If you have been in a coffee shop and seen people using their laptop computers, then you are aware that each computer uses a personal display device that is built into the case of the laptop.
However, as computer consoles become significantly smaller (separate from input and output devices), the input and output devices must change accordingly. At one time, Apple Computer company manufactured a monitor-console combination that essentially only required a keyboard and mouse as input devices, in order to be fully functional. Unfortunately, this monitor was a "dinosaur" CRT design that added substantial weight and was not quite portable.
The new generation of computing devices, called "wearable computers", mark the start of an effort to make computing truly a carry-around, portable experience. As the computer consoles miniaturize, the input and output devices gradually become the focus of miniaturization and portability. A laptop computer tries to solve this problem of portability by providing input devices (e.g., full-size keyboard and touchpad mouse) and output devices (e.g., monitor, about 45cm diagonal) that are built into the structure of the containing case.
In order to reduce size yet further, the large-footprint keyboard can be replaced with a one-hander, e.g., Matias or Frogpad. Unfortunately, most people don't want to learn how to use a one-hander, thereby denying themselves this convenience toward wearable computing. Also, the monitor can be replaced by two alternative visual output devices:
1) mini-projector; and,
2) head-mounted display.
The mini-projectors currently being made (e.g., Sony) are becoming so small that very soon, cell phones will be equipped with built-in image projectors. All you will need will be a wall or piece of white paper! These new projectors can fit in ones pocket, cost about $400-1000, and display up to 800x600 (SVGA) resolution.
Similarly, head-mounted displays (HMD) are limited in resolution, depending on price. VGA and SVGA models (640x480 and 800x600) cost about $400-1000 for either monocle or both eyes. Cheaper 320x240 models cost about $100-300, but this resolution may be unacceptable for computer users. HMDs having higher resolutions, such as 1024x768, XGA, cost roughly $2k-10k, and are generally used for the military, which has plenty of budget for such expensive devices (think what YOU could do with a budget approaching a trillion dollars a year!, regardliss of the number of members of the military!). So, it is just a matter of time and patience before HMD with adequate resolution for CIVILIAN use become available.
The character of portable/wearable computing appears to be changing to the benefit of ordinary people.
Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com
20080415
Ontology and Taxonomy
A taxonomic system (an example of a part of the broader field of systematics) requires the following features:
1) a heirarchy, i.e., there is a root from which all other members (taxa) of the taxonomy derive;
2) an implicit or explicit relationship between the members, e.g., submember has more attributes than supermember; and,
3) the members are distinguished semantically, i.e., by meaning, rather than mere spelling of a word.
Another term for a taxonomy is a "classification system". The list of the taxa of the taxonony is given in a classification schedule. In a patent classification system, the taxa represent a particularly defined concept having features that includes all of the features of the immediately superior taxon. the most superior taxon is called the root and has the broadest interpretation of the classification system, and the least number of specified features.
In the US Patent Classification System (USCS), there are over 400 classes, the root of each class is somewhat described by the name of the class, but not always. The features of the root of the class is described in the corresponding class definition. This explanatory Class Definition distinguishes the USCS from all other patent classification systems. By contrast, the European Patent Classification System (ECLA) has no separate definition of the classification groups, but rather has additional cross-references provided throughout the classification schedule. One additional distinction between the USCS and other patent classification systems (or "schemes") is that that Class Definitions in the USCS attempt to provide refinements in the nuances of the terms used for the taxa.
When the taxonomy is supported with additional rules adding further refinement to better define the taxa of the system, this becomes an ontology. The use of Class Definitions is one step toward an ontology in the USCS. Unfortunately, it appears that top members of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as well as members of the Senate Committee of the Judiciary are oblivious to the usefulness of this elaborate system, and appear to be satisfied with a less-detailed system, such as the International Patent Classification system (IPC), to organize the placement of US Patent documents. This is quite unfortunate. Also, the USPTO has relegated qualified examiners from the Classification Division back to the Examining Corps (i.e., the "production division"), just to meet congressional goals, showing that production to USPTO management has priority over the maintenance and improvement of the USCS. Management argues that they are "forced" into this change of status, because of congressional production goals. However, when do the senior management argue to Congress about the importance of the USCS? Hardly ever.
Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com
1) a heirarchy, i.e., there is a root from which all other members (taxa) of the taxonomy derive;
2) an implicit or explicit relationship between the members, e.g., submember has more attributes than supermember; and,
3) the members are distinguished semantically, i.e., by meaning, rather than mere spelling of a word.
Another term for a taxonomy is a "classification system". The list of the taxa of the taxonony is given in a classification schedule. In a patent classification system, the taxa represent a particularly defined concept having features that includes all of the features of the immediately superior taxon. the most superior taxon is called the root and has the broadest interpretation of the classification system, and the least number of specified features.
In the US Patent Classification System (USCS), there are over 400 classes, the root of each class is somewhat described by the name of the class, but not always. The features of the root of the class is described in the corresponding class definition. This explanatory Class Definition distinguishes the USCS from all other patent classification systems. By contrast, the European Patent Classification System (ECLA) has no separate definition of the classification groups, but rather has additional cross-references provided throughout the classification schedule. One additional distinction between the USCS and other patent classification systems (or "schemes") is that that Class Definitions in the USCS attempt to provide refinements in the nuances of the terms used for the taxa.
When the taxonomy is supported with additional rules adding further refinement to better define the taxa of the system, this becomes an ontology. The use of Class Definitions is one step toward an ontology in the USCS. Unfortunately, it appears that top members of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as well as members of the Senate Committee of the Judiciary are oblivious to the usefulness of this elaborate system, and appear to be satisfied with a less-detailed system, such as the International Patent Classification system (IPC), to organize the placement of US Patent documents. This is quite unfortunate. Also, the USPTO has relegated qualified examiners from the Classification Division back to the Examining Corps (i.e., the "production division"), just to meet congressional goals, showing that production to USPTO management has priority over the maintenance and improvement of the USCS. Management argues that they are "forced" into this change of status, because of congressional production goals. However, when do the senior management argue to Congress about the importance of the USCS? Hardly ever.
Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com
20080414
珍道具 "chin doogu" - "unusual tool" questionably practical, never patented
珍道具, ちんどうぐ, pronounced "chin doogu" and meaning "unusual tool", is a concept created by Kenji Kawakami (検事川上 ?) of Japan. There are thousands of members of the Chindogu society. One of the requirements is that the tool cannot be patented. [wikipedia.org: chindogu] These devices should be considered in any careful patent search for a similar "handy device".
These devices can be roughly compared to the Rube Goldberg and Heath Robinson devices that perform ultimately simple tasks by complex means. These devices are also not patented.
Although humorous and certainly practical to a certain extent, they present additional problems that detract from the solution to the problem.Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
20080413
Nolo's Patents for Beginners by Pressman & Stim - 5th Edition
In the book by Pressman & Stim entitled "Nolo's Patents for Beginners" 5th Edition (May 2006), in the section entitled "Hiring a Patent Searcher", the authors have listed six reasons why patent searches are never perfect:
1: cannot search all pending applications since only those at least 18 months old are published (and then not all of those either)
2: hard copies of patent documents can be missing (geez, I guess that's true if you don't use a computer!)
3: the searched areas may not contain foreign, non-patent or exotic patent documents (well, if you only search US documents, you won't find any foreign ones, duh!; also, if you manually search the foreign art shoes in the USPTO, they do not normally contain complete sets of foreign patents/non-patent documents either, they never did, and, now, they never will)
4: very recently issued patents have not yet been placed in the files (earth to Nolo: the US patent "files" no longer exist!, so is this what you are teaching "beginners" about patent searching?, mentioning the "patent files"; why not explain the updatedness of the patent DATABASES?)
5: patents may not be properly classified (geez, finally; now we might be getting somewhere; maybe we can explore this serious systemic problem, which is true for the ENTIRE patent database?!)
