Size of Fees

Absent qualifying for reduced fees, the default category of government fees corresponds to the schedule of largest out-of-pocket fee payments at the USPTO. You are welcome to see the USPTO fee schedule, including a breakdown of fees by qualified entity size, at the following link.
http://www.uspto.gov/about/offices/cfo/finance/fees.jsp

The Small Entity fee category for reduced government fees has existed for some time. Please see Small Entity Status below for a discussion of qualifying for small entity fees.

Further reductions in government fees as a Micro Entity have been available since March 19, 2013 by implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA). Please see Micro Entity Status below for a discussion of qualifying for micro entity fees.

So, will your fee size be large, small, or micro?

Small Entity Status

A person, small business concern, or nonprofit organization can potentially qualify to pay small entity fees.

Citations here and here.

With respect to a small business concern, the business qualifies for small entity fee status in the USPTO if all of the following are true.

• The business, including affiliates, has 500 or fewer employees.
• The business has not assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed, and is under no obligation under contract or law to assign, grant, convey, or license, any rights in the invention to any person, concern, or organization which would not qualify for small entity status as a person, small business concern, or nonprofit organization.

Top

Micro Entity Status

To qualify as a micro entity, an applicant must:

• Satisfy the requirements for Small Entity Status above; and
• Establish either of the following additional conditions:
  • Limited income and limited experience with patent application filings. Please see Gross Income Basis below.
  • Employment by, or an assignment or obligation to assign to, an institution of higher education. Please see Institution of Higher Education Basis below.

Citations here and here.

Gross Income Basis

An applicant for micro entity status on the basis of gross income, must certify all of the following.

Small Entity Requirement

• Satisfaction of the requirements for Small Entity Status above.

Application Filing Limit

• Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor has been named as an inventor on more than four previously filed US patent applications, calculated as follows.
  • Excluded from the count of four previously filed US patent applications are:
    • Provisional applications;
    • Foreign applications; and
    • International (PCT) applications for which the basic US national stage filing fee was not paid.
  • Further excluded from the count are applications where an applicant, inventor, or joint inventor has assigned, or is under an obligation by contract or law to assign, all ownership rights in the application as the result of the applicant’s, inventor’s, or joint inventor’s previous employment.
  • Unless excluded as indicated above, included in the count of four previously filed US patent applications, and regardless whether pending, patented, or abandoned, are:
    • US nonprovisional applications, including utility, design, continuation, and divisional applications;
    • US reissue applications; and
    • US national stage applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).

Gross Income Limit

Maximum Qualifying Gross Income

• Equal to three times the median household income for the preceding calendar year, as most recently reported by the Bureau of the Census and listed at the following link.
  http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/micro_entity.jsp

Applicants and Inventors

• Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor had a gross income exceeding the Maximum Qualifying Gross Income for the preceding calendar year

Parties with an Ownership Interest

• Neither the applicant nor the inventor nor a joint inventor has assigned, granted, or conveyed, nor is under an obligation by contract or law to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the application concerned to an entity that had a gross income exceeding the Maximum Qualifying Gross Income for the preceding calendar year

Top

Institution of Higher Education Basis

An applicant for micro entity status in connection with an institution of higher education, must satisfy the requirements for Small Entity Status, and either of the following.

Employment by an Institution of Higher Education

• The applicant’s employer, from which the applicant obtains the majority of the applicant’s income, is a qualified institution of higher education.

Assignment or Obligation to Assign to an Institution of Higher Education

• The applicant has assigned, granted, conveyed, or is under an obligation by contract or law, to assign, grant, or convey, a license or other ownership interest in the particular application to a qualified institution of higher education.

Top

Text Copyright © 2013 Bob Brill

Refreshers

My Handling of Patent Applications

As a friendly reminder, my practice involves handling of patent applications, also referred to as “patent preparation and prosecution.” Please note these applications are addressed to government patent offices. I work with clients to file patent applications and negotiate with patent offices to obtain the issuance of patents.

Primers on Prosecution of Patent Applications

For my earlier primers on prosecution of patent applications within the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), please see “Patent Prosecution – Live” and “University Students Patent Questions,” under the heading “How Does the Captain Navigate at the Helm?”

Appeals

An additional maneuver available during patent prosecution, with associated costs, may involve appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), previously, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), as well as outside the patent office to the court system.

Should I Stay Talking with Patent Examiner, or Go Appeal

Various financial or strategic considerations of the client typically motivate directions at a given stage of the patenting process. Turning to the example for this post, the proponents (“Chevalier”) of the prospectively inventive disclosure of US Patent Application 11/407,778 have, as of recently, supported three separate paths of patent prosecution. The Chevalier patent application has been published as Publication Number 20060255482 and entitled “Device for Stirring a Liquid and for Injecting a Gas into This Liquid, Suitable for Shallow Basins.” A representative illustration follows.

Insisting on Original Position – “Or Not at All“

Chevalier established early in the prosecution history of US Patent Application 11/407,778, and has largely held through the recent Federal Circuit decision In re Chevalier (Fed. Cir. January 7, 2013) (nonprecedential), an argument against rejection by combination of prior art, without Chevalier showing accommodation of the countering suggestions presented by the patent examiner. An early offering of these countering suggestions occurred in the Final Rejection, page 5, as the examiner’s indication of claim limitations that could be added by Chevalier to connect with Chevalier’s argument against rejection by the examiner’s combination of prior art.

In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the length of the shaft being such to effect desired operation in shallow or deep basins) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

Please note the terminology “Final Rejection” indicates the status of work by the patent examiner. One approach to obtaining the examiner’s further consideration of significant claim amendments involves payment to the USPTO of a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) fee.

Intriguing

The following text in the Federal Circuit decision, pages 5-6, intrigued me and motivated my preparation of this blog post.

Chevalier contends that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Kwak and Howk because the resulting combination would be inoperable. Chevalier bases his argument on his own interpretive drawings, which allegedly demonstrate that a literal physical combination of the Kwak and Howk devices would not effectively convert the axial flow of the gas-liquid mixture to radial flow. According to Chevalier, the combination device would direct the radial liquid flow into the wall of a tube wall found in the Kwak device, thus preventing the gas-liquid mixture from achieving suitable aeration. The examiner disagreed and explained that the length of the drive shaft could be easily modified by one of ordinary skill in order to avoid this alleged problem associated with physically combining the prior art devices. The Board reviewed Chevalier’s contentions and the examiner’s answer and chose to credit the examiner’s explanation. We find the Board’s determination both well reasoned and supported by substantial evidence.

