Serving videos for gaming; Gaikai Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 8,147,339

May 22, 2012 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,147,339, issued on April 3, 2012 to Gaikai Inc. of Aliso Viejo, CA, discloses a system and method for serving videos for gaming.

            

According to the ’339 patent, prior game systems used a remote server to present multiplayer games over a network (e.g., the internet).  The remote server would receive input from each player’s computer and would send game state information and limited image information back to these computers.  Each player’s computer was configured to use this information from the server to render images and present them to the player.  For example, the player’s computer would render an image (e.g., a view based on the point of view of the player’s avatar), taking into account the three-dimensional relationships between various components of the image (e.g., other avatars, game objects, non-player characters, and the game environment).  In such systems, the memory and computing power of the rendering logic of the player’s computer would determine the quality and imaging speed of the displayed video.  In contrast, the ’339 patent discloses a system in which the remote server does some or all of the image rendering, and these rendered images are delivered to the players via the network, so that the player’s computer may no longer need rendering logic.  As a result, images can be generated on display systems with limited computational power (e.g., smartphones). 

According to its website, Gaikai is “a cloud-based gaming platform that allows users to play high-end video games and applications instantly from a webpage or internet-connected device.”  The company is working to be able to deliver video games so that they “can be accessed as easily as movies and music,” and believes that gaming “will become the #1 form of entertainment in the world.” 

Under current U.S. patent law, the content of a patent application is published (i.e., made available to the public) by the USPTO 18 months after the earliest priority date of the application (typically, the filing date of the application).  However, until the American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) of 1999, under U.S. law, the content, and indeed the existence, of a patent application was kept secret by the USPTO until the application finally issued as a U.S. patent.  The rationale for this change was to expand the library of prior art available to examiners and to bring the U.S. procedures closer to those of other countries which did not keep pending patent applications secret. 

It was also intended to help relieve the problem of so-called “submarine patents” in which a patent application was filed and kept pending for years while the applicant delayed issuance and made changes to the claims to track the recent developments of the technology, all the while keeping the content and existence of the application secret.  At some point, when another company brought an infringing product to market, the applicant would have the application issued by the USPTO and would then assert the patent by the patent owner against the unsuspecting company.  Since the term of a U.S. patent was measured from its date of issuance (specifically, 17 years from the date of issuance), the applicant did not incur any downside to doing so.

But in 1995, the U.S. changed the term of a patent from 17 years from the date of issuance to 20 years from the earliest priority date.  Therefore, an applicant wishing to obtain a “submarine patent” would only be able to do so for a maximum of 20 years, and the amount of time that the U.S. patent could be asserted would be the remaining portion of the 20-year period.  This change of the law helped curtail the “submarine patent” practice significantly, and the practice was further curtailed by the publication of pending U.S. patent applications.

However, current U.S. law still allows an applicant to keep its application secret and unpublished if it so wishes.  If the applicant is willing to forego foreign patent rights for the invention, the applicant can file a “Request for Non-Publication” along with the application when filed at the USPTO.  Upon granting the Request, the USPTO will keep the content of the application secret until it eventually issues as a U.S. patent.

Gaikai utilized this procedure for the patent application that resulted in the ’339 patent, by filing a “Request for Non-Publication” to keep its content secret until the ’339 patent issued last month.  Had Gaikai not filed the non-publication request, the application’s content would have been published in June 2009.  However, by filing the non-publication request, the contents of the ’339 patent were not published for almost another 4 years, until the patent issued in April 2012.   Presumably, Gaikai saw a strategic advantage in keeping the content of the ’339 patent secret for these 4 years.

According to the USPTO database, the ’339 patent is Gaikai’s first U.S. patent, but the company has numerous patent applications still pending, including five continuation-n-part applications claiming priority to the ’339 patent.

Filed under Computers, ip, orange county, patent Tagged with , , , , , ,

Paying a Premium: How to get a U.S. patent within one year

May 12, 2012 Leave a comment

One of the most common gripes I hear about the patent process cites the excessively long time it takes between filing a patent application and getting the patent to issue.  For example, the latest statistics out of the USPTO show that for applications in the “Semiconductor, Electrical, Optical Systems & Components” category (one in which a large number of my clients reside), it takes an average of 26.5 months after filing to get the first office action, and an average of 29.3 months for the patent to issue.  This technical category is actually one of the fastest, with “Computer Networks, Multiplex Communication, Video Distribution, and Security” being the worst, with averages of 33.6 and 40.7 months, respectively.

The USPTO has been working to reduce this pendency time, and has announced its “2010-2015 Strategic Plan” that sets the goal of reducing the average total pendency of patent applications to 20 months by 2015.  Much of this effort is focused on the USPTO’s internal processes, and as a patent practitioner, I support these improvements.