6: an invention may have been used publicly (well, yes, that's true, but who ever requests a "patent search" to cover publicly displayed concepts/"inventions"?; in the same vein, why not also include whether the "invention" is a "perpetual motion machine" or is contrary to laws, morality, etc.?; and why ask for such a "patent search" anyway?)
now, what about the possibility that the patent searcher is simply not familiar with the technology and takes into consideration the wrong search areas or looks for the wrong features/elements in their search results? - and what about when the searcher is too short on time to look at the proper portions of the patent documents in their search results to determine relevancy? - and what about if the requester mischaracterizes the search request (maybe because the search requester failed to provide key information)? - shouldn't these events be included in the list provided by these authors leading to a less-than-perfect search?
Furthermore, this book, at the top of page 65, states that licensed patent searchers, called "patent agents", "often dig deeper than might at first appear necessary". What the heck does that mean? - based on what evidence? - and what does "deeper" mean, or "might at first appear necessary"?, i.e., compared to what? Are we to assume that simply because someone is an agent, that they will necessarily dig deeper in any given patent search? I think not.
Perhaps the authors mean that "deeper" means following the various threads that a patent document provides, such as classifications, inventor names, company names, related documents, etc.? - but this book does not appear to define the term "deeper" - yet this is supposed to be a book for "beginners" - thanks a lot, attorneys Pressman and Stim for your help and guidance!
I think that choosing a patent searcher involves a lot more that simply knowing whether that person is an "agent" or not, and I am not quite sure whether being an "agent" really means that that person will dig any "deeper" than anyone else - I have not seen any data proving it - and how would the population sample to build such evidence be selected? - also, I know that patent searching questions and issues are not part of the examination that the patent agent is required to take; certainly there is nothing in the exam that proves the searching skills of the test-taker.
Perhaps Nolo and its authors should try to back up their claims with statistics rather than confuse helpless beginners in this already complex field.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
1: cannot search all pending applications since only those at least 18 months old are published (and then not all of those either)
2: hard copies of patent documents can be missing (geez, I guess that's true if you don't use a computer!)
3: the searched areas may not contain foreign, non-patent or exotic patent documents (well, if you only search US documents, you won't find any foreign ones, duh!; also, if you manually search the foreign art shoes in the USPTO, they do not normally contain complete sets of foreign patents/non-patent documents either, they never did, and, now, they never will)
4: very recently issued patents have not yet been placed in the files (earth to Nolo: the US patent "files" no longer exist!, so is this what you are teaching "beginners" about patent searching?, mentioning the "patent files"; why not explain the updatedness of the patent DATABASES?)
5: patents may not be properly classified (geez, finally; now we might be getting somewhere; maybe we can explore this serious systemic problem, which is true for the ENTIRE patent database?!)
6: an invention may have been used publicly (well, yes, that's true, but who ever requests a "patent search" to cover publicly displayed concepts/"inventions"?; in the same vein, why not also include whether the "invention" is a "perpetual motion machine" or is contrary to laws, morality, etc.?; and why ask for such a "patent search" anyway?)
now, what about the possibility that the patent searcher is simply not familiar with the technology and takes into consideration the wrong search areas or looks for the wrong features/elements in their search results? - and what about when the searcher is too short on time to look at the proper portions of the patent documents in their search results to determine relevancy? - and what about if the requester mischaracterizes the search request (maybe because the search requester failed to provide key information)? - shouldn't these events be included in the list provided by these authors leading to a less-than-perfect search?
Furthermore, this book, at the top of page 65, states that licensed patent searchers, called "patent agents", "often dig deeper than might at first appear necessary". What the heck does that mean? - based on what evidence? - and what does "deeper" mean, or "might at first appear necessary"?, i.e., compared to what? Are we to assume that simply because someone is an agent, that they will necessarily dig deeper in any given patent search? I think not.
Perhaps the authors mean that "deeper" means following the various threads that a patent document provides, such as classifications, inventor names, company names, related documents, etc.? - but this book does not appear to define the term "deeper" - yet this is supposed to be a book for "beginners" - thanks a lot, attorneys Pressman and Stim for your help and guidance!
I think that choosing a patent searcher involves a lot more that simply knowing whether that person is an "agent" or not, and I am not quite sure whether being an "agent" really means that that person will dig any "deeper" than anyone else - I have not seen any data proving it - and how would the population sample to build such evidence be selected? - also, I know that patent searching questions and issues are not part of the examination that the patent agent is required to take; certainly there is nothing in the exam that proves the searching skills of the test-taker.
Perhaps Nolo and its authors should try to back up their claims with statistics rather than confuse helpless beginners in this already complex field.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
Patent searching made easy: how to do patent searches on the Internet and in the library
The 2005 book by David Hitchcock entitled: Patent searching made easy: how to do patent searches on the Internet and in the library, is missing from the Shirlington branch of the Arlington County, VA library system at least as of today (Sunday, April 13, 2008) - the book was first added to the collection on February 12, 2007. The book cannot currently be found anywhere (that is, any easy-to-check area of the library) - Can we assume that this book is so valuable that someone would actually "steal" it?
I do not know what the contents of this book are, but I hope it does not show up "accidentally" in the Public Search Room at the US Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, VA - otherwise, I will probably assume that some unscrupulous member of the patent searching community did a less-than-holy act - also, if true that the book was indeed "stolen", it would demonstrate the dog-eat-dog world of patent searching
This kind of behavior would belong with the kind of behavior seen on many college campuses where students "hide" important library resources to prevent fellow students from being able to use them, and thereby "benefit" by the inability of their classmates to complete necessary coursework
Could this book have been checked out from the Shirlington branch and not returned? - well, no, since this facility is well computerized - and, according to the computer records, this book has NEVER been checked out since it was first added to the collection - so why is it missing?
yes, the world of patent searching is already a tough field, with mere high school and college graduates entering it as newbies and presenting themselves rapidly as "experts" to undiscriminating patent search firms - and there are plenty of them, all over the world
as you can see, this missing library book (which I can probably easily find and purchase in a nearby Borders or Barnes and Noble bookstore) has conjured up various implied unsavory perceptions of mine in the world of patent searching - well, I made a request to this library branch to notify me when this book becomes available - so, we'll see if/when it shows up, or a new copy is purchased
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
I do not know what the contents of this book are, but I hope it does not show up "accidentally" in the Public Search Room at the US Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, VA - otherwise, I will probably assume that some unscrupulous member of the patent searching community did a less-than-holy act - also, if true that the book was indeed "stolen", it would demonstrate the dog-eat-dog world of patent searching
This kind of behavior would belong with the kind of behavior seen on many college campuses where students "hide" important library resources to prevent fellow students from being able to use them, and thereby "benefit" by the inability of their classmates to complete necessary coursework
Could this book have been checked out from the Shirlington branch and not returned? - well, no, since this facility is well computerized - and, according to the computer records, this book has NEVER been checked out since it was first added to the collection - so why is it missing?
yes, the world of patent searching is already a tough field, with mere high school and college graduates entering it as newbies and presenting themselves rapidly as "experts" to undiscriminating patent search firms - and there are plenty of them, all over the world
as you can see, this missing library book (which I can probably easily find and purchase in a nearby Borders or Barnes and Noble bookstore) has conjured up various implied unsavory perceptions of mine in the world of patent searching - well, I made a request to this library branch to notify me when this book becomes available - so, we'll see if/when it shows up, or a new copy is purchased
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
20080408
Japan's infatuation with Gems
Japan has a historic preoccupation with gems and their organized structure. Here just four examples of how Japan has incorporated gems and their metaphors into their culture:
1) the term "ruby" denotes the small size of furigana, the kana that are placed either above or alongside Kanji or Chinese characters, to assist readers in the correct pronunciation of the characters;
2) the megacompany Mitsubishi, has a name that means "three diamonds", where "bishi" means diamond;
3) the classification system for Japanese patents includes themes and "facets", where the facet is a metaphor borrowed from gemology, i.e., the facets of gem crystals; and,
4) the latest MVC-based (model-view-controller) computer programming language called Ruby was first developed in Japan.
Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com
1) the term "ruby" denotes the small size of furigana, the kana that are placed either above or alongside Kanji or Chinese characters, to assist readers in the correct pronunciation of the characters;
2) the megacompany Mitsubishi, has a name that means "three diamonds", where "bishi" means diamond;
3) the classification system for Japanese patents includes themes and "facets", where the facet is a metaphor borrowed from gemology, i.e., the facets of gem crystals; and,
4) the latest MVC-based (model-view-controller) computer programming language called Ruby was first developed in Japan.
Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com
What's in a proper noun? (use of upper-case letters)
名前 : フラン ロリン (JP)
nom: Fran Lorin (FR)
naam: Fran Lorin (NL)
Naam: Fran Lorin (DE)
name: Fran Lorin (EN)
Four languages, but only two versions of a proper noun (my name). As a limited sampling of languages, two observations can be made regarding the use of upper-case letters: 1) in latin-based or germanic languages, the first letter of any proper noun (there are two here) is capitalized, i.e., an upper-case letter is used; and, 2) not all languages have an upper-case version of their script, but in Japanese, in particular, the katakana syllabary is used for a western name (rather than Kanji or Chinese characters, which are normally used for Japanese personal names). Similarly, Arabic has no upper-case version of their script. However, Russian and Greek scripts do.
At one time, a few hundred years ago in England, there was much debate on whether all nouns should be capitalized, or only a subset of nouns. As English-speaking people well know, capitalization is now only used in a limited number of linguistic situations: first letter of a sentence, proper nouns, acronyms (as well as initialisms and other specific kinds of abbreviations), and for emphasis. [David Crystal, "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of The English Language", 1995, University of Cambridge] A unique feature of German is that all nouns are capitalized.
It is important, when performing a text search of latin- or germanic-language documents, to take into account upper-case letters, whenever appropriate. Many text search query engines will give results that include both upper-case and lower-case letters, when only lower-case is used in the query, but will give only capitalized forms when an upper-case letter is used anywhere in the query. An example is IXQUICK.COM, a Netherlands-based search engine that typically gives about 30-50 results for any query, rather than the multitudes of results that other engines, such as Google, give.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
nom: Fran Lorin (FR)
naam: Fran Lorin (NL)
Naam: Fran Lorin (DE)
name: Fran Lorin (EN)
Four languages, but only two versions of a proper noun (my name). As a limited sampling of languages, two observations can be made regarding the use of upper-case letters: 1) in latin-based or germanic languages, the first letter of any proper noun (there are two here) is capitalized, i.e., an upper-case letter is used; and, 2) not all languages have an upper-case version of their script, but in Japanese, in particular, the katakana syllabary is used for a western name (rather than Kanji or Chinese characters, which are normally used for Japanese personal names). Similarly, Arabic has no upper-case version of their script. However, Russian and Greek scripts do.
At one time, a few hundred years ago in England, there was much debate on whether all nouns should be capitalized, or only a subset of nouns. As English-speaking people well know, capitalization is now only used in a limited number of linguistic situations: first letter of a sentence, proper nouns, acronyms (as well as initialisms and other specific kinds of abbreviations), and for emphasis. [David Crystal, "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of The English Language", 1995, University of Cambridge] A unique feature of German is that all nouns are capitalized.
It is important, when performing a text search of latin- or germanic-language documents, to take into account upper-case letters, whenever appropriate. Many text search query engines will give results that include both upper-case and lower-case letters, when only lower-case is used in the query, but will give only capitalized forms when an upper-case letter is used anywhere in the query. An example is IXQUICK.COM, a Netherlands-based search engine that typically gives about 30-50 results for any query, rather than the multitudes of results that other engines, such as Google, give.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
20080323
Monosodium glutamate - Japanese taste investigation
A Japanese researcher sought a new basic taste sensation other than the already-well-known salty, sweet, sour, and bitter identified in western culture (Indian, Chinese and Japanese had 5 or 6 named basic taste senses, e.g., "spicy"). The new fifth taste was named: umami.
Umami, a Japanese word roughly meaning "savoriness", was narrowed to the taste sensations of particular naturally occurring amino acid-derived compounds, such as glutamate, typically found in aged or fermented foods, such as cheeses, and fish paste. Two other nucleotide-derived compounds are also contributors to umami: inosinate and guanate.
The glutamate binds to certain G protein coupled glutamate receptors [wikipedia.org: taste].
Therefore, when listening to judges in various cooking contests, such as Iron Chef, the term "taste character" and "combination of tastes" includes the five basic tastes in various proportions, particularly including various proportions of the three umami-contributing ingredients: glutamate, inosinate, and guanate.
Recently, in 2000, French researchers have apparently identified a fat receptor in the taste buds of the tongue corresponding to a "fat taste".
Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com
Umami, a Japanese word roughly meaning "savoriness", was narrowed to the taste sensations of particular naturally occurring amino acid-derived compounds, such as glutamate, typically found in aged or fermented foods, such as cheeses, and fish paste. Two other nucleotide-derived compounds are also contributors to umami: inosinate and guanate.
The glutamate binds to certain G protein coupled glutamate receptors [wikipedia.org: taste].
Therefore, when listening to judges in various cooking contests, such as Iron Chef, the term "taste character" and "combination of tastes" includes the five basic tastes in various proportions, particularly including various proportions of the three umami-contributing ingredients: glutamate, inosinate, and guanate.
Recently, in 2000, French researchers have apparently identified a fat receptor in the taste buds of the tongue corresponding to a "fat taste".
Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com
Packaging
One of the hallmarks of any commercial enterprise is the distinctive packaging used for its products. The packaging includes the name of the product and its source, specifically the name of the company. Of all US Patents, the packaging-related patents can arguably comprise the majority of trademark-related documents. Although there is a distinct difference between the intellectual property protection of utility-based entities, i.e., products having utility, and recognition-based entities, i.e., trademarks.
One complex packaging is that used for inkjet printer inks, e.g., Canon, HP, Lexmark, Brother, etc. These packages use combinations of paper-based, plastic and composite materials.
The U.S. Classification System has defined a set of Classes directly pertaining to packaging and the making of packaging:
Class 53 - Processes for packaging, filling packages with product
Class 492 - Processes for making paper-based packages
Class 156 - Processes for making or modifying packaging that includes an adhesive bonding step
Class 206 - Particular packaging structures
Class 220 - Particular containers
Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com
One complex packaging is that used for inkjet printer inks, e.g., Canon, HP, Lexmark, Brother, etc. These packages use combinations of paper-based, plastic and composite materials.
The U.S. Classification System has defined a set of Classes directly pertaining to packaging and the making of packaging:
Class 53 - Processes for packaging, filling packages with product
Class 492 - Processes for making paper-based packages
Class 156 - Processes for making or modifying packaging that includes an adhesive bonding step
Class 206 - Particular packaging structures
Class 220 - Particular containers
Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com
20080314
Corpora: Word sets for use in patents
Various sources can be used to obtain a "core" corpus containing all English words, including the unabridged Oxford Dictionary. However, a suitable source is Roget's International Thesaurus containing 256,000 words organized according to a systematic arrangement created by the meticulous Robert Roget, a surgeon.
20080313
New Evolution-based Natural Classification: Cladistics
Biologists and students of biology are quite familiar with the swede Carl Linnaeus (13 May 1707 - 10 January 1778) and his taxonomy system for classifying plants and animals, especially the unique genus-species description of a species, e.g., Homo sapiens or E. coli. However, this system was based on latinized words that Linnaeus based on observable characteristics (e.g., vertebrae, mammary), but also often completely made up.