Moreover, Chevalier’s arguments demonstrate that he misapprehends the nature of the obviousness inquiry. The obviousness inquiry does not ask “whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.” In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (stating “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference”). Rather, in a case such as this where each of the elements of the claim are known to the art, the obviousness inquiry requires a finding that the combination of known elements was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).

Clarity

On the face of the Federal Circuit’s first paragraph of text quoted immediately above, I wondered why a purported inoperability in combination of the prior art appeared to be glossed over in support of an obviousness claim rejection.

Upon further review of the prosecution history, I saw apparent answers to my question:

• Chevalier has, so far in the prosecution of the original US Patent Application 11/407,778, refrained from presenting claim language convincingly tied to Chevalier’s argument against rejection by inoperability in combination of the prior art.
• Chevalier has subsequently filed two continuation patent applications, as further discussed below, in parallel with Chevalier’s appeal on the parent patent application 11/407,778 addressed by the Federal Circuit decision.

Chevalier’s Missing Claim Language

As stated in the appealed Patent Board’s Decision, page 5:

As correctly noted by the Examiner, the subject matter of claim 1 does not include limitations pertaining to the length of the shaft, depth of the reactor or proximity of the deflector to the rotor. Ans. 6. With this in mind, we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning that a person skilled in the art would have sufficient knowledge of the prior art and skill to utilize known techniques and adjust the shaft to a length that would maintain the mounted deflector at the bottom of the basin so as to retain the advantages of Kwak (scouring) and provide a quick and complete conversion of axial to radial flow within the basin. Id. The examiner has provided an adequate explanation of why one skilled in the art would not make a device that mismatches the reactor basin in which it would operate. Id. at 7. On this record, Appellants have not directed us to persuasive evidence to the contrary.

The Board’s citations in the text quoted immediately above, are directed to the numbered pages of the Examiner’s Answer to Appeal Brief.

Chevalier’s First Continuation Is Now a Patent

During the appeal for the parent patent application 11/407,778, Chevalier filed for and received US Patent 8,308,143 on method claims containing details that echo the examiner’s earlier suggestions, introduced further above.

Chevalier’s Second Continuation Is Pending

Also during the appeal for the parent patent application 11/407,778, Chevalier filed US Patent Application 13/401,421, which is, at present, not yet available for public inspection.

Text Copyright © 2013 Bob Brill

Method or Business Method, Choose One

Business methods have attracted attention in patent developments. The labeling as genus “method” and species “business method” appears as contortion against the expected meaning for patent prosecution. Instead of procession from superset “method” and then to subset “business method,” these labels “method” and “business method” appear to occupy equal hierarchical footing in channeling of prospective inventions, where different reviews result after this separation at intake.

Earlier Inclusiveness

Earlier, discussions of patent eligibility had an overarching feel of “methods” and subset treatment of “business methods.” For primers on “business methods,” please see my previous posts here and here. Later in this post, the discussion will leave off “business methods” and continue with only “methods.”

Current Exclusivity

Current guidelines appear to split the review of patent eligibility between “methods” and “business methods.” The following text, although directed to practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), offers insight on this split.

In addition to the definitions in §42.2, the following definitions apply to proceedings under this subpart D:

(a) Covered business method patent means a patent that claims a method or corresponding apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the practice, administration, or management of a financial product or service, except that the term does not include patents for technological inventions.

(b) Technological invention. In determining whether a patent is for a technological invention solely for purposes of the Transitional Program for Covered Business Methods (section 42.301(a)), the following will be considered on a case-by-case basis: whether the claimed subject matter as a whole recites a technological feature that is novel and unobvious over the prior art; and solves a technical problem using a technical solution.

[77 FR 48753, Aug. 14, 2012]

Citations here, here slides 94-96, here page 49, and here.

Identify Technology for Patenting

Kindly consider whether your invention includes any technology, for receptiveness by the USPTO.

Guidance

With respect to methods, putting aside business methods, the USPTO offers the following guidance on patent eligibility, in part.

Sample Factors

Factors Weighing toward Eligibility:

• Recitation of a machine or transformation (either express or inherent).
  • Machine or transformation is particular.
  • Machine or transformation meaningfully limits the execution of the steps.
  • Machine implements the claimed steps.
  • The article being transformed is particular.
  • The article undergoes a change in state or thing (e.g., objectively different function or use).
  • The article being transformed is an object or substance.
• The claim is directed toward applying a law of nature.
  • Law of nature is practically applied.
  • The application of the law of nature meaningfully limits the execution of the steps.
• The claim is more than a mere statement of a concept.
  • The claim describes a particular solution to a problem to be solved.
  • The claim implements a concept in some tangible way.
  • The performance of the steps is observable and verifiable.

Factors Weighing against Eligibility:

• No recitation of a machine or transformation (either express or inherent).
• Insufficient recitation of a machine or transformation.
  • Involvement of machine, or transformation, with the steps is merely nominally, insignificantly, or tangentially related to the performance of the steps, e.g., data gathering, or merely recites a field in which the method is intended to be applied.
  • Machine is generically recited such that it covers any machine capable of performing the claimed step(s).
  • Machine is merely an object on which the method operates.
  • Transformation involves only a change in position or location of article.
  • “Article” is merely a general concept (see notes below).
• The claim is not directed to an application of a law of nature.
  • The claim would monopolize a natural force or patent a scientific fact; e.g., by claiming every mode of producing an effect of that law of nature.
  • Law of nature is applied in a merely subjective determination.
  • Law of nature is merely nominally, insignificantly, or tangentially related to the performance of the steps.
• The claim is a mere statement of a general concept (see notes below for examples).
  • Use of the concept, as expressed in the method, would effectively grant a monopoly over the concept.
  • Both known and unknown uses of the concept are covered, and can be performed through any existing or future-devised machinery, or even without any apparatus.
  • The claim only states a problem to be solved.
  • The general concept is disembodied.
  • The mechanism(s) by which the steps are implemented is subjective or imperceptible.