But even beyond these improvements, there are ways that applicants can help themselves and position their applications to be among the fastest through the USPTO.  In my opinion, these measures are currently underused in general, and many companies, especially those in high-tech fields (such as electronics and optics), can reap the substantial benefit of getting a patent in hand within one to one-and-one-half years.  In this blogpost (and following blogposts), I’ll explain some of the measures that can be used by applicants to expedite their applications through the USPTO.

Paying a Premium: The easiest and most potent way to get a U.S. patent to issue within one year is to use the USPTO’s newly-enacted “Prioritized Patent Examination Program” (also known as “Track I”) which started this past September as part of the “America Invents Act” (“AIA”).  Under this “fast track” program, an applicant can file a petition and pay an extra fee to the USPTO ($2,400 for small entities, $4,800 for large entities).  Upon approval of the petition (99% approval rate so far), the USPTO will expedite the application with the goal of having the patent processed to completion within 12 months.

The early results from the program are very attractive:

  • Over half of the approximately 1,200 “fast-track” requests filed since the program began in September 2011 have already received their first office action, with an average time of 66.4 days after filing.
  • There have already been 23 allowances under the program, with the average time to allowance being 39.2 days from petition approval.  The first allowance came 103 days after the application was filed (U.S. Pat. No. 8,094,942 issued to Google).
  • The program was initially open to only newly-filed applications.  However, it has recently been expanded to include pending applications for which a “Request for Continued Examination” has been filed.

Acceptance into the program is not a guarantee of issuance.  The USPTO will still apply the same standards of patentability as are used for all other applications.  For example, some applications in the program have already received their final rejections, with the average being 34.3 days measured from approval of the petition to enter the program.  In addition, the program is limited to accept only 10,000 applications during the fiscal year.

For a company planning on going through the due diligence accompanying funding events or acquisition in the foreseeable future, it can make sense to improve its IP portfolio in the eyes of the VCs or acquisition entity by getting patents in hand sooner rather than later using the “Prioritized Patent Examination Program.”

Filed under ip, orange county, patent, patent laws, prioritized examination, track I, america invents act Tagged with , ,

Fluid flow conditioner; Komax Systems, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 8,136,980

May 4, 2012 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,136,980, issued on March 20, 2012 to Komax Systems, Inc. of Huntington Beach, CA, discloses a fluid flow conditioner.

    

According to the ’980 patent, turbulence due to disturbances of the flow (e.g., pipe elbows, valves, restrictions) upstream from a flow rate meter can cause errors in the measured flow rate (called “the meter factor”).  For example, for determining the volume of petroleum crude flowing out of a storage tank, errors in such flow rate measurements can equate to significant monetary losses.  Fluid flow conditioners are useful to reduce the influence of turbulence on such measurements, and the ’980 patent discloses a fluid flow conditioner that is intended “to provide repeatable and accurate meter readings.”

Komax touts its “more than three hundred combined years of fluids-mixing experience,” stating that it “has led the industry in static mixing technology offering a diverse range of Static Mixers, Steam Heaters, Desuperheaters, and Heat Exchangers.”  Komax’s website shows the “Komax Optimized Flow Conditioner” (KOFC), a flow conditioner that closely resembles that of the ’980 patent, which is described as “integrating a Komax Triple Action Static Mixer with a standard perforated plate conditioner.”  The company reports that ”field testing of the KOFC showed an 80% reduction in meter factor for an ultrasonic flow meter.”  

During prosecution of the patent application that resulted in the ’980 patent, the USPTO examiner rejected some claims and allowed the remaining claims.  Rather than merely accepting the allowed claims, Komax decided to appeal the examiner’s rejection to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI). 

If an examiner remains unpersuaded by an applicant’s arguments regarding why the pending claims are patentable, an appeal to the BPAI is the next step in trying to refute the rejections and get the claims allowed.  A panel of three administrative patent  judges (APJs) reviews the arguments being presented by both the applicant and the examiner, and decides whether to reverse or affirm the examiner’s rejections.  Currently, the BPAI is awash in a large backlog of cases (recently reported to be approximately 26,000 cases), and it can take two or more years from filing the appeal to receiving the BPAI’s decision.  The USPTO is currently hiring more APJs as part of its efforts to reduce this backlog. 

The ’980 patent followed a typical trajectory through the appeal process.  Komax filed its Appeal Brief, the examiner responded with his Answer, and Komax filed its Reply Brief.  Twenty months later, the BPAI reviewed these materials and affirmed the examiner’s rejection.  As a result of Komax’ loss, the ’980 patent issued with only the claims allowed by the examiner. 