For those who have read a biography of Linnaeus, it will be obvious that Linnaeus was a very well known person in his time, and considered by many to be something of a genius. He is often referred to as the "Father of Taxonomy" for his many works leading to the ordered structure for the classification of the Plant Kingdom and for laying the groundwork for the taxonomies of the Animal and other Kindoms. His surname, Linnaeus, is a latinization of "linde", for the "linden tree" (a "lime" tree) that was present on the property of his childhood home. In those days of the early 1700s, a surname was required to enter a higher-education school. However, most people in Sweden at the time obtained their "family names" from the first name of their fathers combined with the "sson" suffix. Therefore, Carl's name was originally Carl Nilsson, since his father was Nils Ingmarsson, who in turn was the son of Ingmar Bengtsson. [wikipedia.org: "carl linnaeus"]
Recently, with the new technology for rapidly determining genetic make-up (i.e., DNA sequencing), a clearer relationship between different organisms has been revealed by comparing their DNA sequences, rather than the previous observed characteristics. This has led to the new hierarchical classification system called cladistics, from the Greek word "klados", meaning "branch". Alternatively, the term "phylogenetics" can also be used for the same classification system. Since the changes in the genetic profile of organisms can be observed through time, both within the same species or varieties, and across species, this system is based on evolution. Common ancestry can be observed by similar classification under this system. In addition, newly created species and varieties, e.g., H1N5 virus, can be readily identified and changes or mutations can be compared with related known species and varieties. [wikipedia.org: cladistics]
By contrast, the classification of patent documents has not yet found any similar well-structured system that is universal, efficient and usable. Therefore, patent searchers must, unfortunately, acquaint themselves with three major systems (i.e., ECLA/IPC, USCS and JPOCS) and some minor systems (e.g., Derwent) to locate relevant documents.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
For those who have read a biography of Linnaeus, it will be obvious that Linnaeus was a very well known person in his time, and considered by many to be something of a genius. He is often referred to as the "Father of Taxonomy" for his many works leading to the ordered structure for the classification of the Plant Kingdom and for laying the groundwork for the taxonomies of the Animal and other Kindoms. His surname, Linnaeus, is a latinization of "linde", for the "linden tree" (a "lime" tree) that was present on the property of his childhood home. In those days of the early 1700s, a surname was required to enter a higher-education school. However, most people in Sweden at the time obtained their "family names" from the first name of their fathers combined with the "sson" suffix. Therefore, Carl's name was originally Carl Nilsson, since his father was Nils Ingmarsson, who in turn was the son of Ingmar Bengtsson. [wikipedia.org: "carl linnaeus"]
Recently, with the new technology for rapidly determining genetic make-up (i.e., DNA sequencing), a clearer relationship between different organisms has been revealed by comparing their DNA sequences, rather than the previous observed characteristics. This has led to the new hierarchical classification system called cladistics, from the Greek word "klados", meaning "branch". Alternatively, the term "phylogenetics" can also be used for the same classification system. Since the changes in the genetic profile of organisms can be observed through time, both within the same species or varieties, and across species, this system is based on evolution. Common ancestry can be observed by similar classification under this system. In addition, newly created species and varieties, e.g., H1N5 virus, can be readily identified and changes or mutations can be compared with related known species and varieties. [wikipedia.org: cladistics]
By contrast, the classification of patent documents has not yet found any similar well-structured system that is universal, efficient and usable. Therefore, patent searchers must, unfortunately, acquaint themselves with three major systems (i.e., ECLA/IPC, USCS and JPOCS) and some minor systems (e.g., Derwent) to locate relevant documents.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
20080304
Verbs and Patents
Verbs establish the presence of sentences. In patents, particularly, declarative sentences (containing verbs) describe an invention.
An application writer uses the most appropriate verbs throughout the specification to explain and define the inventive features. The verbs used in patents should be unambiguous and avoid emotion. This helps to clarify the meaning of the sentences when interpreted by readers of the patent, e.g., courts, juries, other inventors, and patent users, etc.
There have been attempts to categorize verbs, e.g., Saussure, Jakob Grimm's "strong and weak Germanic verbs", Roget (i.e., Roget's Thesaurus) and by other linguists and philosophers. Recently, Beth Levin made an attempt to classify English Verbs in her "preliminary investigation" ["English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation"; Beth Levin, 1993, University of Chicago press]. In her book, she describes verb classes in which verbs are grouped according to their relationship with a subject and, where relevant, an object, i.e., "alternation". In Part 1, she describes various types of alternations and in Part 2, she lists the classes of verbs.
For example, in Part 2, Chapter 35, entitled "Verbs of Searching", she describes six classes: Hunt, Search, Stalk, Investigate, Rummage, and Ferret. The various alternations associated with these verb classes are described in Part 1, Section 2.11. The verbs in the "Search Class" include: advertise, check, comb, dive, drag, dredge, excavate, patrol, plumb, probe, prospect, prowl, quarry, rake, rifle, scavenge, scour, scout, search, shop, sift, trawl, troll, watch.
The verbs in this class are related by requiring use of the preposition "for" in a prepositional phrase that includes the object being "searched", e.g., A searched for OBJECT in B or A searched B for OBJECT, but NOT in the following alternant form: A searched OBJECT in B.
The verbs classes for "find" and "reveal" are the "Get Verb Class" and "Characterize Verb Class", based on their types of alternation.
At this time, the categorization of verbs continues to be studied based on various linguistic attributes and grammatical constructions. In the meantime, thesauri, such as Roget's Thesaurus and Rodale's Synonym Finder are good starting points for finding related words, including verbs, in an effort to find the verb that best describes a particular action or relationship in an invention.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
An application writer uses the most appropriate verbs throughout the specification to explain and define the inventive features. The verbs used in patents should be unambiguous and avoid emotion. This helps to clarify the meaning of the sentences when interpreted by readers of the patent, e.g., courts, juries, other inventors, and patent users, etc.
There have been attempts to categorize verbs, e.g., Saussure, Jakob Grimm's "strong and weak Germanic verbs", Roget (i.e., Roget's Thesaurus) and by other linguists and philosophers. Recently, Beth Levin made an attempt to classify English Verbs in her "preliminary investigation" ["English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation"; Beth Levin, 1993, University of Chicago press]. In her book, she describes verb classes in which verbs are grouped according to their relationship with a subject and, where relevant, an object, i.e., "alternation". In Part 1, she describes various types of alternations and in Part 2, she lists the classes of verbs.
For example, in Part 2, Chapter 35, entitled "Verbs of Searching", she describes six classes: Hunt, Search, Stalk, Investigate, Rummage, and Ferret. The various alternations associated with these verb classes are described in Part 1, Section 2.11. The verbs in the "Search Class" include: advertise, check, comb, dive, drag, dredge, excavate, patrol, plumb, probe, prospect, prowl, quarry, rake, rifle, scavenge, scour, scout, search, shop, sift, trawl, troll, watch.
The verbs in this class are related by requiring use of the preposition "for" in a prepositional phrase that includes the object being "searched", e.g., A searched for OBJECT in B or A searched B for OBJECT, but NOT in the following alternant form: A searched OBJECT in B.
The verbs classes for "find" and "reveal" are the "Get Verb Class" and "Characterize Verb Class", based on their types of alternation.
At this time, the categorization of verbs continues to be studied based on various linguistic attributes and grammatical constructions. In the meantime, thesauri, such as Roget's Thesaurus and Rodale's Synonym Finder are good starting points for finding related words, including verbs, in an effort to find the verb that best describes a particular action or relationship in an invention.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
20080228
Linguistic Modals Used in Patents
The linguistic constructions collectively called "modals" have a limited, but important, place in the written portion of patents. Modals are generally found in the background and brief description of the invention (e.g., objectives of the invention) portions of the patent specification, but not generally in claim recitations.
Modals include verbs and adverbs that express the concepts of possibility, probability, necessity, obligation, and permission. Core verbs (i.e., "auxiliary verbs") expressing modality are: may, might, can, could, will, would, shall, should and must ["Adverbs and Modality in English", Hoye, 1997, 058221535-8].
Modals can also be described as showing emotion (e.g., imperatives) and, in some cases, predicting the future (e.g., probability and possibility). In the Background portion of patents, the application writer describes a general "need" for the invention and how this need "will" be fulfilled. Here are a few examples:
There has been a long standing need for ..., which this invention fulfills.
An objective of this invention is to be able to ....
This invention will ....
By contrast with predicting a future possibility or probability, patents describe actual inventions, i.e., a concept that has been (supposedly) reduced to practice and is expected to work as described in the detailed portion of the specification, including any necessary experimentation within the capability of someone of ordinary skill in the art.
In the detailed description of the invention, a general modal expression can be used to describe the possibility of using alternatives in an invention. This sentence/paragraph construction should be included to avoid overly limiting the legal protection only to the known embodiments described in the specification. Here are examples:
The device can include alternative .... (features, materials, arrangements, etc.)