NOTES: Examples of general concepts include, but are not limited, to:

• Basic economic practices or theories (e.g., hedging, insurance, financial transactions, marketing);
• Basic legal theories (e.g., contracts, dispute resolution, rules of law);
• Mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, spatial relationships, geometry);
• Mental activity (e.g., forming a judgment, observation, evaluation, or opinion);
• Interpersonal interactions or relationships (e.g., conversing, dating);
• Teaching concepts (e.g., memorization, repetition);
• Human behavior (e.g., exercising, wearing clothing, following rules or instructions);
• Instructing “how business should be conducted.”

Citation here pages 3 and 4.

Terms Confirming Quest for Technology

The factors listed above use certain terms that the USPTO takes care to further define toward identification of technology in a patent method claim.

Machine

A “machine” is a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. This includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result. This definition is interpreted broadly to include electrical, electronic, optical, acoustic, and other such devices that accomplish a function to achieve a certain result. The machine should implement the process, and not merely be an object upon which the process operates. The claim should be clear as to how the machine implements the process, rather than simply stating “a machine implemented process.” The machine limitations should make clear that the use of the machine in the claimed process imposes a meaningful limitation on the claim’s scope. An “apparatus” does not have a significantly different meaning from a machine and can include a machine or group of machines or a totality of means by which a designated function or specific task is executed.

Article

An “article” includes a physical object or substance. The physical article or substance must be particular, meaning it can be specifically identified. An article can also be electronic data that represents a physical object or substance. For the test, the data should be more than an abstract value. Data can be specifically identified by indicating what the data represents, the particular type or nature of the data, and/or how or from where the data was obtained.

Transformation

“Transformation” of an article means that the “article” has changed to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Manufactures and compositions of matter are the result of transforming raw materials into something new with a different function or use. Purely mental processes in which thoughts or human based actions are “changed” are not considered an eligible transformation. For data, mathematical manipulation per se has not been deemed a transformation; but, transformation of electronic data has been found when the nature of the data has been changed such that it has a different function or is suitable for a different use.

Particular

A “particular” machine or apparatus or transformation of a “particular” article means that the method involves a specific machine or article, not any and all machines or articles. This ensures that the machine or transformation imposes real world limits on the claimed method by limiting the claim scope to a particular practical application.

Computer Implementation

For computer implemented processes, the “machine” is often disclosed as a general purpose computer. In these cases, the general purpose computer may be sufficiently “particular” when programmed to perform the process steps. Such programming creates a new machine because a general purpose computer, in effect, becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software. To qualify as a particular machine under the test, the claim must clearly convey that the computer is programmed to perform the steps of the method because such programming, in effect, creates a special purpose computer limited to the use of the particularly claimed combination of elements (i.e., the programmed instructions) performing the particularly claimed combination of functions. If the claim is so abstract and sweeping that performing the process as claimed would cover substantially all practical applications of a judicial exception, such as a mathematical algorithm, the claim would not satisfy the test as the machine would not be sufficiently particular.

Field of Use

A “field-of-use” limitation does not impose actual boundaries on the scope of the claimed invention. A field-of-use limitation merely indicates that the method is for use in a particular environment, such as “for use with a machine” or “for transforming an article,” which would not require that the machine implement the method or that the steps of the method cause the article to transform. A field-of-use limitation does not impose a meaningful limit on the claimed invention.

Insignificant Activity

Insignificant “extra-solution” activity means activity that is not central to the purpose of the method invented by the applicant. For example, gathering data to use in the method when all applications of the method would require some form of data gathering would not impose a meaningful limit on the claim.

Citation here pages 6 and 7.

Text Copyright © 2012 Bob Brill

Objectively Nonobvious

For emphasis, the Federal Circuit repeated previous recognition by itself and the Supreme Court, on the importance of objective indicia of nonobviousness. The decision-maker entrusted with review of this topic of nonobviousness may be:

• the patent examiner,
• the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), or
• the judiciary

at different points in:

• prosecution of a patent application in the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO),
• appeal from patent prosecution,
• assertion of an issued patent, or
• appeal of a judicial determination in the court system.

Extolment

Objective indicia may often be the most probative and cogent evidence of nonobviousness in the record. Indeed, objective indicia may be the most pertinent, probative, and revealing evidence available to the decision-maker in reaching a conclusion on the obviousness/nonobviousness issue. Such evidence may often establish that an invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art, was not.

Check on Hindsight

Objective indicia can be the most probative evidence of nonobviousness in the record, and enable the decision-maker to avert the trap of hindsight. These objective criteria help inoculate the obviousness analysis against hindsight. The objective guideposts are powerful tools for decision-makers faced with the difficult task of avoiding subconscious reliance on hindsight. The objective indicia guard against slipping into use of hindsight, and resist the temptation to read into the prior art the teachings of the invention in issue.

This built-in protection can help place a scientific advance in the proper temporal and technical perspective when tested years later for obviousness, against charges of making only a minor incremental improvement. That which may be made clear and thus obvious to a decision-maker, with the invention fully diagrammed and aided by experts in the field, may have been a breakthrough of substantial dimension when first unveiled. These objective criteria thus help turn back the clock and place the claims in the context that led to their invention.

Technical advance, like much of human endeavor, often occurs through incremental steps toward greater goals. These marginal advances in retrospect may seem deceptively simple, particularly when retracing the path already blazed by the inventor. For these reasons, the Federal Circuit requires consideration of the objective indicia because they provide objective evidence of how the implementation of the patented invention was viewed in the marketplace, by directly interested third parties.

The objective considerations reflect the contemporary view of the invention by competitors and the marketplace. Evidence of the contemporaneous attitude toward the invention helps to cast one’s mind back to the state of technology at the time the invention was made. A retrospective view of the invention is best gleaned from those who were there at the time. Obviousness requires a decision-maker to avoid hindsight by walking a tightrope blindfolded: an enterprise best pursued with the safety net of objective evidence.

Evidence

Mintz presented considerable record evidence on objective indicia, including unexpected results, expert skepticism, copying, commercial success, praise by others (even from the accused infringer), failure by others, and long-felt need.