Notably, Komax did not conduct an oral hearing with the BPAI.  An oral hearing allows the applicant to orally argue its case before the three-judge panel, and can be conducted in person or by telephone.  During the hearing, the applicant typically has 20 minutes to present its arguments, and the panel can interrupt throughout with questions.  While examiners are also given an opportunity to be heard at the hearing, they almost never show up, so the applicant can try to pursuade the panel unchallenged.  That is not to say that it is a cakewalk.  Depending on the panel and the issues at hand, the questions from the panel can be difficult and probing, and there can be ample opportunities for the applicant’s attorney to unintentionally give the panel a reason to side with the examiner. 

I have had good success in conducting oral hearings for all the cases that I have appealed to the BPAI.  Despite the risks, my general opinion is that if the application is important enough to the applicant to appeal to the BPAI, the oral hearing is worth the time, effort, and expense in order to maximize the probability of a successful outcome.

As I said, Komax didn’t conduct an oral hearing, so the BPAI decided the case solely on the written record.  Komax might have helped its case by conducting an oral hearing.  In addition, prior to even reaching the appeal stage, Komax might have considered submitting an affidavit (e.g., by one of the inventors) that explained on the record the technical reasons for why the cited prior art references did not disclose the concepts for which the examiner relied upon them, or why the references would not be combined by someone skilled in the art as suggested by the examiner.  Even if this affidavit would not have convinced the examiner, it could have bolstered the written record to provide the BPAI panel more of a reason to reverse the examiner’s rejection of the claims.

Filed under fluids, ip, Mechanical, orange county, patent Tagged with , , , , , ,

Adjustable ventilation interface that fits to the patient’s nostrils; Breathe Technologies, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 8,136,527

April 20, 2012 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,136,527, issued on March 20, 2012 to Breathe Technologies, Inc. of Irvine, CA, discloses an adjustable system with oxygen-providing tubes to fit to the patient’s nostrils to assist breathing.

As disclosed by the ’527 patent, positive airway pressure (PAP) systems currently used to treat obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) can be obtrusive, irritating,  and uncomfortable to wear, and can provide ineffective seals with the patient’s nostrils.  The ’527 patent discloses various improvements, including having an adjustable-length coupler between the two tubes that aligns the tubes with the patient’s nostrils and that pneumatically interconnects the two tubes.

According to its website, Breathe Technologies is conducting clinical trials of its “truly ultra-light, compact, patient-friendly ventilator systems that can transform respiratory care in the hospital and home markets.”  A video on Breathe Technologies’ website states that its proprietary “Non-Invasive Open Ventilation” (NIOV™) wearable ventilator system is designed to “promote mobility by allowing patients to breathe more easily and to participate more fully in life.”

Generally, the most valuable patent protection is for features that are critical for a system to be operable.  With such protection in place, a competitor cannot design around the patent by omitting one or more claim features, because doing so would produce an inoperable device.  However, valuable patent protection can still be obtained for features that might not be required for operation, but are preferable for one reason or another (e.g., ease of manufacturing or ease of use).  While a competitor might be able to design around such claims to make an operable device, such a device would be less desirable to customers than one that has the patent-protected features, giving the patent owner an advantage in the marketplace.

The ’527 patent appears to protect ”preferable, not critical” features.  Parts of the ’527 patent (e.g., the abstract and the summary) state that the tubes to the nostrils have “an absence of pneumatic interconnection” with one another.  But the claims recite that the coupler “pneumatically interconnects the pair of tubes.”  Therefore, I’m guessing that the pneumatic connection is not a crucial feature of an operable system, but it is still a preferable one.  Presumably, if a competitor sought to develop a similar, but non-infringing system by omitting the pneumatic connection, its system would be less desirable in the marketplace, although the reason why is not immediately clear.  I also note that the NIOV™ system shown in the company’s video, while having a different appearance from the system shown in the ’527 patent, apparently does have a coupler that pneumatically connects the tubes leading to the nostrils.

Filed under ip, Medical, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Utility knife; Pacific Handy Cutter, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 8,127,452

April 15, 2012 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,127,452, issued on March 6, 2012 to Pacific Handy Cutter, Inc. (PHC) of Irvine, CA, discloses a utility knife with a blade release mechanism that also retracts the blade hood to allow removal of the blade.

    

According to the ’452 patent, the blade hoods of existing utility knives can potentially interfere with the replacement operation.  The utility knife disclosed in the ’452 patent has a blade release feature that allows the user to safely release the blade while simultaneously repositioning the blade hood out of the way to allow a front-end blade replacement.

According to its website, PHC began in 1950 “in a modest workshop in the San Gabriel Valley,” and is now “an integral player in the food, grocery and industrial hardware industries.” 

In 2009, Spellbound Development Group, Inc. sued PHC for patent infringement, alleging that PHC’s “Disposable Safety Cutter, Model RSC-432″ infringed three of Spellbound’s  patents.  PHC counterclaimed that Spellbound’s product “XS-CU” knife infringed one of PHC’s patents.  (I’ve previously wrote about one of Spellbound’s U.S. patents here, but this patent was not involved in the litigation with PHC.)  Last month, the PHC announced that its legal proceedings with Spellbound had been amicably resolved, with each party being free to sell and distribute its safety cutter knives without restriction. 

