Patents for landscaping and gas sations on the Moon

Here are couple of odd patent involving the moon. First, there is a startup raising money to fly robots to the moon, in order to rearrange surface sand on the moon to create large advertisements seen from space. The company is at: www.moonpublicity.com, and their ads tout their patent application.

Second, an utterly obvious claim being sought by Space Adventures in their U.S. patent application 20070128582, "Method, apparatus and system for private lunar exploration", with claim 1 , the obvious (i.e., ridiculous) content added afterward, in square brackets:

1. A method of registering for private space travel to the moon [or
travel on a yacht], comprising: providing a first spacecraft [yacht]
adapted to carry at least one private individual; receiving payment
from the private individual for registration for a flight [cruise]
on the first spacecraft [yacht]; providing launching of the first
spacecraft from the earth [yacht from the harbor] carrying the
private individual; and providing travel into lunar orbit [offshore
routes] for the private individual in the first spacecraft [yacht].

The inventors of the following issued patent must be extremely optimistic
with regards to how soon man will be spending a lot of time in outer space:

Propellant depot in space
U.S. Patent 7,559,508: Depots imply a lot of traffic, and I just don't see a lot of vehicular traffic in outer space in the next twenty years when their patent expires.

Germany rejects Saudi's cruel chip patent

The whole concept of patents is to benefit public, to make people's lives easier and to help advance progress. This patent application for something altogether opposite. News across WWW and print say (like here, for example) that last Friday the German Patent Office rejected a patent application from a Saudi inventor which claims implanted semiconductors under the skins of visitors to the kingdom, and remotely killing them if they misbehave. The chip also tracks immigrants using a GPS module to locate any visa violators. The crowning touch of the patent application is the chip's cyanide releasable by remote control to kill people if they become a security risk.

How trashy are Apple's iPhone Patents?

Very excrement-like, since they didn't ask me to do the patentability searches :-) But more seriously, the February 9th issue of Barrons has an article on Apple's iPhone patents, with Apple COO Tim Cook quoting as stating that Apple won't stand for having its IP ripped off (with hints that the intended target is Palm, though Apple doesn't mind ripping off inventors). However the same article quotes San Francisco investment analyst Pablo Perez-Fernandez as raising doubts about the strength of Apple's iPhone patent portfolio, much of which focuses on touchscreen technology:

He asserts that the U.S. Patent Office "may have not observed the requirements of innovation on number of occasions", that the legal owner of key multi-touch technologies may be the University of Delaware, and that "the essential discoveries embedded in Apple's products were the result of the work of academics from the university now employed at Apple."

He goes on:

Apple didn't invent transparent, capacitive multitouch sensors that could be overlaid on screens; "that honor went to ATT's famous Bell Laboratories back in the mid-1980s."

His conclusion: while Apple's patents are probably infringed by competitors, the competitors could strike back on invalidity grounds. And I suspect he is right. Despite all of the bull's shirt from the big companies that complain about crappy patents that issue, they are all notorious for routinely submitting crappy patents with inadequate prior art references.

This IBM patent clogs sewers:

One rumored candidate to be the next Director of the Patent and Trademark Office is David Kappos, one of the head patent lawyers at IBM. Given IBM's many abuses of the patent system and patent policy over the past few decades, I think it is inappropriate, nay, wrong, for anyone from IBM to be head of the PTO. Might as well as make Bernie Madoff head of the SEC as part of his upcoming jail-time work-release program. IBM patent lawyers for too long have abused the patent system. Case in point. Last week IBM was issued its usual batch of patents, many of which are crap - crappy patents whose sole value is to clog the PTO's patent examination pipelines to the detriment of everyone else. A patent application policy actively embraced by David Kappos. If I was an IBM investor, I would applaud David for doing his best to help IBM. In fact, sometimes I recommend people to buy IBM stock because the company will do anything to maintain its market value. Kudos to David for his efforts in this regard. But the reward for abusing the patent system for the benefit of IBM should be a gold watch at retirement - and should not be the reward of being appointed head of the PTO. One of the many crappy patents issued last week is the one below, an expert system at a server that analyzes incoming messages (such as news), checks lists to see which subscribers want to be alerted to such messages, and sends the message to such subscribers. That is, methods Marimba used (and patented) to push software in 1996, IBM decides six years later to patent as methods to push other stuff. As usual, the patent cites an inadequate amount of non-patent prior art, based on IBM's inadequate IDS and the examiner's lack of experience in searching the non-patent prior art. Further, it looks like this patent, crappy as it is, was a First Office Action issuance - usually a good indicator of crap. After the application was submitted, an amendment was submitted, maybe with a bit of talking with the examiner, and then the patent was allowed to issue. Don't you all wish you had such clout with the PTO to get such crap issued? Part of the problem is that the claim language is IBM's usual excessively wordy, baffle-them-with-bull's shirt, confusing verbiage - again, another IBM patent policy actively supported by Kappos. Let's look at the abstract, which is almost easy to understand, and then claim 1, which gives me a headache to read:

United States Patent 7,487,550 Methods, apparatus and computer programs for processing alerts and auditing in a publish/subscribe system Abstract A message broker receives a published message from a publisher program. Responsive to identification of one or more subscriber programs subscribing to messages of the type of the received message, the broker forwards the received message to the one or more subscriber programs. Matcher components compares the received message with stored subscriptions to identify subscriber programs, generates an alert when an alert condition is satisfied, and compares the generated alert with stored subscriptions to identify subscriber programs subscribing to the alert. The alert is then forwarded to the subscriber program subscribing to the alert.

The patent only cites five or six prior patents, inadequate, grossly inadequate, especially in light of a Sun Microsystems patent whose title kills IBM's patent outright:

United States Patent 5,761,662 Dasan, June 2, 1998 Personalized information retrieval using user-defined profile

Now, for those of you who know anything about expert system database alert systems (i.e., a database with alert triggers, a decades old field), look at the crappy non-patent prior art considered:

Other References "Design of a General Clinical Notification System Based on the Publish-Subscribe Paradigm", A conference of the American Medical Informatics Association. By, A. Geissbuhler, M.D., W. W. Stead, M.D., Oct. 25, 1997, pp. 126-130, XP002179981. cited by other . "Exploiting an Event-Based Infrastructure to Develop Complex Distributed Systems", Proceedings of the 1998 International Conference in Kyoto, Japan Apr. 19-25, 1998, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, IEEE Comput.Soc, US, Apr. 19, 1998, pp. 261-270. cited by other . Icc.net Internet Commerce Corporation on website ICC.net/Services/Infosafe and ICC.net/Services/Infosafe/

Technology, 2001. cited by other . Arnold et al, "Discourse with Disposable Computers: How and Why You Will Talk to Your Tomatoes", USENIX Proceedings of the Embedded Systems Workshop, Mar. 29-31, 1999. cited by other.

Not one article from the any ACM publications and conferences on database systems, alert systems, message analysis systems, push, or expert systems, and only one article from the IEEE. Grossly inadequate, and IBM knows it. To cite nothing from SIGMOD or DEXA makes this patent crap. So maybe IBM should spend less time doing searches against other companies as part of its scam public patent review project, and more time doing searches of its own crap. Excrement, as in the language of claim 1 (the only claim as well, probably too long to not be workaroundable and thus unenforceable):

The invention claimed is: 1. A data processing apparatus for providing a publish/subscribe message dissemination service on behalf of publisher and subscriber programs comprising: means for receiving a published message from a publisher program; means, responsive to identification of one or more message subscriber programs subscribing to messages of the type of the received message, for forwarding the received message to the one or more message subscriber programs; and one or more matcher components for: comparing the received message with stored message subscriptions to identify the one or more message subscriber programs; generating an alert when an alert condition is satisfied; and comparing the generated alert with stored alert subscriptions to identify one or more subscriber programs subscribing to the alert; and means for forwarding the alert to the one or more subscriber programs subscribing to the alert, wherein the message and alert subscriptions are stored in data storage in association with message topic information, the one or more matcher components including means for retrieving stored subscription information by reference to message topic information of a received message, rules procedures for generating and determining required dissemination of alerts are stored in association with the message topic information,

NOTE: so far, this claim is nothing more than the many push systems popularized in the Internet era - no innovation here. And as a good example to deceive the Patent Office, the word "push" doesn't appear in the patent, depriving the examiner the opportunity to think about PUSH and search for Marimba's patents.

wherein the one or more matcher components are adapted to identify a relevant rules procedure by reference to the message topic information and to forward to the identified rules procedure: a message subscription list; a list of authorized recipients; and an identification of one or more subscribers for alerts; thereby to enable generation and determination of required dissemination of an alert; the one or more matcher components includes: means for performing an authorization check to identify a subset of the identified one or more message subscriber programs which subset of programs is authorized to receive the message; and means for generating an alert when the authorization check identifies an unauthorized message subscriber.

