Patent and Invention Help Forum

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - ProSeToday

Pages: [1]
1
Patent Questions and Advice / Three in one...patent question
« on: March 11, 2018, 04:39:35 PM »
Hi Brad,

Have three embodiments disclosed in my patent specification, can a single independent claim contain different elements from each of the three embodiments ? Examiner is saying no, but thought a recent court case says yes. It seems a POSITA having seen all embodiments could imagine picking and choosing the elements they want to use.

Thanks for your time.

2
Hi,
Trying to claim a device using an amount and open space matters. Could any of the follow hypo claims work ?
Thanks.

an apparatus for coloring a rubber cube, comprising:

a open container;

a lid for container;

a rubber cube placed in the bottom of said container;

a coloring means, said means comprises a plurality of paintballs that fits as a unit into the available open space of said container containing said rubber cube leaving little to no open space when said container is closed, wherein ...

or

a coloring means, said means comprises a plurality of paintballs such that the amount of said paintballs fills the available open space of said container containing said rubber cube leaving little to no open space when said container is closed, wherein ...

or

an apparatus for coloring a rubber cube, comprising:

a lid for container;

a rubber cube;

a plurality of at least one paintball surrounding and encapsulating said rubber cube;

a container is of a size to receive and contain the said paintballs and said rubber cube leaving little to no open space remaining inside said container when closed, wherein...



Thanks again for your thoughts.

3
Hi, Looking for some thoughts: The examiner says POSITA would be motivated to substitute a container with a container with removable lid in order to prevent a cooking mess shown in the primary prior art. The prior art shows the cooking mess did not occur during cooking, but after the user added a topping to the cooked item and was sloppy. If the container used the lid during cooking, the lid would have to be removed to access the cooked item before the topping could be applied. Removing the lid creates the opportunity for the user to be sloppy again hence the lid would not help prevent a mess and believe there is no motivation to combine.
 
Further, the cooked item is a cake and found prior art in the form of recipes (can add as a declaration) using the same container with lid, the recipes request cakes be cooked uncovered. Also think it is common knowledge by POSITA, that cakes should not be covered while being baked.
   
Thanks for your thoughts.

4
Patent Questions and Advice / Patent and Unexpected results....
« on: March 02, 2017, 04:58:00 PM »
Hi,
Still not making any progress with examiner concerning an apparatus claim in spite of the very helpful information I have received from this site. I have done some additional testing and will submit the results in a declaration. I'm thinking of claiming "unexpected results" to disprove 103 obviousness.

Example:
Have a generic heat safe container and lid, fill container with a layer of element A and fill remaining container space with element B, leaving no head space in container, seal container with lid. Heat container for a period of time.

Element A, when heated, is known in prior art, by a POSA and verified with my testing as having properties P1-P3. The above configuration however produces properties P4 and P5 for element A which are unexpected results and are not known to exist in the prior art or by a POSA.

The examiner in the office action, cited proof of obviousness, by claiming that the prior art using element A had the same structure as the claimed invention and then inserted my claim language about the resulting P4 and P5 properties as though the prior art accomplished them. Having acquired the prior art, I have tested the device and properties P4 and P5 do not occur. I will document the test results to the declaration.
 
My understanding is if known elements, using known methods, produces unexpected results then it not obvious.
Trying to get an apparatus claim. Thoughts?
Thanks.

5
Patent Questions and Advice / Claim ideas needed...
« on: February 08, 2017, 03:15:43 AM »
Hi, Just found your site and could use some claim help.
 
Looking for ways to claim an apparatus that secures tennis balls (hypo) from moving around in a container. Must handle two scenarios: 1) fill the container with tennis balls such that when the container is closed, little or no head space remains. 2) partially fill the container with tennis balls and a securing cover is placed inside the container over the top layer of the tennis balls.

Examiner says amount does not limit the container, which makes sense.

How about:

An apparatus comprising:

a sealable container, a securing means to prevent multiple tennis balls from moving inside said container, comprising a source of tennis balls that fills said container 100%, a lid to seal said container.

a sealable container, a securing means to prevent multiple tennis balls from moving inside said container, comprising a source of tennis balls that fills said container less than 100% and a securing cover placed inside said container on the top layer of said tennis balls.

Specification does not call out "securing means", but says the tennis balls are secured from moving inside said container and the cover is used to secure the tennis balls and reduce the overall amount of tennis balls in the container.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Pages: [1]
Menu Editor Pro 1.0.2 | Copyright 2014, Matthew Kerle