While the litigation was ongoing, as part of their strategies, each party requested ”reexamination” by the USPTO of one of its adversary’s patents.  Such “reexaminations” are a common tactic by defendants to try to convince the USPTO that one or more of the claims of the plaintiff’s patent is invalid and should be canceled.  If the defendant is successful, the claims are removed from the pending litigation, potentially erasing the basis for the plaintiff’s infringement arguments.  At a minimum, defendants can often advantageously delay the litigation by using such reexaminations to request that the court stay the pending litigation while the USPTO conducts the reexamination, which can take many years to conclude.

There are currently two mechanisms for requesting a reexamination, both of which were used by PHC and Spellbound: PHC initiated an inter partes reexamination of one of Spellbound’s patents, and Spellbound initiated an ex parte reexamination of the PHC patent.  Rather than providing a full discussion of the differences between the two mechanisms, I just want to point out a couple of key differences.   

Both types of reexaminations are initially requested by the challenger presenting prior art references to the USPTO and pointing out why the claims of the patent are invalid in view of these references.  For inter partes reexamination, the challenger is permitted to participate throughout the examination process.  For example, during an inter partes reexamination, the USPTO reviews the submission, and determines whether any of the claims should be rejected or not.  The patent owner is allowed to respond to these rejections, and the challenger is allowed to respond to the patent owner’s response.  The USPTO then considers all the arguments of both parties in coming to its conclusion regarding whether the claims are patentable or not.   

But for ex parte reexamination, the challenger’s role is completed by the submission of the request.  The reexamination proceeds with the USPTO reviewing the submission, determining whether the claims should be rejected or not, and the patent owner allowed to respond to these rejections, very similar to the standard examination process.  The challenger does not get to chime in at all during the process. 

Each mechanism has its own pros and cons.  For example, the ex parte reexam challenger is not allowed to participate in the reexam, so it may be more likely that the patent owner will be successful in convincing the USPTO of the allowability of the challenged claims.  However, if the USPTO fails to reject the challenged claims, the ex parte reexam challenger can still raise invalidity arguments in the litigation against these claims, including the same arguments used to request the reexam initially.  (Of course, the fact that these arguments did not convince the USPTO indicates that they may not be winners in the litigation either.)

In contrast, because the inter partes reexam challenger participates throughout the reexam, if the USPTO fails to reject the challenged claims, the inter partes reexam challenger is forbidden (or “estopped“) from challenging the claims for invalidity based on grounds that the challenger “raised or could have raised during the inter partes reexamination proceedings.”  In other words, if the challenger doesn’t get the USPTO to reject the claims during the inter partes reexamination, the claims become significantly harder to invalidate in the litigation. 

The facts in any particular situation will determine which of the two mechanisms makes the most sense to use.

Filed under ip, Mechanical, orange county, patent Tagged with , , , , , ,

Lens cover for thermal imaging device; Irvine Sensors Corp.; U.S. Pat. No. 8,118,439

March 23, 2012 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,118,439, issued on February 21, 2012 to Irvine Sensors Corp. of Costa Mesa, CA, discloses a repositionable lens cover for use with a thermal imaging device.

The ’439 patent discloses a lens cover that is particularly useful for thermal imaging devices being used in the field by military personnel.  While such devices need a lens cover to protect its outer lens, in practice, these lens covers “have been lost, or even intentionally torn away and disposed of in order to avoid the nuisance of a tethered but loose lens cover encroaching into the field of view or otherwise interfering with the operation of the imaging device.”  The lens cover of the ’439 patent is repositionable for temporary storage and provides an aperture for the laser targeting element to be used while the lens cover is in place.

Last year was one of transition for Irvine Sensors.  Until early last year, Irvine Sensors described itself as ”a vision systems company engaged in the development and sale of miniaturized infrared and electro-optical cameras, image processors and stacked chip assemblies and sale of higher level systems incorporating such products.”   In March 2011, the phrase “information security company” started to make its way into the company’s press releases, and in October 2011, the company announced the sale of its thermal imaging business to Vectronix A.G. of Switzerland, with the company stating that its Board of Directors “has concluded that it would be advantageous to focus the firm’s future efforts on our core stacking technology and the immediate opportunities available in Cyber security.”  Soon afterward, Irvine Sensors rebranded itself as ISC8, describing itself as “a provider of intelligent Cybersecurity solutions and supporting technologies.”