NOTE: actually, even this far, this claim is nothing more than the many push systems popularized in the Internet era - no innovation here. This patent is nothing more than an IBM ploy to clog the patent system with a patent application embodying little to no innovation - a tactic IBM has used for thousands and thousands of patent applications. A tactic warmly embraced by David Kappos. Who should not be appointed next Director of the PTO.

Is there a trivial patent, especially if filed in October 2002, and citing no non-patent prior art?

Which, amateur, naive, pro-se patent applicant would seek such a patent? Automated docketing system U.S. Patent 7,369,701 (Issued May 2008, CON from Oct 2002) Inventor: Patent Lawyer Steven Lundberg Abstract: The present invention includes a method for docketing an action or event, such as an action or event defined in a form received from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The method includes scanning the form having written information thereon, the written information comprising a date and indicia defining a docket event, to obtain a scanned image. The indicia on the form defining a docketing event includes a title such as, "Office Action", "Notice of Allowance", "Notice of Missing Parts" and so forth. The date on the form includes, in many embodiments, "Date Mailed". The method also includes processing the scanned image with character recognition logic and identifying the indicia defining the docket event or action and the date on the image.

NO NON-PATENT PRIOR ART IS CITED. So let me be blunt - any named-partner patent lawyer who submits a patent application of his own and allows it to issue with no non-patent prior art citations should be disbarred by the PTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline. It is a contempt for the system, and deceit on the Patent Office, to think that such inventions have no non-patent prior art of relevance. To do so is just plain unethical. And it makes you wonder if his firm advises their clients to play the same pathetic prior art submission games. But he does have gravitas, so I suppose that excuses his behavior.

The explanation for the ridiculous patents

Check out the Excrement Patents tag. There are lots more such patent applications. I guess it is extra money for the PTO to waste. Now, you are thinking, what is the harm that people file such silliness, such silliness will never issue?" Oh, you poor, naive fools: GENERAL CONCEPT: scan incoming documents into a relational database, identifying relevant fields AS TRIVIAL A CONCEPT AS IT GETS SLIGHTLY MORE SPECIFIC CONCEPT: scan incoming documents with printed dates and form identifications, and load date/form data into appropriate fields of relational database AS TRIVIAL A CONCEPT AS IT GETS SLIGHTLY MORE SPECIFIC CONCEPT: scan incoming PTO Office Actions with dates and document types ("notice of allowance", "missing documents") and load into the relational database inside a docketing system.

To patent submarine patenting:

I have critiqued silly and ridiculous patents in the previous and other posts, but here is the attempt to patent submarine patents, filed by someone who knows nothing about jurisdiction (out of pity, the PTO should return his application fee): Submarine patents U.S. Patent Application 20080221912 David James Harris, of Great Britain 1. A method of seeking patent protection for an invention, comprising: a) filing a first European Patent Application for the invention at a first date; b) filing a second European Patent Application for the invention at a second date not more than one month later; characterised in that the second European Patent Application is a divisional European Patent Application claiming the filing date of the first European patent application.

David, my boy, a patent issued in the United States is completely useless for a method performed completely outside the United States. Now, I can understand a pro se inventor filing such wackiness, but I am shocked that a US law firm is helping a foreign inventor file such excrement:

Computer system for distributing a validation instruction message U.S. Patent Application 20080201334 Justin Ryan Simpson (Legal Rep: Brooks Kushman) Claim 1: 1. A computer system for distributing a validation instruction message, the computer system being adapted to communicate with an interface, a specification database and a plurality of European agent computers, the interface including: a European patent identifier receiver adapted to receive a European patent identifier; and a country selection receiver adapted to receive a country selection, and the specification database being adapted to store a plurality of European patent specifications, wherein, when the computer system receives a European patent identifier and a country selection, the computer system is adapted to: (a) obtain, from the specification database, a European patent specification corresponding to the European patent identifier; and (b) provide the European patent specification and the validation instruction message to a European agent computer corresponding to the country selection.