The material can be modified by substituting ... with ... (features, materials, etc.)
In the one-sentence recitation of a patent claim, words describing a probability or possibility should be avoided, since they can render the claims as being unclear or indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com
Modals include verbs and adverbs that express the concepts of possibility, probability, necessity, obligation, and permission. Core verbs (i.e., "auxiliary verbs") expressing modality are: may, might, can, could, will, would, shall, should and must ["Adverbs and Modality in English", Hoye, 1997, 058221535-8].
Modals can also be described as showing emotion (e.g., imperatives) and, in some cases, predicting the future (e.g., probability and possibility). In the Background portion of patents, the application writer describes a general "need" for the invention and how this need "will" be fulfilled. Here are a few examples:
There has been a long standing need for ..., which this invention fulfills.
An objective of this invention is to be able to ....
This invention will ....
By contrast with predicting a future possibility or probability, patents describe actual inventions, i.e., a concept that has been (supposedly) reduced to practice and is expected to work as described in the detailed portion of the specification, including any necessary experimentation within the capability of someone of ordinary skill in the art.
In the detailed description of the invention, a general modal expression can be used to describe the possibility of using alternatives in an invention. This sentence/paragraph construction should be included to avoid overly limiting the legal protection only to the known embodiments described in the specification. Here are examples:
The device can include alternative .... (features, materials, arrangements, etc.)
The material can be modified by substituting ... with ... (features, materials, etc.)
In the one-sentence recitation of a patent claim, words describing a probability or possibility should be avoided, since they can render the claims as being unclear or indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112.
Francis Lorin
siberkhem.com
20080224
Factors and Orders of Magnitude
Numerical ranges are a very important part of many patent claim recitations, and they can be pivotal in the determination of non-obviousness, one of the three requirements of patentability (see Graham v. Deere and 35 U.S.C. 103, 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966)).
However, factors and orders of magnitude express extreme ranges of numerical values.
A "factor" is a numerical multiplier of a subject numerical value. For example, a factor of 2 implies a doubling, a factor of 3 implies a tripling, and a factor of 10 implies an increase of ten times the subject value.
Also, an increase by a "factor of 10" implies an increase of an "order of magnitude". A factor of 100 increase implies two orders of magnitude. Thus, orders of magnitude are expressed by that are exponential powers of 10.
To bring orders of magnitude into some perspective, let us compare the size of nuclei to the size of atoms. This calculation has implications in various nuclear, chemical, biological, electronic, and physical fields. The size of atoms vary according to their atomic and molecular surroundings, i.e., their interactions with neighboring and nearby atomic and nuclear entities. Atoms can be in a state of bonding, e.g., ionic or covalent bonding, which can affect the atom size when compared to a ground or nonbonded state. Also, varying pressure or temperature can affect the size of atoms, e.g., states at the critical point of a material differ from those at supercritical or subcritical conditions, perhaps even if only a small amount.
By contrast, the size of the nucleus remains substantially constant regardless of chemical bonding or physical conditions of the surrounding. This is because the nucleus is surrounded by an atmospherical "blanketing" layer of electrons rotating and spinning around the nucleus. Chemical reactions have essentially no effect on the nuclei.
The sizes of atoms range 32pm for the smallest, He or Helium (a noble gas), to 225pm for Ce or Cesium (an alkali-metal). A picometer, pm, is 10E-12 m or one-trillionth of a meter. The corresponding nuclear sizes are 4fm and 12.8fm, based on the formula d=2.5(nuclear mass)(E(1/3)) [wikipedia.org, "nuclear size"]. A femtometer, fm, is 10E-15 or one-thousand-trillionth of a meter.
Thus, the relative sizes of atom to nucleus for He and Ce, are 8000:1 and 2000:1. Similarly, for the heaviest atom, U or Uranium, the corresponding atomic and nuclear sizes are 175pm and 30fm for a relative atom-to-nuclear size of 6000:1.
In order to better visualize these relative sizes, one might use a 100m soccer field as a comparative diameter (a "metaphor", say) for the atom, a relative order of magnitude of 3, equal to 1000:1 relative size, corresponds to a nuclear size of 10cm. For He, Ce and U, the relative nuclear sizes in this metaphor are 1.2cm, 5cm and 1.7cm!
Comparing results in terms of factors, or especially or orders of magnitude differences, when arguing unexpected results to support unobviousness of an invention, is quite difficult for a patent examiner or administrative judge to ignore and dismiss.
Other comparisons might be made with the sizes of leptons, such as electrons, or of neutrinos, or of quarks, or even of macro-objects such as galaxies or other celestial or astronomical groups. However, the electrons and neutrinos represent a size that might be beyond comparison with current technology.
If not already, then perhaps the concepts of factors and orders of magnitude should be added to students Standards of Learning (SOLs) for eighth graders in the U.S.? Also, adequate metaphors should be applied as well to enable the students to adequately visualize these kinds of relationships. Consider the trillion dollar U.S. Budget, terabyte and petabyte storage drives, the 10-100 trillion cells in a human adult, etc as further examples for new comparisons and metaphors. Or is it already so? At least one book has already been published that gives plenty of such comparisons for teaching school students.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
However, factors and orders of magnitude express extreme ranges of numerical values.
A "factor" is a numerical multiplier of a subject numerical value. For example, a factor of 2 implies a doubling, a factor of 3 implies a tripling, and a factor of 10 implies an increase of ten times the subject value.
Also, an increase by a "factor of 10" implies an increase of an "order of magnitude". A factor of 100 increase implies two orders of magnitude. Thus, orders of magnitude are expressed by that are exponential powers of 10.
To bring orders of magnitude into some perspective, let us compare the size of nuclei to the size of atoms. This calculation has implications in various nuclear, chemical, biological, electronic, and physical fields. The size of atoms vary according to their atomic and molecular surroundings, i.e., their interactions with neighboring and nearby atomic and nuclear entities. Atoms can be in a state of bonding, e.g., ionic or covalent bonding, which can affect the atom size when compared to a ground or nonbonded state. Also, varying pressure or temperature can affect the size of atoms, e.g., states at the critical point of a material differ from those at supercritical or subcritical conditions, perhaps even if only a small amount.
By contrast, the size of the nucleus remains substantially constant regardless of chemical bonding or physical conditions of the surrounding. This is because the nucleus is surrounded by an atmospherical "blanketing" layer of electrons rotating and spinning around the nucleus. Chemical reactions have essentially no effect on the nuclei.
The sizes of atoms range 32pm for the smallest, He or Helium (a noble gas), to 225pm for Ce or Cesium (an alkali-metal). A picometer, pm, is 10E-12 m or one-trillionth of a meter. The corresponding nuclear sizes are 4fm and 12.8fm, based on the formula d=2.5(nuclear mass)(E(1/3)) [wikipedia.org, "nuclear size"]. A femtometer, fm, is 10E-15 or one-thousand-trillionth of a meter.
Thus, the relative sizes of atom to nucleus for He and Ce, are 8000:1 and 2000:1. Similarly, for the heaviest atom, U or Uranium, the corresponding atomic and nuclear sizes are 175pm and 30fm for a relative atom-to-nuclear size of 6000:1.
In order to better visualize these relative sizes, one might use a 100m soccer field as a comparative diameter (a "metaphor", say) for the atom, a relative order of magnitude of 3, equal to 1000:1 relative size, corresponds to a nuclear size of 10cm. For He, Ce and U, the relative nuclear sizes in this metaphor are 1.2cm, 5cm and 1.7cm!
Comparing results in terms of factors, or especially or orders of magnitude differences, when arguing unexpected results to support unobviousness of an invention, is quite difficult for a patent examiner or administrative judge to ignore and dismiss.
Other comparisons might be made with the sizes of leptons, such as electrons, or of neutrinos, or of quarks, or even of macro-objects such as galaxies or other celestial or astronomical groups. However, the electrons and neutrinos represent a size that might be beyond comparison with current technology.