Filed under ip, Mechanical, optics, orange county, patent Tagged with , , , ,

Retrieving lost combination lock codes; Targus Group Int’l, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 8,108,927

March 18, 2012 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,108,927, issued on January 31, 2012 to Targus Group International, Inc. of Anaheim, CA, discloses a system and method for allowing customers to retrieve lost or forgotten combination lock codes.

    

According to the ’927 patent, managing a large number of combination locks can be problematic for an organization.  For example, when one of the combinations is lost or forgotten, the lock vendor or a locksmith has to be called in to open the lock.  “Master keys” have their own problems, since a master key can be misplaced, and access to it may be difficult to control.  The ’927 patent discloses a system and method using a secure computer environment for allowing “customers to securely access the combination[s] of their locks without the need of directly contacting the lock vendor or a locksmith.”

Targus markets a wide range of products for carrying, powering, controling, and protecting portable computers such as laptops, notebooks, touchpads, and e-readers.  According to its website, Targus “pioneered the notebook carrying case category … to provide the best possible protection for notebook PCs.”

I took a look at the user guide for Targus’ Defcon® SCL (serialized cable lock) for notebook computers, and it appears that the method of the ’927 patent may not yet be available.  The guide states that Targus recommends that “your IT Administrator keep the [combination code] in case the combination number is forgotten, misplaced, or lost,” that Targus’ “Technical Support does not have access to preassigned combination codes or serial numbers,” and that “[i]n the event of a lost combination code, please contact your IT Administrator.”

One interesting aspect of the ’927 patent is that it was written without a “Background of the Invention” section.  USPTO guidelines state that an application should include a background section that includes (i) a statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains, and (ii) a description of the related art known to the applicant.  While such background sections have historically been included in patent applications, there is a trend in U.S. patent prosecution to omit them entirely.  The rationale for not including a background section is the concern that the USPTO, or a later challenger of the patent, will interpret material in the background section as being “admitted prior art,” that is, an admission by the applicant that the material is in the prior art, by virtue of the applicant including it in a section entitled “Background of the Invention.”

Personally, I find entirely omitting the background section to be a bit of overkill.  I generally opt for a background section that is one or two paragraphs long and that provides a useful context of the invention for someone reading the patent application (e.g., a patent examiner or a juror in a future patent infringement case).  Careful thought should certainly be put into deciding what to include in such a background section, to make sure that no unintentional admissions are being made.  For example, for some inventions, identifying the problem suffered by existing systems can be key to the development of the invention; e.g., once the problem is identified, the solution might be considered to be obvious.  For this reason, I avoid identifying the problem to be solved in the background section, opting instead to include any such discussion in the “Detailed Description” section of the patent application.

Filed under Computers, ip, orange county, patent Tagged with , , , ,

USPTO Director Kappos to present at Knobbe’s OC office on March 15th

March 6, 2012 Leave a comment

My firm, Knobbe Martens, will be hosting a presentation by USPTO Director David Kappos on March 15, 2012 at our OC office (2040 Main Street, Irvine, CA 92614). 

Director Kappos will be discussing “Building a 21st Century Patent and Trademark Office: Stimulating Technology and Fostering Innovation.”  The presentation will start at 5:00pm, followed by a brief Q&A period, and a networking reception from 6:00pm to 7:00pm.

Space is limited, but if you would like to attend, please contact stephanie.vadas@knobbe.com (tell her you heard about it on OC TechInnovation). If you have a question for Director Kappos you’d like considered, please send it along to stephanie.vadas@knobbe.com. 

I often visit Director Kappos’ blog which gives news and updates regarding U.S. patents, such as the efforts of the USPTO to reduce patent pendency. 

 

 

Filed under ip, orange county, patent Tagged with , , , ,

Stomach inserts to control weight gain; Onciomed, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 8,100,932

March 5, 2012 1 Comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,100,932, issued on January 24, 2012 to Onciomed, Inc. of Irvine, CA, discloses an expanding intragastric device to reduce a patient’s desire to eat.

 

The ’932 patent discloses three cylindrical cages that can be placed within the stomach using a minimally-invasive procedure ”to occupy volume and to cause a reduced desire for eating for treating obesity and controlling weight gain.”  The first and third cylindrical cages have closed ends, while the second cylindrical cage has open ends and a hollow channel which slows emptying of the stomach since “a limited amount of food can travel through the hollow channel.”

According to its  website, Onciomed is “focused on the development of proprietary, less invasive medical device technology for the treatment of obesity and diabetes,” and its GVS system “enables doctors to perform a procedure that can restrict the intake of food and provide the feeling of fullness.”  Studies are currently underway for the safety and effectiveness of the GVS system and “it is not available for commercial use in the United States.”

The ’932 patent is the first U.S. patent for Onciomed, according to the USPTO database.

Filed under ip, Mechanical, Medical, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Hydraulic fluid management system; CLA-VAL Co.; U.S. Pat. No. 8,091,582

March 2, 2012 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,091,582, issued on January 10, 2012 to CLA-VAL Co. of Costa Mesa, CA, discloses a hydraulic fluid management system.  