Justin, more than likely, someone is going to implement this computer system outside the United States, making your U.S. patent (if it issues) completely useless. Such as implementing this system in Europe, where sadly because the EPO and courts love to betray science, engineering, semantics and law with their silly "technical effect" drooling, the European sibling of this patent application will never issue.

Application For The Method of Patenting Paralegal Process:

This is the classic attempt at dealing with the European fetish for the pompousness of using the characterized by vs. the good old American said: System for facilitating the preparation of a patent application with an automatically variable omnibus form paragraph U.S. Patent Application 20080256428 Milton; Harold W. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC Claim 1: A method of preparing a patent application including DESCRIPTION and CLAIMS sections by using a computer program comprising the steps of: presenting an omnibus form paragraph preceding the CLAIMS section, drafting a claim in the CLAIMS section including at least one key, storing a key explanation describing the use the key, characterized by scanning the claims for the key, automatically inserting the key explanation in the omnibus form paragraph in response to the presence of the key in the claim. 3. A method as set forth in claim 1 further including storing "characterized by" as the key. 5. A method as set forth in claim 1 further including storing "said" as the key.

Halliburton applies for the method of troll patenting

It was UC Berkley, among others. Then, Microsoft. President Obama better sign a decree that makes it a criminal offense for anyone in the patent world to use the word troll. It is a meaningless term that becomes more and more pointless each day, due in part to the following absurd wackiness applied (and breezed through by the US Patent law) for by Halliburton Energy Services:

Patent acquisition and assertion by a (non-inventor) first party against a second party U.S. Patent Application 20080270152 Claim 1: A method for a non-inventor first party to acquire and assert a patent property against a second party, the method including the first party performing the following acts: obtaining an equity interest in the patent property; writing a claim within the scope of the patent property, the claim being written to cover a product of the second party, where the product includes a secret aspect, the secret aspect including an unobservable aspect, where writing the claim includes performing research using a computer to convert the unobservable aspect to an observable aspect; filing the claim with a patent office; offering a license of the patent property to the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim; and attempting to obtain a monetary settlement from the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim. Patent property - both novel and vague term. Aspect is already used in the claim within a different aspect. I guess Dick Cheney needs novel and non-obvious ways to make business off government contracts.

Microsoft gets awarded yet another excrement patent

Case in point - one of the revolting pieces of fecal patents just issued recently to Microsoft. It demonstrates yet again the contempt of large companies do to any prior art searching, the love of large companies to flood the PTO with crap applications to choke the system while whining about others who do the same [now known as Chandlerism], and once again, it demonstrates the PTO'S COMPLETE AND TOTAL MISMANAGEMENT OF PRIOR ART SEARCHING AND RESOURCES. When Jon Dudas told Congress that most, if not all, measures of quality at the PTO are their highest in 25 years, he deliberately LIED to Congress. Whoever is paying Dudas to wreck the PTO is getting their monies worth. The patent. The USPTO belched/oozed/barfed out U.S. patent 7,437,290 to Microsoft: Automatic censorship of audio data for broadcast U.S. Patent 7,437,290 MICROSOFT (filed October 2004, issued October 2008) Despicable claim language aside, this patent is a method for detecting undesired speech in broadcasts, censoring (deleting, bleeping) the undeisred speech and updating probability tables for the presence of the recognized speech. COMPLETELY UNINNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY. The claim is attached below. So how much tremendous amounts of prior art, with Bill Gates' billions to sustain decent prior art searching (NOT - a lesson well learned by its stepchild Intellectual Ventures) - how much prior art is associated with this patent? NEXT TO FREAKING NOTHING. The patent cites two prior patents, and one non-patent prior art published too late: 7,139,031 Automated language filter for TV receiver 6,337,947 Method and apparatus for customized editing of video and/or audio signals Seide et al, "Vocabulary-Independent Search in Spontaneous Speech", IEEE International Conference on ASSP, May 2004 Such pathetic prior art submissions should a priori be automatic proof of intent to deceive the Patent Office. Just how pathetic is this patent? Once again, let me do a 15-minute-Jon-Dudas-High-Quality-Patent-Bust. Thebust relies on five patents that were published by the time the examinershould have been doing ANY searching, four of which were published at the