If not already, then perhaps the concepts of factors and orders of magnitude should be added to students Standards of Learning (SOLs) for eighth graders in the U.S.? Also, adequate metaphors should be applied as well to enable the students to adequately visualize these kinds of relationships. Consider the trillion dollar U.S. Budget, terabyte and petabyte storage drives, the 10-100 trillion cells in a human adult, etc as further examples for new comparisons and metaphors. Or is it already so? At least one book has already been published that gives plenty of such comparisons for teaching school students.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
20080223
FORTRAN, IBM360/370, Carnegie-Mellon University (memories)
Back during my freshman and sophomore years at Carnegie-Mellon University (CMU, not to be confused with Central Michigan University), one of the undergraduate requirements was a course called "Introduction to Computing" (or something very close to it) - it was a basic computer course for anyone entering the colleges of engineering (Carnegie Institute of Technology) or science (Mellon Institute of Science).
The computer classes were held in Science Hall (now called Wean Hall) [http://www.flickr.com/photos/coffeelab/9639385/], where the computers were also located. The computer language was FORTRAN-WATFOR. The advanced computer classes that were offered included ALGOL, PL/1, APL, LISP and BASIC, and my local Explorer Club in Forest Hills borough (near Churchill, where I lived) at a Westinghouse payroll processing facility next to Route 376 (on Edgewood Road, off Brinton Road), was teaching COBOL to any junior and high school students who attended the meetings. A "borough" is a municipality in Pennsylvania (and a few other states) somewhat similar to a township. The various boroughs and townships throughout Pittsburgh had somewhat distinct characteristics resulting from the combination of architecture, topography, roadways, culture, cuisine, history, etc., that collectively give this city its own special charm.
Anyway, the IBM 360/370 mainframe computer could be seen behind a large glass window in the computer center from the area where the multipage perforated printouts were delivered with the recipient's computer name on the first page. The computer printouts were placed on shelves next to many Hollerith card punch machines. Each Hollerith card held one FORTRAN statement of up to 80 characters. We used rubber bands for small programs and show boxes for large ones. Once in a while someone would drop a box and find out this it could take almost as long to reorder the cards (especially if they were not numbered sequentially, which was optional at the time of coding) as it was to retype the entire program. That was always an expensive mistake!
Initially there was one card reader, then two, in the printout/card puncher room. After the stack of cards were read, we generally waited about an hour or more for the printout. In the late 1970's, a DEC PDP-10 and/or 11 minicomputer with tape reels was added to the repertoire, which added the programming language CP/M.
Later, in my junior and senior years, 1978-1980, a new room was built to house the new terminals that initially only provided a paper printout, then some terminals with small orange-text-only CRT monitors with no mice, and, after I graduated, large full-color LED monitors.
It took a second computer course (as a technical elective) called "Fundamentals of Computer Design" which used PASCAL. I absolutely loved PASCAL, especially since it used the BEGIN and END statements to make a program block, whereas in FORTRAN, incessant GOTOs and labels were always needed that made the FORTRAN outputs very difficult to read and complicated to debug.
When I took my third computer course, a required chemical engineering problem solving course called "Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation II", I used PASCAL instead of FORTRAN, which all my classmates used. I used far less time to write and debug my programs, which included using Newton's Approximation Method in differential analysis.
One unique feature the FORTRAN offers, which is not found in other programming languages, even today (yes, FORTRAN is still alive and well!), is the use of the COMPLEX data type. This feature makes many mathematical calculation involving complex equations possible (e.g., optics analysis, alternating circuit analysis, etc.).
Ah, those were the days..
later, more about computing, including supercomputers, software, semiconductor processing, networks, interface devices and systems, and related patents, etc.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
The computer classes were held in Science Hall (now called Wean Hall) [http://www.flickr.com/photos/coffeelab/9639385/], where the computers were also located. The computer language was FORTRAN-WATFOR. The advanced computer classes that were offered included ALGOL, PL/1, APL, LISP and BASIC, and my local Explorer Club in Forest Hills borough (near Churchill, where I lived) at a Westinghouse payroll processing facility next to Route 376 (on Edgewood Road, off Brinton Road), was teaching COBOL to any junior and high school students who attended the meetings. A "borough" is a municipality in Pennsylvania (and a few other states) somewhat similar to a township. The various boroughs and townships throughout Pittsburgh had somewhat distinct characteristics resulting from the combination of architecture, topography, roadways, culture, cuisine, history, etc., that collectively give this city its own special charm.
Anyway, the IBM 360/370 mainframe computer could be seen behind a large glass window in the computer center from the area where the multipage perforated printouts were delivered with the recipient's computer name on the first page. The computer printouts were placed on shelves next to many Hollerith card punch machines. Each Hollerith card held one FORTRAN statement of up to 80 characters. We used rubber bands for small programs and show boxes for large ones. Once in a while someone would drop a box and find out this it could take almost as long to reorder the cards (especially if they were not numbered sequentially, which was optional at the time of coding) as it was to retype the entire program. That was always an expensive mistake!
Initially there was one card reader, then two, in the printout/card puncher room. After the stack of cards were read, we generally waited about an hour or more for the printout. In the late 1970's, a DEC PDP-10 and/or 11 minicomputer with tape reels was added to the repertoire, which added the programming language CP/M.
Later, in my junior and senior years, 1978-1980, a new room was built to house the new terminals that initially only provided a paper printout, then some terminals with small orange-text-only CRT monitors with no mice, and, after I graduated, large full-color LED monitors.
It took a second computer course (as a technical elective) called "Fundamentals of Computer Design" which used PASCAL. I absolutely loved PASCAL, especially since it used the BEGIN and END statements to make a program block, whereas in FORTRAN, incessant GOTOs and labels were always needed that made the FORTRAN outputs very difficult to read and complicated to debug.
When I took my third computer course, a required chemical engineering problem solving course called "Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation II", I used PASCAL instead of FORTRAN, which all my classmates used. I used far less time to write and debug my programs, which included using Newton's Approximation Method in differential analysis.
One unique feature the FORTRAN offers, which is not found in other programming languages, even today (yes, FORTRAN is still alive and well!), is the use of the COMPLEX data type. This feature makes many mathematical calculation involving complex equations possible (e.g., optics analysis, alternating circuit analysis, etc.).
Ah, those were the days..
later, more about computing, including supercomputers, software, semiconductor processing, networks, interface devices and systems, and related patents, etc.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
20080213
Metaphor, Significance and Heirarchy in Patent Analysis
Three essential general characteristics must be considered when analyzing an inventive concept (to prepare a patent search or an application) or a patent (to prepare a validity search): metaphor, significance and heirarchy.
Metaphor: in linguistics, a metaphor is the comparison or substitution of a word having a representation in one subject area or environment, with a word from a different subject area or environment. One kind of metaphor that is commonly used in France (and elsewhere in Europe) is to describe something enjoyable as "delicious" regardless of whether any taste is actually involved, as in the expression: "That movie was simply delicious".
Thus, a "metaphor" is use of a word denoting a concept in one setting in another setting. This sets up a comparison between the two settings. For example, in the use of the word "delicious", one might extend the comparison between a taste experience and a non-taste experience, by describing an experience or situation as being "spicy" or "bland", thereby comparing the taste and non-taste experiences.
In patent analysis, the usual corresponding term for a metaphor is "analogy", leading to the comparative term "analogous". This term is frequently used to compare subject matter that has some similarity. For example, in a major court case in the early to mid 1800s, two patent holders had claims reciting the same invention! The invention was a still, or boiler, involved in the production of a liquid food product for consumption. One of the patents was for producing milk while the other was for producing beer. Although I do not have the citation for this court case (I am still looking for it), it was very important in that the US Patent Office was chastized by the court for failing to prevent this situation from occurring.
The response by the US Patent Office was to make sure that patent examiners considered analogous art areas in their search for the inventive concept. This also led to the creation of US Patent Classes directed to function-based rather than industry-based subject areas. For example, Class 99 (added in those early days in response to this court case) is directed to Foods and Beverages: Apparatus. Thus patent examiners were then instructed to search this class rather than the previously segregated classes directed to dairy and to beer production.