  

According to the ’582 patent, municipal water utility systems can lose a significant amount of water through leaks, and the amount of lost water is directly related to the pressure of the system.  Therefore, it can be advantageous to be able to control the pressure to be only as high as needed, based on demand.  The ’582 patent discloses a flow-driven valve system which is directly responsive to the water pressure to manage the water pressure between selected set points.

According to its website, CLA-VAL has “aggressive research and development programs” to develop ”technologically advanced electronic and hydraulic control systems” for numerous applications.  In a presentation on its website, the company touts its “98-06 Pressure Management Valve” which “prevents pipe breaks,” “minimizes background leakage,” “quickly reacts to fire flow demand,” and “helps to conserve water.” 

According to the USPTO’s database, CLA-VAL owns 19 U.S. patents, and the ’582 patent appears to be the company’s first U.S. patent since 2002. 

Filed under fluids, ip, Mechanical, orange county Tagged with , , ,

Metal alloys for dual-layer DVDs; Target Technology Co., LLC; U.S. Pat. No. 8,088,466

February 26, 2012 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,088,466, issued on January 3, 2012 to Target Technology Company, LLC of Irvine, CA, discloses a DVD containing a semi-reflective metal alloy layer.

     

According to the ’466 patent, DVD dual-layer discs have two information layers, each including a pattern of pits which encodes the stored information.  The layers are illuminated from below by a laser beam, and the pattern of pits of each layer are read by detecting the light reflected from the layer.  Both the laser and the detector are below the two layers, so the first layer is a semi-reflective layer that reflects some of the laser light to the detector to read the semi-reflective layer’s information.  The semi-reflective layer also transmits some of the laser light which then is reflected from the highly reflective layer, back through the semi-reflective layer, to the detector which reads the highly reflective layer’s information.  The ’466 patent discloses a family of metal alloys containing silver and copper which can be used in the semi-reflective layer.

According to its website, in the 1990′s, Han Nee, TTC’s founder, developed a highly reflective silver alloy material that was lower in cost than the gold layers in use at the time.  The company touts that its “extensive patent portfolio and pipeline demonstrate [its] committment to the ongoing development and refinement of silver alloy materials to meet optical disc industry needs: both cost and technical.”  The value that TTC places on the exclusivity that its patents provide is clearly evident.  The company lists a number of U.S. and “outside U.S.” (OUS) patents that it says cover the use of its metal alloy material, and the list includes the ’466 patent, as well as four European patents.

In addition, the ’466 patent shows that TTC is actively mining its earliest disclosures for further patent protection.  The ’466 patent is the latest in a chain of four continuations and four continuations-in-part, such that at least some of the claims of the ’466 patent presumably have a priority date back to 2000-2001.  But this early priority date has a price.  Since a U.S. patent is only valid for 20 years from its earliest priority date, the ’466 patent will expire in 2021, only nine years from its issuance.  TTC’s reason for pursuing such continuing patents may be to obtain claims that are tailored to potentially infringing products of competitors, giving the company further leverage in any infringement lawsuit.

One of TTC’s European patents, EP 1505584 B1, is the subject of an ongoing opposition proceeding in the European Patent Office (EPO), by which three companies (Williams Advanced Materials Inc., Heraeus Materials Technology GmbH & Co. KG, and C-Corb B.V.) have challenged the patentability of the claimed invention in the European patent.  Opposition proceedings are “after-grant” proceedings which can be requested by third parties (within nine months of the patent’s grant date) to provide arguments to the EPO as to why the patent should not have been granted by the EPO.  Generally, such oppositions are brought by competitors that view the patent as potentially limiting their activity in the marketplace.  As part of the recently-enacted “America Invents Act,” U.S. patent law has been modified to allow for “after-grant” challenges to issued patents that in some ways mirror the EPO’s opposition procedure.

In the opposition of TTC’s European patent, Williams halted its participation and withdrew this past December, but the two European companies continue pursuing revocation of the patent, citing various prior art references which they contend show that TTC’s claimed invention is not patentable.  In an oral proceeding held earlier this month at the EPO, TTC and the two remaining opposers presented their arguments to a specialized panel of examiners at the EPO.  TTC’s founder, Han Nee was there as well as an expert to provide technical information to the EPO regarding the invention and the cited references.  Unfortunately for TTC, at the conclusion of the oral proceeding, the EPO’s panel sided with the opposers, revoking TTC’s patent.  However, this decision is subject to appeal, and TTC has issued a press release stating that it indeed intends to appeal the EPO’s decision and that its European patent is still enforceable despite the on-going proceeding.