time Microsoft filed they patent, had they wanted to do any searching: Publ. Date. Number Title ----- --------- --------------------------------------------------------- 1993 5,199,077 Wordspotting for voice editing and indexing 2004 6,829,582 Controlled access to audio signals based on objectionable audio content detected via sound recognition 2000 6,166,780 Automated language filter 1999 5,870,708 Method of and apparatus for scanning for and replacing words on video cassettes 1994 5,369,440 System and method for automatically controlling the audio output of a television So let's look at this prior art, which neither Microsoft nor the PTO did, to see how crappy Microsoft's patent is. The first patent, dating back to 1993 (eleven years before Microsoft filed) is a foundational patent on pattern recognition systems (in this case, Hidden Markov Models) to learn to recognize and delete segments of speech, which includes questionable segments of speech that are being broadcasted: _________________________________________________________________ United States Patent 5,199,077 Wordspotting for voice editing and indexing Abstract A technique for wordspotting based on hidden Markov models (HMM's). The technique allows a speaker to specify keywords dynamically and to train the associated HMM's via a single repetition of a keyword. Non-keyword speech is modeled using an HMM trained from a prerecorded sample of continuous speech. The wordspotter is intended for interactive applications, such as the editing of voice mail or mixed-media documents, and for keyword indexing in single-speaker audio or video recordings. From the SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: An important application for the wordspotting system of the invention is not only indexing of recorded speech, but especially for interactive voice editing of recorded speech, such as voice mail, dictation, or audio documentation. Wordspotting can be employed by the user to enable editing operations by locating specific words in the recorded speech for deletion, substitution, or insertion. It will also ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ enable efficient and automatic means of indexing into long audio documents. The system, while restricted to a single speaker, or pairs of speakers is not restricted in vocabulary size. _________________________________________________________________ One application of this patent is to use the Hidden Markov Models on recorded speech THAT IS BROADCASTED, using the detections to delete specific words, i.e., Microsoft's patent. Almost complete anticipation, especially when obviously combined with the following patent: _________________________________________________________________ United States Patent 5,369,440 System and method for automatically controlling the audio output of a television Abstract A system and method for automatically controlling the audio output from a television so as to avoid listening to undesired material includes a microphone for converting the audio output from the television into audio signals, an audio amplifier for amplifying the audio signals from the microphone, a waveform pattern comparator, a waveform digitizer and recorder, a speech recognition unit, an external device controller, a computer and an input/output device. In setting up the system for subsequent use, waveform patterns of audio signals corresponding to material being outputted from the television which the listener considers undesirable are digitized by the waveform digitizer and recorder and then stored in the waveform pattern comparator. In addition, digital signals corresponding to key words in undesired material are entered into the computer through the input/output device and then transferred from the computer to the speech recognition unit. Once the system has been loaded with the undesired material, waveform pattern comparator continually digitizes and compares the audio signal output from the audio amplifier with the stored data. At the same time, the speech recognition unit compares the audio signal output with the stored key words. When the undesired material is detected an indicator signal is sent to the external device controller which outputs a control signal which is applied to the television to make some adjustment to either the sound or the channel to avoid listening to the undesired material. _________________________________________________________________ So two patents, published in 1993 and 1994, TEN YEARS BEFORE MICROSOFT FILED THEIR PIECE OF CRAP, completely anticipate Microsoft's supposed invention. Just to have fun, I found three more patents, also so much on point to be powerful prior art. _________________________________________________________________ United States Patent 6,166,780 Automated language filter Abstract A method and apparatus for analyzing the closed captioned aspect of a video signal for specific undesirable words or phrases and then muting the audio portion of those words or phrases while not affecting the video portion therein while simultaneously modifying the closed captioned signal in order to display only acceptable words or phrases. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ United States Patent 6,829,582 Controlled access to audio signals based on objectionable audio content detected via sound recognition Abstract An apparatus, program product, and method restrict access to objectionable audio content in an audio or audio/video transmission using sound recognition. Sound recognition may be performed, for example, to detect and control access to objectionable non-spoken audio content, e.g., by detecting violent sounds such as screams, explosions, gun shots, sirens, punches, kicks and/or other non-spoken content such as sexually-suggestive sounds. In addition, occurrences of objectionable audio content detected in an audio transmission may be tracked so that access to the audio transmission may be controlled responsive to the identification of multiple occurrences of objectionable audio content. Furthermore, access control over detected objectionable audio content in an audio transmission may result in inhibition of access to a program associated with the audio transmission. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ United States Patent 5,870,708 Method of and apparatus for scanning for and replacing words on video cassettes Abstract A scanning apparatus for scanning a video recording for objectionable content is disclosed that includes an audio processor for analyzing the recording and recognizing the objectionable audio, and audio control gate for manipulating the objectionable audio. The scanning apparatus also includes an amplifier that amplifies the signal and converters to convert the signal from analog to digital format prior to analysis and digital to analog format after analysis. The method of scanning the video recording for objectionable content includes the steps of analyzing the recording and manipulating the recording. The method first includes the steps of amplifying the recording signal, separating the audio portion of the recording from the composite recording, digitizing the portions of the recording, and storing the composite portion of the recording in a loop while analysis is performed on the audio portion of the recording. _________________________________________________________________ So five patents I found in 15 minutes completely invalidate Microsoft's crappily issued patent. And this doesn't rely on even more patents, and even much more non-patent prior art that is available, had anyone bother to do any searching (apparently a firable offense at Microsoft). 15 minutes neither Microsoft nor the PTO spent doing a similar search. Because to big companies like Microsoft, and big liars like Jon Dudas, patent quality is still a big freaking joke. So when con artists like IBM lie about the need for public peer review of patents, while remaining silent about the incompetence of PTO management with regards to prior art handling, it is just con artists cheating. And when liars like Jon Dudas chandleristically whine that the PTO needs more prior art, it is a big freaking lie because the PTO still is unable to make use of all of the patent prior art it has complete access to, let alone non-patent prior art. All of these people are liars, especially since it takes longer for them to write their liars about prior art that it does for me to find the prior art. ========== Automatic censorship of audio data for broadcast Microsoft U.S. Patent 7,437,290 1. A method for automatically censoring audio data, comprising the steps of: (a) automatically processing the audio data to detect any undesired speech that may be included therein, by comparison to undesired speech data, by performing the following steps; comparing words in the audio data against words comprising the undesired speech, to identify potential matches; dynamically varying a probability threshold dependent upon at least one criterion; and based upon a probability of a potential match and the probability threshold, determining whether any undesired speech is included in the audio data; (b) for each occurrence of undesired speech that is automatically detected, altering the undesired speech detected in the audio data, producing censored audio data in which the undesired speech is substantially no longer perceivable by a listening audience; and (c) dynamically adjusting the probability threshold based upon a frequency with which undesired speech by a specific speaker is detected in the audio data, so that as the occurrences of undesired speech that are detected increase, the probability threshold is reduced

