The pertinent language in patent law is this (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#patent
)::
"The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the
statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from
making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the
United States or “importing” the invention into the United States."
The pertinent part of the application process, for this listserve
anyway, is this...
"In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined
in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented
if: “(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or
patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign
country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,” or
“(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 application for patent in the
United States . . .”
So, if one chooses to protest a patent, one must provide a published
example of the use of isotopes and trace elements together to source
food commodities.
Cheers,
Nathan English
Full text from the USPTO (http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#patent
):
"A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the
inventor, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which
the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in
special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed,
subject to the payment of maintenance fees. U.S. patent grants are
effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S.
possessions. Under certain circumstances, patent term extensions or
adjustments may be available.
The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the
statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from
making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the
United States or “importing” the invention into the United States.
What is granted is not the right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or
import, but the right to exclude others from making, using, offering
for sale, selling or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued,
the patentee must enforce the patent without aid of the USPTO.
There are three types of patents:
1) Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers
any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof;
2) Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new,
original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture; and
3) Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and
asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant. "
AND CERTAINLY READ THIS:
"Novelty And Non-Obviousness, Conditions For Obtaining A Patent
In order for an invention to be patentable it must be new as defined
in the patent law, which provides that an invention cannot be patented
if: “(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or
patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign
country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,” or
“(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 application for patent in the
United States . . .”
If the invention has been described in a printed publication anywhere
in the world, or if it was known or used by others in this country
before the date that the applicant made his/her invention, a patent
cannot be obtained. If the invention has been described in a printed
publication anywhere, or has been in public use or on sale in this
country more than one year before the date on which an application for
patent is filed in this country, a patent cannot be obtained. In this
connection it is immaterial when the invention was made, or whether
the printed publication or public use was by the inventor himself/
herself or by someone else. If the inventor describes the invention in
a printed publication or uses the invention publicly, or places it on
sale, he/she must apply for a patent before one year has gone by,
otherwise any right to a patent will be lost. The inventor must file
on the date of public use or disclosure, however, in order to preserve
patent rights in many foreign countries.
Even if the subject matter sought to be patented is not exactly shown
by the prior art, and involves one or more differences over the most
nearly similar thing already known, a patent may still be refused if
the differences would be obvious. The subject matter sought to be
patented must be sufficiently different from what has been used or
described before that it may be said to be nonobvious to a person
having ordinary skill in the area of technology related to the
invention. For example, the substitution of one color for another, or
changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable.
On Apr 30, 2009, at 4:41 PM, Max Gibbs wrote:
> It is particularly worrying because it has been done (patent
> granted) in other areas of related science eg
>
> Kennedy, A.C. 1998. Determination of the source of a soil sample. US
> Patent 5,766,953, 16 June.
>
> The granting of the patent may occur based on a specific novel
> application even though it may have been a commonly used technique.
>
> The worry with this patent is that it appears to be for the concept
> of the analytical methods that cover the full suit of food web
> analytical methods including many already in the literature.
> Hopefully the patent office legal team will not be blinded by the
> scientific language.
>
> (Hmmm .. has anyone checked whether there is a patent on the wheel?)
>
> Max Gibbs
> NIWA, PO Box 11-115
> Gate 10 Silverdale Rd
> Hamilton 3251
> New Zealand
>
> Phone: +64 7856 1773
> Fax: +64 7856 0151
> Cell: 027 604 1449
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>>>> Jurian Hoogewerff <[log in to unmask]> 1/05/2009 7:19 a.m. >>>
> For your information the filing date of this latest application is
> October 21,
> 2008 not 2006 as a previous respondent suggested. 2006 was "just" a
> provisional filing so it is STILL VERY ACTIVE AND WORRYING!!:
>
> see section in the "inventors" section at: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
> Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-
> bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%
> 22METHOD+ANALYZING+FOODS%22.TTL.&OS=TTL/%
> 22METHOD+FOR+ANALYZING+FOODS%22&RS=TTL/%
> 22METHOD+FOR+ANALYZING+FOODS%22
>
> And further below:
> "CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
>
> [0001]This application is a continuation-in-part of International
> Application No.
> PCT/US2007/009682, filed on Apr. 20, 2007, which claims the benefit
> of the
> earlier filing date of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/793,909,
> filed Apr. 21,
> 2006, both of which are incorporated herein by reference in their
> entirety. "
>
> Note: International Application !!!!!
>
> NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water &
> Atmospheric Research Ltd.
>
|