Filed under ip, materials, optics, orange county, patent Tagged with , , , , ,

Thermal protection system for air/space vehicles; Arrowhead Products Corp.; U.S. Pat. No. 8,056,862

February 6, 2012 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,056,862, issued on November 15, 2011 to Arrowhead Products Corp. of Los Alamitos, CA, discloses a system to fasten ceramic heat-protection panels to the surface of an air or space vehicle.

     

According to the ’862 patent, air or space vehicles can benefit from having thermally protective structures to handle the high temperatures caused by friction between the vehicle’s outer surfaces and the surrounding atmosphere.  For example, NASA’s space shuttles were equipped with heat resistant and thermally insulating protective tiles or panels.  However, the adhesive attachment system used by the space shuttles were “plagued by recurring problems of reliability and excessive cost.”  Alternative thermal protection structures have used mechanical fasteners and standoffs that attach the thermally protective tiles or panels to the outside of the vehicle, but vehicles using such systems are vulnerable to the extreme heat if any of the tiles or panels are dislodged or displaced.  The ’862 patent discloses a system of latches and fusable plugs “which provides the economy and efficiency of metal fastener or standoff fabrication with the ease of repair and replacement of protective tiles and panels while safely maintaining a smooth substantially continuous thermal protection surface.”

The ’862 patent was issued only about 17 months after being filed with the USPTO.  This relatively rapid turnaround by the USPTO to issuance is likely due to the application receiving expedited examination by virtue of one of the inventors being at least 65 years of age.  Under a USPTO program, a patent application can be filed with a “Petition to Make Special” if the application satisfies one of a series of criteria, one of which is based on an inventor’s age or health.  Once the petition is granted, the application is given special treatment with regard to the speed at which it is examined, though the same standards of patentability still apply.  As the ’862 patent exemplifies, such petitions can be a useful way to get a U.S. patent in hand sooner rather than later.

According to its website, Arrowhead Products was founded in 1937 and has a long history in developing and marketing ducting systems, particularly in the fields of commercial, military, and space vehicles.  The company’s website does not describe any products that are related to the claimed invention of the ’862 patent, so the thermally protective system may still be in development, or perhaps was developed for a particular customer under its engineering services.  According to the USPTO database, the ’862 patent is Arrowhead’s fourth U.S. patent. 

Filed under ip, Mechanical, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Kitchen glove design; Duncan Kitchen Grips; U.S. Design Pat. No. D647,252

January 19, 2012 Leave a comment

U.S. Design Patent No. D647,252, issued on October 18, 2011 to Duncan Kitchen Grips of Tustin, CA, discloses a design for a kitchen glove.

  

According to its website, the raised nub surface texture of Duncan’s kitchen gloves provide various advantages, such as “more insulation between the hand and the heat source” and ”a better, safer, non-slip grip.”  In addition, its material is water-repellent, flexible, stain resistant, and non-porous (so it is resistant to bacteria buildup).

As a design patent, the ’252 patent only covers the decorative, non-functional aspects of the design shown in the figures of the patent.  Therefore, it doesn’t cover the raised nub surface texture itself, which is a functional feature of the glove, but it does cover the particular design or pattern of nubs that are shown in the figures.  Also, the protected design does not include the zig-zag stitching along the outside edge of the glove, or the “KG” insignias all over the glove, since these features are shown with dashed lines in the figures of the ’252 patent.

In early 2009, Duncan Kitchen Grips was acquired by Browne & Co. of Ontario, Canada.  According to the USPTO database, Duncan owns five U.S. design patents, all issued in 2011, for various designs of kitchen mitts, gloves, and trivets. 

Filed under Design, ip, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Anti-slip mount for flat panel video display; Premier Mounts; U.S. Pat. No. 8,035,757

January 9, 2012 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,035,757, issued on October 11, 2011 to Premier Mounts of Anaheim, CA, discloses an anti-slip system for mounting a flat panel video screen on a wall.

According to the ’757 patent, existing mounting system are prone to over-torquing of the mounting screws and shearing of the mounting holes in the flat panel video screen being mounted to the wall.  In addition, there is no standardization of the mounting holes across the various models, so general mounting systems use slots in the mounting brackets, but these slots can allow slippage if not correctly tightened.  Dedicated mounting systems designed for particular brands of screens are available, but these dedicated systems do not generally provide the desired level of flexibility in how to adjust or align the screen on the wall.  The ’757 patent discloses a mounting system that “does not suffer from the drawbacks” of over-torquing or shearing, and can be used to adjustably mount and align various models of flat panel video screens.  

According to its website, Premier Mounts was founded in 1977 “as an audiovisual manufacturer’s representative and within three years, began to fill a gap in the A/V marketplace by creating its own durable, high-quality mounts and carts.”  The company “developed one of the first after-market plasma-display mounts …, and holds many patents for ground breaking features that have become the standard for mounting products.”  The company has announced that the ’757 patent is directed to its Griplate™ mounting system.  According to the USPTO database, Premier Mounts owns eight U.S. patents, three of which were issued in 2011.