Significance: in determining patentability, an examiner seeks a significant feature, element or relationship on which to base their reasons for allowance of a patent application. The word "significant" is not actually used, but it is directly related to the concept of a "flash of genius" or "inventive feature". The significant feature and the field of application of the feature determine the search areas for the inventive concept.
Heirarchy: when comparing somewhat unrelated subjects or elements or features, the US Classification System has established an arbitrary heirarchy that ensures that a patent application goes to the most qualified patent examiner for examination, and that the issued patent is placed in the "correct" classification area according to heirarchy. A patent searcher can find this heirarchy given in the uspto.gov website. Thus, when an inventive concept applies to more than one subject matter or to different technical fields, the heirarchy should guide the searcher to the most appropriate classification areas to consider.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
Metaphor: in linguistics, a metaphor is the comparison or substitution of a word having a representation in one subject area or environment, with a word from a different subject area or environment. One kind of metaphor that is commonly used in France (and elsewhere in Europe) is to describe something enjoyable as "delicious" regardless of whether any taste is actually involved, as in the expression: "That movie was simply delicious".
Thus, a "metaphor" is use of a word denoting a concept in one setting in another setting. This sets up a comparison between the two settings. For example, in the use of the word "delicious", one might extend the comparison between a taste experience and a non-taste experience, by describing an experience or situation as being "spicy" or "bland", thereby comparing the taste and non-taste experiences.
In patent analysis, the usual corresponding term for a metaphor is "analogy", leading to the comparative term "analogous". This term is frequently used to compare subject matter that has some similarity. For example, in a major court case in the early to mid 1800s, two patent holders had claims reciting the same invention! The invention was a still, or boiler, involved in the production of a liquid food product for consumption. One of the patents was for producing milk while the other was for producing beer. Although I do not have the citation for this court case (I am still looking for it), it was very important in that the US Patent Office was chastized by the court for failing to prevent this situation from occurring.
The response by the US Patent Office was to make sure that patent examiners considered analogous art areas in their search for the inventive concept. This also led to the creation of US Patent Classes directed to function-based rather than industry-based subject areas. For example, Class 99 (added in those early days in response to this court case) is directed to Foods and Beverages: Apparatus. Thus patent examiners were then instructed to search this class rather than the previously segregated classes directed to dairy and to beer production.
Significance: in determining patentability, an examiner seeks a significant feature, element or relationship on which to base their reasons for allowance of a patent application. The word "significant" is not actually used, but it is directly related to the concept of a "flash of genius" or "inventive feature". The significant feature and the field of application of the feature determine the search areas for the inventive concept.
Heirarchy: when comparing somewhat unrelated subjects or elements or features, the US Classification System has established an arbitrary heirarchy that ensures that a patent application goes to the most qualified patent examiner for examination, and that the issued patent is placed in the "correct" classification area according to heirarchy. A patent searcher can find this heirarchy given in the uspto.gov website. Thus, when an inventive concept applies to more than one subject matter or to different technical fields, the heirarchy should guide the searcher to the most appropriate classification areas to consider.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
20080210
Cross-Refences in Patent Documents
Patent documents are cross-referenced in the following ways:
1) U.S. Patents (since about 1971) provides a list of document citations on the front page; U.S. Patents earlier than 1971 (but after about 1950) list the cited documents on the last page; prior to about 1950, no single collection of cited documents is provided, but the text of the document can contain citations almost anywhere;
2) elsewhere in the U.S. Patent, particularly in the Background portion of the document (at the beginning of the text) various "prior art" are described, but other portions of the disclosure can cite documents, e.g., patents, application serial numbers, and technical papers as well;
3) in a foreign Patent document, prior art, e.g., patent documents, are usually found in the Background or first portion of the text of the document, but may be found anywhere in the text; and,
4) in WO Search Reports.
The espacenet.com website of the EPO provides a list of cited documents for any given patent document hit; as well as a link to a list of referencing documents (i.e., documents that contain a cite to the "hit"). The USPTO website search engine gives links for all front page US patent document citations (when the document is viewed in TEXT mode) and provides the field index "ref/" to use in the query box to list referencing US Patents.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
1) U.S. Patents (since about 1971) provides a list of document citations on the front page; U.S. Patents earlier than 1971 (but after about 1950) list the cited documents on the last page; prior to about 1950, no single collection of cited documents is provided, but the text of the document can contain citations almost anywhere;
2) elsewhere in the U.S. Patent, particularly in the Background portion of the document (at the beginning of the text) various "prior art" are described, but other portions of the disclosure can cite documents, e.g., patents, application serial numbers, and technical papers as well;
3) in a foreign Patent document, prior art, e.g., patent documents, are usually found in the Background or first portion of the text of the document, but may be found anywhere in the text; and,
4) in WO Search Reports.
The espacenet.com website of the EPO provides a list of cited documents for any given patent document hit; as well as a link to a list of referencing documents (i.e., documents that contain a cite to the "hit"). The USPTO website search engine gives links for all front page US patent document citations (when the document is viewed in TEXT mode) and provides the field index "ref/" to use in the query box to list referencing US Patents.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
Patent Claim Analysis
Patent claim analysis is particularly important for determining the scope of patent protection. It is also necessary in performing validity and infringement (or "clearance" or "right-to-use", etc.) searches.
The best way to visualize the elements of a claim is to convert the rather bland claim text into a visually modified script, using various fonts, font and background colors, and text modifiers, such as using bold, italic, and underline.
The text of the claim can be obtain by scanning the claims of the documents (or obtained directly for US Patents and Published Applications from the uspto.gov Patent Search webpage using copy-and-paste). If the text is pasted into MS Word, the text can be modified using the "Find All" feature to locate all occurrences of a claim element in the claim recitations. Then the highlighted elements can be modified, e.g., bu changing the font color to red, or to both red and bold, etc.
This is a useful technique for more easily locating elements throughout the claim recitations.
The modified claim recitations can be printed using a color printer to scan to "character" of the claims, e.g., locating such essential words and phrases as "such as ", "whereby", "wherein", and "in order to".
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
The best way to visualize the elements of a claim is to convert the rather bland claim text into a visually modified script, using various fonts, font and background colors, and text modifiers, such as using bold, italic, and underline.
The text of the claim can be obtain by scanning the claims of the documents (or obtained directly for US Patents and Published Applications from the uspto.gov Patent Search webpage using copy-and-paste). If the text is pasted into MS Word, the text can be modified using the "Find All" feature to locate all occurrences of a claim element in the claim recitations. Then the highlighted elements can be modified, e.g., bu changing the font color to red, or to both red and bold, etc.
This is a useful technique for more easily locating elements throughout the claim recitations.
The modified claim recitations can be printed using a color printer to scan to "character" of the claims, e.g., locating such essential words and phrases as "such as ", "whereby", "wherein", and "in order to".
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
Two-phase Patent Search Process
The overall patent search process can be described as a two-phase procedure.
Phase I collects documents deemed to be related to the inventive concept being sought, using text and field queries obtained from the search requester, including keywords and keyphrases taken from the inventive description, and classification indices (i.e., subclasses in the USCS, subgroups in ECLA, or theme/facets in JPCS). This produces an initial document set.
Phase II extracts information from the initial document set to meet previously established confidence requirements for the search results. This phase includes performing verification and adequacy evaluations of the initial keywords/terms used, the initial classifications, cross-references, results of published search reports, prosecution histories, examiner search, and NPL search. This phase can result in a search of documents in newly identified classification areas. This phase results in a final document set ready for review and consideration in a search report.
The writer of the search report will provide the information and data necessary for anyone to be able repeat the search in its entirety and obtain the same or substantially equivalent results. The report should include at least these essential elements: a) an explanation in English (or the appropriate language for the search requester) describing the inventive concept as provided by the requester in sufficient detail to encompass the general technical field and all searchable features and elements; b) a list of the documents uncovered that appear to correspond to the inventive concept or parts thereof; c) an explanation of how the uncovered documents correspond to the inventive concept; and d) all search parameters and databases/engines used to obtain the uncovered documents, e.g., classifications, keywords/terms, inventor names, etc.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
siberkhem.blogspot.com
Phase I collects documents deemed to be related to the inventive concept being sought, using text and field queries obtained from the search requester, including keywords and keyphrases taken from the inventive description, and classification indices (i.e., subclasses in the USCS, subgroups in ECLA, or theme/facets in JPCS). This produces an initial document set.