District Court Error

Inexplicably, the district court erroneously stated, “Plaintiffs do not appear to offer any objective evidence of nonobviousness.” The record also shows that Mintz gave the district court an opportunity to correct this error by noting this oversight in its motion for reconsideration. In denying that motion, the district court acknowledged that Mintz did present such evidence in its opening summary judgment brief. Nonetheless, the district court dismissed without consideration that presentation as “scant.” To the contrary, the district court should have proceeded to analyze the evidence.

Easily Understood Technology

Where the invention is less technologically complex, the need for findings on objective indicia of nonobviousness can be important to ward against falling into the forbidden use of hindsight. Simply because the technology can be easily understood does not mean that it will satisfy the legal standard of obviousness. Objective consideration of simple technology is often the most difficult because, once the problem and solution appear together in the patent disclosure, the advance seems self-evident. The proper analysis instead requires a form of amnesia that forgets the invention and analyzes the prior art and understanding of the problem at the date of invention.

Praise from Competitor

The Federal Circuit noted its previous recognition of the probative value of praise by a competitor.

Sour Grapes

Praise from a competitor tends to indicate that the invention was not obvious. Before the litigation, the accused infringer recognized the technology as a significant advance and touted the advantages. The accused infringer’s recognition of the importance of this advance is relevant to a determination of nonobviousness.

The litigation argument that an innovation is really quite ordinary carries diminished weight when offered by those who had tried and failed to solve the same problem, and then promptly adopted the solution that they are now denigrating. When differences that may appear technologically minor nonetheless have a practical impact, particularly in a crowded field, the decision-maker must consider the obviousness of the invention in this light. Such objective indicia as commercial success, or filling an existing need, illuminate the technological and commercial environment of the inventor, and aid in understanding the state of the art at the time the invention was made.

Business Wins

For 8 years when serving as the distributor of products covered by the patent at issue, the accused infringer sent customers many letters and brochures praising the benefits of those products. Once Mintz terminated the distribution agreement, the accused infringer began selling other products being accused of infringement in this case. Similarly, other companies have been accused of infringement by Mintz and either requested to license the patent or were found to infringe a related European patent. Mintz has been granted similar patents in other countries and has sold embodiments of the patent in twenty countries.

Before Mintz’s claimed invention, despite the old elastic netting having been sold on the market for over 30 years and the collagen film for over 10 years, the prior art disclosed no solutions to the problem of meat adherence without a laborious two-step process or higher expense. Mintz presented an example of a competitor who tried to solve the problem but failed. Since their introduction over 15 years ago, the products covered by the patent have become the industry standard. Mintz has sold over $70 million of these patented products in the United States alone.

Lesson

The Federal Circuit confirmed the value of objective indicia of nonobviousness. Mintz’s business wins translated into support for validity of its claimed invention.

Separate Topic of Claim Construction

Separate from the focus of this post, Mintz nevertheless suffered from its claim language failing to cover the accused infringer’s products that competed in the marketplace with the products covered by Mintz’s patent.

Patent infringement occurs if an accused device or process meets each limitation of a patent claim, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, where available. For more on the topic of claim construction for patent infringement, see my post.

Text Copyright © 2012 Bob Brill

Upstream Handling of Patent Applications

My practice involves handling of patent applications, also referred to as “patent preparation and prosecution.” Please note these applications are addressed to government patent offices. Looking at patent applications as “upstream” work, one may compare “downstream” work as potentially involving assertion, enforcement, and/or litigation. As a further basis of comparison, litigation matters involve the court system, outside the patent office.

Primers on Prosecution (Handling) of Patent Applications

For my earlier primers on prosecution (handling) of patent applications within the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), please see “Patent Prosecution – Live” and “University Students Patent Questions,” under the heading “How Does the Captain Navigate at the Helm?”

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI)

The patent applicant may appeal a patent examiner’s final rejection while a patent application remains pending in the patent office, to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). Review of decisions by the BPAI may shed light on current directions and parameters for patent examiners in general for negotiation of prospective allowance of patent claims.

Patenting by Words of Distinction

Briefly reviewing the decisions of the BPAI dated April 24, 2012, I thought to share with you a pointer from Ex Parte Caddell, Appeal No. 2010000810. In the illustrative claims on page 2 of the decision, appeared the following patent claim 1, where the corresponding application was earlier published as US Publication No. 20060163970A1 of Caddell:

1. A rotary machine comprising:
a hollow stator which defines an elliptical rotor path;
a longitudinal rotor mounted within said elliptical rotor path, said longitudinal rotor extending arcuately along said elliptical rotor path; and
a magnet system mounted about said stator to drive said longitudinal rotor along said elliptical rotor path.

The BPAI presented the following analysis on pages 5-6 of the decision in connection with US Patent No. 3,927,329 to Fawcett et al., the prior art reference that had been applied by the patent examiner for rejection of claim 1:

35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejection—Fawcett
Claims 1 and 30

We find error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1 and 30. Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “a longitudinal rotor mounted within said elliptical rotor path, said longitudinal rotor extending arcuately along said elliptical rotor path[.]”

At best, Fawcett discloses configuring the spheroids or pistons such that they move freely about the torus or closed loop passageway. Col. 7, ll. 47-49; figure 1. However, we find that Fawcett does not describe configuring the pistons such that they are bent or curved along the loop, as required by independent claims 1 and 30. While Fawcett’s pistons may be capable of bending or curving along the loop, mere probabilities and possibilities fall short of demonstrating that Fawcett necessarily describes the claimed “longitudinal rotor” as required for an anticipation rejection. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Consequently, we find that the Examiner improperly relied upon Fawcett to describe the disputed claim limitation. It follows that the Examiner has erred in finding that Fawcett anticipates independent claims 1 and 30.

Prior Art’s Mere Probabilities and Possibilities Fall Short in Claim Rejection

Taking a lesson from the decision’s language at face value, without digging into details of the further file history of the appealed patent application, we may appreciate the BPAI gave weight to claim 1′s language as sufficiently distinguishing the prior art reference. In reversing the anticipation rejection of claim 1, the BPAI characterized:

[M]ere probabilities and possibilities fall short of demonstrating that Fawcett [the prior art reference applied by the patent examiner] necessarily describes the claimed “longitudinal rotor” as required for an anticipation rejection.

