPO search report beforehand...

On Nov 4, 7:58&#4294967295;am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> hamilton &#4294967295;<hamil...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
> >What was the patent examiner thinking !!
>
> >He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license
> >plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided
> >there was no prior art.
>
> That is the basic problem with the USPTO today. &#4294967295;There are huge numbers of
> patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless
> examiners.
<snip>

No idea if this was true but I was told that the in European system,
patents are granted more as an official record of who did what when.
That is, they weren't as rigorously examined as was the case for US
patents prior to ~1980. The resolution of infringement was to battle
it out in court using the patents as little more then official
documentation.

Regardless of the facts, someone somewhere apparently decided, I bet
it was a lawyer, the US should adopt that model. Heck, for a lawyer it
makes sense. I mean you were only getting 1/3 of all civil liability
cases and OJ's Superbowl Ring. With the new system you get 1/3 of
everything made sold or bartered in the US! You would be as big as the
US government.

Rick

On 11/4/11 9:58 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> hamilton<hamilton@nothere.com>  wrote:
>>
>> What was the patent examiner thinking !!
>>
>> He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license
>> plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided
>> there was no prior art.
>
> That is the basic problem with the USPTO today.  There are huge numbers of
> patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless
> examiners.

NPR planet money did some, recent, interesting investigation into the 
patent world.  In one segment they indicated that the patent office is 
one of the only government offices that operates at a net positive 
(bring in more money than they spend).

But they are not allowed to use that money for hiring etc.  They are 
given a fixed budget each year and the gross proceeds are used by 
congress for other pet projects.  They eluded this is one of the 
problems with patent reform, because it is a source of income.

.chris

>
> Consequently a whole lot of totally useless patents get approved, but once
> they get approved, they stay in the system.  We have now come to a time when
> just having a patent is not enough to be useful because a patent is no longer
> automatically presumed to be valid just because it was issued.
>
>> Where is it all going......  SHS (Shacking Head Slowly)
>
> Personally, I liked the ham sandwich patent best, although Microsoft's
> patent on the ring buffer is even more hilarious.  The software patents are
> really the worst, because hiring people who actually know something about
> the history of programming is difficult and so consequently the software
> examiners tend to know even less about the state of the field they are
> approving patents in.
> --scott
>

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> hamilton  <hamilton@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>> What was the patent examiner thinking !!
>>
>> He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license
>> plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and
>> decided there was no prior art.
>
> That is the basic problem with the USPTO today.  There are huge
> numbers of patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire
> some pretty clueless examiners.
>
> Consequently a whole lot of totally useless patents get approved, but
> once they get approved, they stay in the system.  We have now come to
> a time when just having a patent is not enough to be useful because a
> patent is no longer automatically presumed to be valid just because
> it was issued.
>
I think this trend is representative of a fundamentally different view of
the role of the USPTO. In the general "deregulate everything and let the
private sector sort it out" approach of Tea Farty legislators, infringements
will get sorted out in the courts, providing job protections for lawyers and
magistrates, but the "99 percenters" gets screwed once again.

-- 
Neil

hamilton  <hamilton@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>What was the patent examiner thinking !!
>
>He looked out his window, saw a bunch of cars with "lighted" license 
>plates, and said, they are not "Illuminated" license plate and decided 
>there was no prior art.

That is the basic problem with the USPTO today.  There are huge numbers of
patents coming in, and not a lot of money, so they hire some pretty clueless
examiners.

Consequently a whole lot of totally useless patents get approved, but once
they get approved, they stay in the system.  We have now come to a time when
just having a patent is not enough to be useful because a patent is no longer
automatically presumed to be valid just because it was issued.

>Where is it all going......  SHS (Shacking Head Slowly)

Personally, I liked the ham sandwich patent best, although Microsoft's
patent on the ring buffer is even more hilarious.  The software patents are
really the worst, because hiring people who actually know something about
the history of programming is difficult and so consequently the software
examiners tend to know even less about the state of the field they are 
approving patents in.
--scott

-- 
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."