On the patentability of GPS systems that insult

According to the spirit of our patent law, all of the arts should be patentable, including music and books. I believe aesthetic effects are useful manufactures to satisfy 101. Case in point. The following utility patent application, the novelty is purely aesthetic.

United States Patent Application 20080172175 Funny/humorous/abusive GPS system or navigation system Abstract My invention is an added feature to the existing GPS systems or navigation systems. It can also be a stand alone GPS system as well. Currently the navigation systems politely give you directions to your desired destination. My invention will be an extra feature in voice generated directions or audio system, which if added to the existing GPS systems can be turned on or off at will. Depending on the mood of the driver or the passengers, this new feature will add a little spice in driving especially to new destinations. The system will behave like a normal human being and will be little unforgiving in case the driver has trouble following voice generated directions. The voice generated directions will be spiced up by adding funny phrases like "YOU SILLY" OR "YOU DUMMY" OR "YOU STUPID" etc. It will purely add a lot of fun and laughter in the vehicle for the driver and the passengers and driving can be a fun experience. In ABUSIVE GPS SYSTEM, meant only for adults, any kind of language or four-letter words or phrases can be programmed in the system. This will also add a lot of spice to the driving of vehicles.

PROFESSOR PETITIONS PTO TO ABOLISH SILLY COMPUTER SCIENCE RULE

To sit for the patent bar, for someone whose academic background is in computer science, you need a bachelors degree in computer science from a school accredited either by the CSAB's CSAC or the ABET's CAC - two boards that accredit computer science programs. The problem is that most of the leading computer science departments, often part of engineering schools, are accredited differently. In 2006, Prof. Thomas Field of the Franklin Pierce Law School petitioned the PTO to modify this requirement, arguing that it unfairly restricted many worthy candidates from applying for the patent bar. In May 2006, PTO lawyer Toupin responded with a rejection of the petition, ignoring all of the legitimate merits of the argument, and instead pretty much arguing that Field didn't dot his "i"s and cross his "t"s. Now Toupin could have remembered that he is a public servant, instead of an anal weenie, and wrote back and said "While your petition is defective, we agree the Rule is unduly restrictive, and have changed it accordingly".

Another silly patent

US Patent 6,513,042 Internet test-making method What is claimed is: 1. A method of making a test and posting the test on-line for potential test-takers, said method comprising the steps of: providing a host system and a plurality of remote terminals operatively coupled to the Internet; inputting questions at one of the remote terminals; compiling the questions at the host system to make a compiled test; posting the test on-line for potential test-takers; wherein a test-taker is required to pay to take the compiled test; and wherein the test-maker and the proprietor of the host system share the revenues generated by the test-taker taking the test. Granted, this is another arrogant business method, but required? Their patent writer (or drafter, or a paralegal) should have maintained the claiming style and written: wherein a presenting a test taker with... to take the test - the phrase fits the technical description and an example therefrom. It should say, albeit in legalese doublespeak, but as a stronger claim wherein a presenting a test taker with ...for participating in the test... and share - hasn't it been discussed by hundreds of patent examiners as ambiguous? Because share in method claims is better represented by dividing that's all. It's very simple.

Microsoft's iPhoney patent is phoney

Microsoft's new iPhone patent is probably a piece of pure excrement, once you subtract out all of the nonsense in claim 1 and focus on the last two clauses that might be an invention, except for the fact that the patent ignores tons of prior art. The Microsoft patent is: United States Patent 7,225,409 Graphical user interface for a screen telephone (filed August 1999, based on August 1998 provisional) and the only possible "innovation" (someone can explain that to a company that thinks innovation is putting a touch tablet in a coffee table) are the last two clauses of claim 1: and wherein execution of the one or more methods of the application programming interface is responsive to the input from the application for customizing the customizable visual user interface, wherein the telephony module includes an operator agent for determining a media mode of an incoming call. So Microsoft is proud to have invented a customizable telephony app that switches handlers depending on the type of incoming call. This patent so outraged a discriminating member of the patenting community, that he reviewed the filewrapper, and found out the "innovation" is even less - just the last clause, since the examiner rightfully argued the rest of the claim was anticipated by an earlier patent, U.S. patent 5850433. Pathetically, and as an abuse of the PTO's resources, it took Microsoft 8 (non-final) rejections to get this allowance. Worse, this last clause is invalid in light of yet another patent, 5,493,609, the abstract of which talks about media mode switching for incoming calls: A telecommunication system provides voice and data communications over a conventional telephone line that can be dynamically switched from voice mode to any of a plurality of data modes (e.g., fax, modem, or VoiceView protocols) during a single conversation. Each station includes a telephone for voice communications and switching means for selectively connecting the telephone to the telephone line in voice mode and disconnecting the telephone while operating in one of the data modes. A modem provides data communications over the telephone line in any of a plurality of data modes. Voice is the default mode of operation. Prior to switching into a data mode, the originating station first transmits a start signal over the telephone line that includes a mode signal indicating one of the data modes. If a station detects a start signal transmitted by a remote station, a controller directs the switching means and modem to automatically switch from voice mode to the selected data mode in preparation for receiving data from the originating station. The stations also can also query one another to exchange information on their respective capabilities. Now, the switching goes on outside of the conventional telephone, but it is trivial and KSR-like obvious-to-try move the switching into a computer telephony application (for which there is also prior art). So after 8 (non-final) rejections, Microsoft gets a patent claim that with a little more searching can be invalidated. And Microsoft knows this. So why is Microsoft utilizing limited PTO resources pursuing such crap? It is yet another example of Microsoft's lack of interest in patent quality, and makes a mockery of Microsoft's participation in IBM's scam of a prior art project, scam in that both companies could better support patent quality by doing better searches for their own patent applications, instead of abusing the PTO. Both companies lie about their support for patent quality, one reason they are silent on people who lie about their professional experience to become PTO (Deputy) Directors (as if you thought I could resist the sarcasm!)