Phase II extracts information from the initial document set to meet previously established confidence requirements for the search results. This phase includes performing verification and adequacy evaluations of the initial keywords/terms used, the initial classifications, cross-references, results of published search reports, prosecution histories, examiner search, and NPL search. This phase can result in a search of documents in newly identified classification areas. This phase results in a final document set ready for review and consideration in a search report.
The writer of the search report will provide the information and data necessary for anyone to be able repeat the search in its entirety and obtain the same or substantially equivalent results. The report should include at least these essential elements: a) an explanation in English (or the appropriate language for the search requester) describing the inventive concept as provided by the requester in sufficient detail to encompass the general technical field and all searchable features and elements; b) a list of the documents uncovered that appear to correspond to the inventive concept or parts thereof; c) an explanation of how the uncovered documents correspond to the inventive concept; and d) all search parameters and databases/engines used to obtain the uncovered documents, e.g., classifications, keywords/terms, inventor names, etc.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
siberkhem.blogspot.com
20080207
Regular Expressions - Regex, POSIX
A regular expression in computing is a way of describing in a concise and accurate manner, the presence of particular characters, words, phrases, and other textual information [wikipedia.org: "regular expression"].
Various symbols found on US-English keyboards, are used to describe the presence or absence of certain text characters in a given text string. The following are examples of the use of these symbols and what they mean:
vertical bar (or "pipe"), | : means the item on either side is an alternative, e.g., [flavor | flavour] means that EITHER "flavor" or "flavour" occur in thi subject text string
parentheses, ( ) : can be used to more particularly specify the alternatives by grouping the changes, e.g., [flav(o|ou)r] represents "flavor" or "flavour"
question mark, ? : indicates zero or one of the previous text element, e.g., [flavou?r], again, represents "flavor" or "flavour"
asterisk, * : indicates zero or more of the preceding element, e.g., [flavou*r] represents "flavor", "flavour", "flavouur", "flavouuur", etc. - note that this particular construction produces non-sensical words
plus sign, + : indicates one or more of the preceding element, e.g., [flavou+r] represents "flavour", "flavouur", "flavouuur", etc. - again, non-sensical words can be produced in this particular construction.
These constructions (see Regular Expression books and literature) are an inherent aspect of the mathematical field of Set Theory. For example, instead of using a vertical bar for alternation, a regular expression can list the intended query items with quoted items separated by commas, e.g., ["flavor", "flavour"] represents "flavor" or "flavour". Alternatively, the mathematical symbol for a union of sets can be used: e.g., {"flavor"} U {"flavour"} represents the same expression.
Thanks to the early efforts of Stephen Cole Kleene and Ken Thompson in the 1950s and later, various computer languagees were developed to handle pattern matching and searching a given text for particular text string, e.g., SNOBOL. Various text editors were created that had built-in capability for searching "regular expressions", e.g., QED, grep, expr, AWK, Emacs, vi, and lex. Computer languages such as Perl and Tcl used regular expressions from a library written by Henry Spencer. More recently, PHP and Apache HTTP Server have regular expression functionality, especially in handling database queries, the primary software engine for patent and other online searches.
Even more recently, DTD syntax and XML are using regular expression functionality for consistency and for data specification and location.
In place of Regular Expressions, "Nondeterministic Finite Automata" or NFAs, can be used, but this format does not appear to have the same general support in existing software systems.
Finally, POSIX Basic Regular Expressions (or "BRE") and Extended Regular Expression (or "ERE") are defined by IEEE as standards.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
Various symbols found on US-English keyboards, are used to describe the presence or absence of certain text characters in a given text string. The following are examples of the use of these symbols and what they mean:
vertical bar (or "pipe"), | : means the item on either side is an alternative, e.g., [flavor | flavour] means that EITHER "flavor" or "flavour" occur in thi subject text string
parentheses, ( ) : can be used to more particularly specify the alternatives by grouping the changes, e.g., [flav(o|ou)r] represents "flavor" or "flavour"
question mark, ? : indicates zero or one of the previous text element, e.g., [flavou?r], again, represents "flavor" or "flavour"
asterisk, * : indicates zero or more of the preceding element, e.g., [flavou*r] represents "flavor", "flavour", "flavouur", "flavouuur", etc. - note that this particular construction produces non-sensical words
plus sign, + : indicates one or more of the preceding element, e.g., [flavou+r] represents "flavour", "flavouur", "flavouuur", etc. - again, non-sensical words can be produced in this particular construction.
These constructions (see Regular Expression books and literature) are an inherent aspect of the mathematical field of Set Theory. For example, instead of using a vertical bar for alternation, a regular expression can list the intended query items with quoted items separated by commas, e.g., ["flavor", "flavour"] represents "flavor" or "flavour". Alternatively, the mathematical symbol for a union of sets can be used: e.g., {"flavor"} U {"flavour"} represents the same expression.
Thanks to the early efforts of Stephen Cole Kleene and Ken Thompson in the 1950s and later, various computer languagees were developed to handle pattern matching and searching a given text for particular text string, e.g., SNOBOL. Various text editors were created that had built-in capability for searching "regular expressions", e.g., QED, grep, expr, AWK, Emacs, vi, and lex. Computer languages such as Perl and Tcl used regular expressions from a library written by Henry Spencer. More recently, PHP and Apache HTTP Server have regular expression functionality, especially in handling database queries, the primary software engine for patent and other online searches.
Even more recently, DTD syntax and XML are using regular expression functionality for consistency and for data specification and location.
In place of Regular Expressions, "Nondeterministic Finite Automata" or NFAs, can be used, but this format does not appear to have the same general support in existing software systems.
Finally, POSIX Basic Regular Expressions (or "BRE") and Extended Regular Expression (or "ERE") are defined by IEEE as standards.
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
20080124
20080124 - ~3k US Patents issued per week
In the USPTO patent search page, http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm,
enter isd/20080122 which corresponds to an issue date of January 22, 2008 (US Patents are issued EVERY TUESDAY, regardless of holiday; US Patent Applications are published only on Thursdays)
you will find that 2224 US Patents were issued on January 22, 2008
by comparison, roughly 3000 US Patents were issued every week for the past few years
the estimate for the amount of image space needed for each US Patent issue week, given 3000 documents per week, 500kB per image page, and 3-9 image pages per US Patent document - this will give 4.5-13.5GB of NEW US Patent images per WEEK! - on standard single-sided 4.7GB DVDs, that is one to three DVDs per week
also, by comparison, the USPTO offers various DVD (or comparable) data storage of past text and image documentation:
for all text information for 1976-2001 US patents, 90GB for $32,250
for all TIFF images for 1790-1999 US patents, 423 discs in DVD, about 2TB, for $22,750
for all OCR for 1920-1979, $41,450, with free ongoing OCR updates
total for all this information: $100,000 for just over 2TB of image and text data
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
enter isd/20080122 which corresponds to an issue date of January 22, 2008 (US Patents are issued EVERY TUESDAY, regardless of holiday; US Patent Applications are published only on Thursdays)
you will find that 2224 US Patents were issued on January 22, 2008
by comparison, roughly 3000 US Patents were issued every week for the past few years
the estimate for the amount of image space needed for each US Patent issue week, given 3000 documents per week, 500kB per image page, and 3-9 image pages per US Patent document - this will give 4.5-13.5GB of NEW US Patent images per WEEK! - on standard single-sided 4.7GB DVDs, that is one to three DVDs per week
also, by comparison, the USPTO offers various DVD (or comparable) data storage of past text and image documentation:
for all text information for 1976-2001 US patents, 90GB for $32,250
for all TIFF images for 1790-1999 US patents, 423 discs in DVD, about 2TB, for $22,750
for all OCR for 1920-1979, $41,450, with free ongoing OCR updates
total for all this information: $100,000 for just over 2TB of image and text data
Francis "Fran" Lorin
siberkhem.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)