The BPAI took note of claim 1′s recitation “said longitudinal rotor extending arcuately along said elliptical rotor path” as detail not anticipated by the prior art reference applied by the patent examiner.

Text Copyright © 2012 Bob Brill

Setup

In a context of personal brands, the inquiry had asked when an individual should consider trademarking their own name. A further question asked about benefits of trademarking a person’s name, and consequent contributions of the trademark to building of a personal brand.

Redirection of Flow

I had replied:

A main apparent misalignment from your first and second substantive questions implies a person may choose to immediately register a trademark on their way to developing branding. A subordinate apparent misalignment results from the trademark needing to serve as a source identifier for goods or services; so, simply identifying a person rather than identifying the person as a source of particular goods or services in commerce wouldn’t constitute a trademark use needed for registration of their name.

Having a choice for registration on the Principal Register right off the bat would be a rare situation of a surname *not* being primarily merely a surname, in which case the surname would have already acquired distinctiveness in the public’s perception as a trademark.

For a next step, I had offered:

I could walk a person through a discussion of applying for registration on the Supplemental Register on their way to seeking registration on the Principal Register.

Authority

On my end, review had included the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) §1211 Refusal on Basis of Surname.

Incremental Check

Before additional use of my time for review, I had presented the above feedback and revisited with the person:

I have performed preliminary review and want to check with you on your preference for direction, particularly with your first and second substantive questions, relative to the approach under US Trademark Law.

Lesson Brought Home

From my explanation above, the person saw trademarks involved use in commerce. The person could correct their orientation and understand an individual could develop the individual’s personal brand, while “use in commerce” could present a gap for the individual’s further consideration of pursuing a trademark on that individual’s name.

Text Copyright © 2012 Bob Brill

On Friday, September 16, 2011, the president signed into law the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) for US patent reform. To see the USPTO’s discussion of rulemaking still needed to implement the AIA, please click here. You are welcome to also review posts by other practitioners on immediate changes to patent law and IP outlook in the reform era.

One day earlier, on Thursday, September 15, 2011, the Federal Circuit had decided Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2011) involving patent eligibility. For a copy of the Ultramercial v. Hulu decision, please click here. The discussion below on patent eligibility from the Ultramercial v. Hulu decision focuses on grounds that appear to continue in effect upon implementation of the AIA.

Primer on Patent Eligibility

The claims section of a patent defines the owner’s rights. In one aspect, the claim language serves to present the invention in a patent-eligible form, as patentable subject matter. In another aspect, the claim language serves to distinguish the prior art.

During examination of the patent application before issuance, the patent examiner can raise objections and rejections such as to the claim language in view of the prior art, as well as over the subject matter sought to be claimed. Third parties, at various times, can similarly use procedures in the patent office and/or the courts to challenge the claims of a patent. The rules within government offices, laws for different countries and under various treaties, and interpretation and enforcement of intellectual property rights by courts and governments vary and evolve.

For more on patent application preparation and prosecution, including a review of patent claims for 1) subject matter that is eligible for patenting and 2) distinction from the prior art, please see my earlier posts here and here.

Internet Distribution Method is Eligible for Patenting

In reviewing US Patent No. 7,346,545 (“the ’545 patent”), the Federal Circuit in Ultramercial v. Hulu reversed and remanded a decision of the district court and held that the ’545 patent does claim a “process” within the language and meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Reference Materials

Pasted below is claim 1 of the ’545 patent. To see a full PDF copy of the ’545 patent, please click here.

1. A method for distribution of products over the Internet via a facilitator, said method comprising the steps of:

a first step of receiving, from a content provider, media products that are covered by intellectual-property rights protection and are available for purchase, wherein each said media product being comprised of at least one of text data, music data, and video data;

a second step of selecting a sponsor message to be associated with the media product, said sponsor message being selected from a plurality of sponsor messages, said second step including accessing an activity log to verify that the total number of times which the sponsor message has been previously presented is less than the number of transaction cycles contracted by the sponsor of the sponsor message;

a third step of providing the media product for sale at an Internet website;

a fourth step of restricting general public access to said media product;

a fifth step of offering to a consumer access to the media product without charge to the consumer on the precondition that the consumer views the sponsor message;

a sixth step of receiving from the consumer a request to view the sponsor message, wherein the consumer submits said request in response to being offered access to the media product;

a seventh step of, in response to receiving the request from the consumer, facilitating the display of a sponsor message to the consumer;

an eighth step of, if the sponsor message is not an interactive message, allowing said consumer access to said media product after said step of facilitating the display of said sponsor message;

a ninth step of, if the sponsor message is an interactive message, presenting at least one query to the consumer and allowing said consumer access to said media product after receiving a response to said at least one query;

a tenth step of recording the transaction event to the activity log, said tenth step including updating the total number of times the sponsor message has been presented; and

an eleventh step of receiving payment from the sponsor of the sponsor message displayed.

Eligibility as Threshold Check

The Federal Circuit described the review of eligibility of patent claims as a coarse gauge of the suitability of broad subject matter categories for patent protection. Section 101 sets forth the categories of subject matter that are eligible for patent protection:

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

Section 101 itself expresses that subject matter eligibility is merely a threshold check. Claim patentability ultimately depends on “the conditions and requirements of this title,” such as novelty and non-obviousness. Title 35 does not list a single ineligible category, suggesting that any new, non-obvious, and appropriately disclosed technical advance is eligible for protection, subject to the limited judicially created (non-statutory) exceptions discussed below.

Non-Statutory Exceptions to Eligibility

Judicial case law has created only three categories of subject matter outside the eligibility bounds of § 101: 1) laws of nature, 2) physical phenomena, and 3) abstract ideas. The Federal Circuit highlights the third category, abstract ideas, as presenting a different set of interpretive problems, particularly for the § 101 “process” category. The term “process” has a statutory definition at 35 U.S.C. § 100(b) that admits of no express subject matter limitation:

The term “process” means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.

The Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3231 (2010) examined this definition and found that the ordinary, contemporary, common meaning of “method” may include even methods of doing business.

Although abstract principles are not eligible for patent protection, an application of an abstract idea may well be deserving of patent protection. Unlike the Copyright Act which divides idea from expression, the Patent Act covers and protects any new and useful technical advance, including applied ideas. Inventions with specific applications or improvements to technologies in the marketplace are not likely to be so abstract that they override the statutory language and framework of the Patent Act. Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Turning to the ’545 Patent

The ’545 patent seeks to remedy problems with prior art banner advertising, such as declining click-through rates, by introducing a method of product distribution that forces consumers to view and possibly even interact with advertisements before permitting access to the desired media product. ’545 patent col.2 ll.14-18. By its terms, the claimed invention purports to improve existing technology in the marketplace. Also by its terms, the claimed invention invokes computers and applications of computer technology. Beyond the threshold check of patent eligibility, the ’545 patent additionally needs to withstand substantive challenges such as the claimed invention does not advance technology (lack of novelty) and does not advance technology sufficiently to warrant patent protection (obviousness).

The mere idea that advertising can be used as a form of currency is abstract. In this way, the vague, unapplied concept of hedging proved patent-ineligible in Bilski v. Kappos. However, the ’545 patent does not simply claim the age-old idea that advertising can serve as currency. Instead the ’545 patent discloses a practical application of this idea. The ’545 patent at claim 1 recites a particular method for monetizing copyrighted products, consisting of the following steps: (1) receiving media products from a copyright holder, (2) selecting an advertisement to be associated with each media product, (3) providing said media products for sale on an Internet website, (4) restricting general public access to the media products, (5) offering free access to said media products on the condition that the consumer view the advertising, (6) receiving a request from a consumer to view the advertising, (7) facilitating the display of advertising and any required interaction with the advertising, (8) and (9) allowing the consumer access to the associated media product after such display and interaction, if any, (10) recording this transaction in an activity log, and (11) receiving payment from the advertiser.

Many of these steps are likely to require intricate and complex computer programming. In addition, certain of these steps clearly require specific application to the Internet and a cyber-market environment. Viewing the subject matter as a whole, the invention involves an extensive computer interface. The Federal Circuit here did not define the level of programming complexity required before a computer-implemented method can be patent-eligible. Nor did the Federal Circuit here hold that use of an Internet website to practice such a method is either necessary or sufficient in every case to satisfy § 101. The Federal Circuit stated that it is simply finding claim 1 of the ’545 patent to be patent-eligible, in part because of these factors.

Further in support of patent-eligibility, the Federal Circuit stated the ’545 patent does not claim a mathematical algorithm, a series of purely mental steps, or any similarly abstract concept. It claims a particular method for collecting revenue from the distribution of media products over the Internet. The Federal Circuit noted the eligibility exclusion for purely mental steps is particularly narrow. Claims must be considered as a whole and the presence of mental steps in a claim does not detract from the patentability of other steps. The claims here require, among other things, controlled interaction with a consumer via an Internet website, something far removed from purely mental steps.

In sum, as a practical application of the general concept of advertising as currency and an improvement to prior art technology, the claimed invention is not so manifestly abstract as to override the statutory language of § 101. Notwithstanding this determination of patent-eligibility, the Federal Circuit stated that its decision does not opine at all on the further review for patentability of claim 1 of the ’545 patent under the substantive criteria for disclosure and distinction from prior art set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112.

Text Copyright © 2011 Bob Brill

Patent Considerations

I hope that you will greatly enjoy the video in its entirety. Plus, I wanted to highlight an especially informative discussion of patent considerations that is presented in the video from the time mark of one hour and nine minutes (01:09:00) through the time mark of one hour and thirteen minutes (01:13:00).

Speakers

Gratitude abounds for the preparation, conversation, and education that were generously provided by our panelists and moderator: Ross Kimbarovsky, Collin Anderson (filling in for Joe Born), Michael Gruber, Paul Kawalek, and Nancy Sullivan. Additional background on our speakers appears on the MIT EF Chicago event page.

Updated Background of Panelist Collin Anderson

Collin Anderson is a CEO, entrepreneur, and consultant with a broad skill set in all aspects of start-up and growth stages in a range of businesses. He recently returned as President and CEO of Digital Innovations, a manufacturer of proprietary consumer electronic and computer accessories that he co-founded and previously led for the first 5+ years of its existence.  During his first tenure at Digital Innovations, he led the company from what was essentially “two-guys-with-an-idea” to outstanding profitability, revenues well into 8-figures, and extensive distribution via the largest retailers worldwide. Collin was also co-inventor of DI’s flagship product, the “SkipDr” CD repair device, which has to date achieved over $250 million in retail sales and is arguably the most successful consumer electronics accessory product in history. He and his team achieved the above with less than $1M in total paid-in-capital.

Between stints at Digital Innovations, Collin founded his own consulting practice, In the Arena Consulting, where he helped his clients’ top management navigate the waters from start-up to profitable going concern and was also co-founder and President of Neuros Technology.  Collin currently serves on three boards of directors and is a frequent guest lecturer at top Chicago-area business schools. He has an MBA (High Honors) from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business; an M.S. and Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering from Vanderbilt University, where he was a Harold Stirling Vanderbilt Scholar; and a B.S. in Metallurgical Engineering (High Honors) from Montana Tech.

Volunteer Team

Praises go out to our volunteer team who superbly contributed to the advertising, organization, and running of our event:

Technical Needs Richard Cross http://healthcodex.com

Communications Adam Hicks http://acuityfacade.com and

Jessica Lybeck http://www.hoply.com and http://www.dabblehq.com

Video Subbu Arumugam http://sugarsnap.com and

Carl Karsten http://www.nextdayvideo.com

Team Leader Bob Brill http://bobbrill.net

Trilogy

Thank you to all the speakers, volunteers, and additional members of the Chicago Chapter of MIT EF for our completed three events of March 2009-11 that were entrusted to my leadership. The talented performances and genuine teamwork made exemplary contributions to our community. Links to posts on our two previous events follow, for reference.

How to Use Web 2.0 to Promote Your Business, March 24, 2009.

Bootstrappers and Investors Faceoff, March 16, 2010.

Text Copyright © 2011 Bob Brill

Q: Do I Want a Trademark?

Yes, of course you do. Surely, branding is an important part of your business strategy. The brand is how your customers will identify you among competitors in the marketplace.

Q: What Is a Trademark?

A trademark is a source identifier. The trademark lets the public know the source of particular goods or services offered under the trademark. The trademark functions as an adjective for particular goods or services that are the corresponding common nouns. A trademark may be a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination thereof. Distinctive features such as trade dress, product configuration, sounds, colors, and fragrances may serve as trademarks. For more about trademark types, please see my post on trademark portfolio creation. Unless otherwise indicated, the type of trademark under discussion is a word US trademark, for explanatory purposes.

Q: What Are the Different Symbols and Jurisdictions?

The “circle-R” symbol ® signifies federal registration under US trademark law. A benefit of federal trademark registration is that notice of your trademark extends nationwide. As an alternative or preliminary step to federal trademark registration, the designations TM and SM are available for all trademarks and service marks, whether or not federally registered. In contrast to federally registered trademarks, unregistered trademarks may have their protection limited to their geographical areas of use, or reasonably expected geographical areas of expansion. As an alternative or optional filing, individual states within the US may register trademarks on a statewide basis. Looking internationally, each country administers its own trademark laws, where various international cooperation mechanisms exist.

Q: How Do I Choose a Trademark?

Following are general categories of trademarks, ranked from decreasing ease to obtain registration.

Sweet Spot

Generally, the most promising trademark candidates are categorized as fanciful, arbitrary, or suggestive.

Fanciful

A fanciful trademark is limited solely to its trademark use. The fanciful trademark is a made-up word.

• Examples: XEROX for photocopying machines, KODAK for sensitized photographic materials.

Arbitrary

An arbitrary trademark is an existing word whose meaning sits in a context different from the planned trademark meaning.

• Examples: APPLE for computers, AMAZON for electronic retailing services via computer.

Suggestive

A suggestive trademark stirs the consumer’s imagination or perception to reach a quality, characteristic, or nature of the goods or services.

• Examples:  JAGUAR for automobiles, PUMA for sport shoes.

More Effort Involved

Descriptive

A descriptive trademark simply identifies a characteristic or quality of the underlying product or service. The line between a suggestive trademark and a descriptive trademark is sometimes narrow. A descriptive trademark has the additional hurdle of proving that the consumer public attributes a secondary meaning to the trademark that identifies the source of the particular goods or services.

• Examples:  HEALTHY CHOICE for shelf stable prepared entrees and dinners, HOLIDAY INN for motor hotel services.

Q: When Am I Ready to File a Trademark Application?

Your trademark application filing is usually based on current use or intended use of the trademark in interstate commerce, or commerce between the US and another country. Needed now or later is a bona fide use of the trademark in the ordinary course of trade.

Q: What Are the Initial Budget Considerations?

When an appropriate candidate trademark is identified, you may consider having a trademark application filed and in three months or so hear from the Trademark Examining Attorney. You may consider avoiding intense upfront review of trademark candidates beyond apparent knockouts. Similarly, you may choose to steer around potential problems easily uncovered.

Heavy upfront review in many ways resembles the effort of the Trademark Examining Attorney, plus may entail more analysis where we try to work with predictions how the Trademark Examining Attorney will perform the search and review. Waiting to hear back from the Trademark Examining Attorney assumes you can hold off labeling until hearing from the Trademark Examining Attorney. You would need the three months for the initial look by the Trademark Examining Attorney and, assuming everything goes smoothly, another three or more months to await completion of the public opposition period. That’s the smoothest route, although you would know at the three months whether the Trademark Examining Attorney has significant requirements or refusal to register, so you could re-strategize if needed, including potentially deciding to pursue a different trademark or engage in dialog with the Trademark Examining Attorney.

Q: What If the Clock is Ahead of Me?

Just mentioning a further possibility on the upfront review if you need to move forward before the three months time needed for initial review by the Trademark Examining Attorney: we can have an outside searcher get involved. The searcher’s work for the search job when needed before awaiting the trademark application process is cost-effective, although the total cost of the search is often more than having an attorney help you throughout the trademark application process, even though the searcher would have a lower hourly billing rate than an attorney. The searcher specializes in searching, where I would be available to help you consider the results of the search.

Q: What Is the Next Step in Prosecution of the Trademark Application?

As already mentioned above, it takes on the order of three months or so to hear from the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on the initial review by the Trademark Examining Attorney, and some additional months thereafter for the Trademark to become registered, even if all goes smoothly. The later attorney fees can depend on feedback from the USPTO, and the interests/objectives of the client. Feedback from the USPTO is a major component for later decisions and budgets we would plan to review. Sometimes the subsequent step is straightforward. For more complexity in handling feedback from the USPTO, strategic decisions may involve, for example, abandoning the prosecution of the particular trademark, pursuing more involved interaction with the Trademark Examining Attorney, pursuing an alternative filing on the trademark, or filing for a new trademark.  For more on completing the trademark registration process, see my post on trademark allowance and software specimen.

Q: What Might Be Grounds to Refuse My Trademark Application?

Likelihood of confusion is instructive among possible grounds for refusal of your trademark application.  The USPTO may take the position that your proposed trademark so resembles a trademark already registered in the USPTO, that use of the trademark on your goods or services is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception in the marketplace. Perhaps you may better understand such a refusal to register by turning the grounds around, to the perspective of your trademark after its successful registration. Your trademark will serve to prevent others from using confusingly similar trademarks to offer the same goods or services. The trademark protects against others using a trademark that is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or approval of goods or services. Additional discussion of likelihood of confusion and identification of goods or services, is found in my post on trademark prosecution.

Q: What Should I Know About Third Party Solicitations?

The official correspondence from the US Trademark Office will arrive at the correspondence address designated in the filing materials, for example, my law office, whether physically or on my work email account.  Courtesy note: You may receive and disregard solicitations (junk mail) from unassociated third parties, who you may expect to obtain your mailing address from your trademark application ownership records that become publicly available upon the filing of your trademark application.  As further highlighted by the USPTO, you may receive unsolicited communications from companies requesting fees for trademark related services, such as monitoring and document filing.  Although solicitations from these companies frequently display customer-specific information, including USPTO serial number or registration number and owner name, companies who offer these services are not affiliated or associated with the USPTO or any other federal agency.  The USPTO does not provide trademark monitoring or any similar services.

Q: Where Online Can I Find Further Useful Resources on Trademarking?

Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) http://tess2.uspto.gov/
Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) http://tsdr.uspto.gov/
Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) http://tarr.uspto.gov/
Trademark Acceptable Identification of Goods & Services
http://tess2.uspto.gov/netahtml/tidm.html
International Trademark/Servicemark Classes
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/notices/international.jsp
WIPO’s global collections of searchable intellectual property data
http://www.wipo.int/wipogold/en/

Q: Should I Lock in My Domain Name Early?

In this era of cybersquatting and typosquatting, you should consider locking in domain names on your desired trademarks early, at their modest costs. You would prefer to cut out middlepersons who habitually review trademark office public records and squat on domain names, with their intention to seek an advantage and/or premium for getting your intended domain.

Q: Does Clearance of My Trade Name Bode Well for My Trademark?

Keep in mind that approval of a corporate name by the Secretary of State does not equate to trademark clearance. Far from it:  state authorities prohibit identical use of trade names. That state agency’s comparison stops well short of the review for likelihood of consumer confusion considered under trademark law.

Polsky Points

• Your trademark needs to stand out when applied to your goods or services. The more imaginative, the better.
• To pursue federal registration, you need to have plans to use your trademark in the ordinary course of trade.
• To achieve registration, your trademark needs to avoid likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, or approval of goods or services.

Text Copyright © 2008-2011 Bob Brill

Snap

The waters were relatively calm at our start, albeit we were closer to land of course. We knew the weather conditions were changeable. Out toward the bigger lake, a breeze picked up while we headed down a channel. Rather than venture fully onto the larger lake after which our return trip would face directly into the wind, I selected a crosswise path opening to a land-hugging inlet.

Problem was I needed to apply tacking force upon a decades-old paddle. Snap. Quite suddenly.

Fortunately, we had the idle junior paddles aboard. No time to waste, we were being carried swiftly to the bigger open lake. While smaller, one of the junior paddles served its purpose for me. Heading directly up our original channel into the headwind, I could intermittently push sideways out of the flow and use the weeds to hold our canoe for resting. While our kid was alarmed, a variety of lessons came.

Adage Updated

Who can forget the saying: “up a creek without a paddle”? Certainly, we each had paddles and flotation jackets on board. A refinement on the lesson came upon us that I thought to also explore in applicability to business situations. My updated adage is: “always have an extra paddle aboard for your strongest paddler.”

Slow Down, You Move Too Fast

As a memorable aside, I enjoyed a natural sight overlooked on other trips. Tern chicks had been left to practice hopping, swimming, and flying among lily pads while their parents gathered food. Actually, the adult terns seemed more surprised to see us pausing parallel to their chicks than we were of the broken paddle predicament.

Star Employees

Since the lesson was new to me, I hadn’t conscious examples of, and continue to consider, application of the “extra paddle” lesson. During 2001-2005, I was a co-founding partner of an earlier law firm. Executing part of the business model, I intensely mentored a staff of engineers as patent agent trainees. With a goal to leverage my experience in patent preparation and prosecution through strategic application of collaborative review with each of multiple trainees within our office along individual drafting timelines, I recognized I was fulfilling a different role. My responsibility on that front was to apply legal expertise for quality work product while being present for, though ideally a step removed from full analysis of, all the innermost technical details of invention disclosures and conferences.

Indirectly Applying the Lesson of the Day

Mindful of cash outlays, I had chosen to use a lesser computer system as the staff acquired skills, and allocate the better computer systems to the patent agent trainees. My prioritization of these tools correlated to tasks performed in manipulating and creating extents of text and drawings, including reworking of drafts by employees as needed from my feedback. More directly on the “extra paddle” lesson, yet unconsciously, we had additional computers that we could allow the professional staff to use in the event their systems went down, potentially even sharing or handing over my office computer when I could work remotely on my home computer. Another variation involved use of my off-hours for review and comment so the employees had my feedback ready to move forward upon the start of their regular workday. In one aspect, the “extra paddle” was embodied in a better or backup computer for the staff closest to the raw drafting. In another aspect, the “extra paddle” was represented by work available for the salaried staff to perform toward profitability of the law firm.

Reins in Hand

Moving ahead to the current decade in my own law office, the lesson has applied across several areas, including collaborative interaction with clients and their technical people, physical and electronic resources, data, billing, and extra activities including volunteering. I enjoy reflecting on the “extra paddle” insight and applying its value.

Tweets

Squarely in autumn now, you may sincerely ask about a lag in preparing this post. Even when I first mulled insights, I identified variously-sized projects on my plate with potential for mounting expansion, with others likely emerging here and there, building from versatility of my current practice. Helpfully, a bunch of tweets captured a series of my thoughts at the time, recalling details of the experience and context.

http://twitter.com/bobbrill/status/17754872702 In the year 2075 I could announce a new blog post via mind assembly. Alas in 2010 thoughts need queue for interface behind other tasks

http://twitter.com/bobbrill/status/17716724456 seeing kids sleeping recalled younger’s “i may be dreaming” joy after fireworks

http://twitter.com/bobbrill/status/17715134627 intertwining of mind and senses as quietude shifts posture to seeking rather than feedback from saturating stimuli

http://twitter.com/bobbrill/status/17712944307 to hear 5+ bird types at sunrise so uplifting

http://twitter.com/bobbrill/status/17697257051 wild black raspberries. small town carnival for kids’ rides. fireworks

Coming Attractions

As mentioned in my earlier post, I am again leading a volunteer team organizing an event for MIT EF Chicago in the Chicago Loop 5-8pm Tuesday March 15, 2011. The last two such events have been sold out. Our planned subject matter is “Open Innovation.”  Our committed speakers are:

Founders:
Ross Kimbarovsky
Joe Born

Investors:
Michael Gruber
Paul Kawalek

Moderator:
Nancy Sullivan

Our speakers have prepared comments that I have run by the communications members of our volunteer team to draft a marketing copy that the speakers can then review and further edit for finalization and approval to publicly circulate for our event. You are welcome to help spread the word to those who may be interested in hearing about this event. Even while the official registration has yet to open, I invite and encourage any and everyone interested to add a promotional RSVP or simply click “Interested” or “Maybe Attending” on the LinkedIn page and Facebook page for this event.

Text Copyright © 2010 Bob Brill