Premier Mounts was able to use the “first to invent” aspect of U.S. patent law to get the USPTO to issue the ’757 patent.  The USPTO had initially rejected Premier’s application (under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)) based on a published U.S. patent application that was (i) filed before Premier’s application was filed, but was (ii) published after Premier’s application was filed.  Premier was successful in explaining to the USPTO, using an affidavit by the inventor, that the company had actually invented its mounting system before the U.S. filing date of the cited publication.  Thus, while Premier was not the “first to file” its patent application at the USPTO, it was the “first to invent,” so the cited publication could not be used in the rejection.   

Modifications that are part of the “America Invents Act” recently enacted into law will be changing the U.S. patent laws from a “first to invent” regime to a “first inventor to file” regime.  Under the new laws, scheduled to be effective March 16, 2013, Premier’s earlier invention date would not overcome the fact that the company was second to file its patent application.  In other words, after the March 2013 effective date, the fact that the applicant was not the first to file its patent application can prevent the application from issuing as a U.S. patent.  The ’757 patent is therefore a good example of the heightened importance of filing your patent application as early as possible. 

Filed under Electronics, ip, Mechanical, orange county, patent Tagged with , , , , , ,

U.S. patents awarded to Orange County companies increased by 14% in 2011

January 2, 2012 1 Comment

A review of the statistics of U.S. patents awarded by the USPTO to entities in Orange County shows that, in 2011, Orange County experienced success that significantly outpaced the small increase in the total number of U.S. patents granted by the USPTO during the year.

Orange County entities were awarded 2709 U.S. patents in 2011, an increase of about 14% over the total for 2010.  For comparison, this success occurred in a year in which the total number of U.S. patents granted by the USPTO only increased by about 1.35%.  Orange County’s patents represent about 1.1% of the total number of U.S. patents (246,698) granted by the USPTO in 2011.

About 9% of these Orange County patents were design patents, which is nearly the same as the percentage of design patents awarded overall by the USPTO.  Historically, this percentage represents a slight decrease from Orange County’s 10-12% in the previous four years.

The eight OC companies awarded the highest numbers of U.S. patents in 2011 had the following numbers of U.S. patents and percentages (as compared to their 2010 results):

  • Broadcom: 1074; +24%
  • Allergan: 133; +27%
  • Western Digital: 86; +28%
  • AMO: 75; +83%
  • Edwards Lifesciences: 40; +33%
  • Newport Media: 38; +90%
  • Masimo: 36; +125%
  • QLogic: 34; -11%

Other OC companies that had a prolific 2011 in patents were Beckman Coulter (29), GP Medical (27), Conexant (26), Oakley (24), BSH Home Appliance (23), Applied Medical (22), and Emulex (22).  These 15 companies represent about 62% of the U.S. patents granted to Orange County in 2011.

My firm, Knobbe Martens, had a successful year for our Orange County clients, obtaining 276 U.S. patents for our more than 80 Orange County clients, across a wide range of technical areas.   This number of OC patents represents an increase of about +37% over 2010.

Filed under ip, orange county, patent, statistics Tagged with , ,

Online information on local “brick-and-mortar” shopping; Local.com; U.S. Pat. No. 8,032,427

December 28, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,032,427, issued on October 4, 2011 to Local.com of Irvine, CA, discloses a system for providing local shopping information.

    

According to the ’427 patent, previously-existing web-based shopping comparison services, in response to a user’s typing a product’s model number, would provide a list of online retailers that offer the product for sale, along with information regarding their prices.  Other web-based services would allow users to locate local “brick and mortar” retailers that sell certain types of goods (e.g., electronics), but would not provide pricing or availability information of the local retailers for the specific product being sought.  However, the ’427 patent describes a web-based method and system for allowing users to find a desired product at a “brick and mortar” store in the user’s geographic area along with ”pricing information, information on how far each retailer is from the search origin, product images and other product information, and promotional information.”  In a press release, Local.com explains that the ’427 patent was acquired by the company via its purchase of Krillion, Inc., a location-based shopping data aggregator, in April 2011 for $3.5 million in cash.

According to its website, Local.com is “a leading online local media company [that] enables brick-and mortar businesses to connect with online customers using a variety of digital marketing products.”  A recent corporate presentation states that Local.com’s customers include “about 30 million consumers per month looking for products and services locally,” “over 31,000 local merchants wanting to advertise to those consumers,” and “over 100 channel partners that help [Local.com] to reach merchants and consumers.”  The presentation also explains that “over half of [Local.com's] traffic is the ‘Soccer Mom’ demographic,” that is “aged between 25-45 with one child or more at home,” “controls significant portion of the household purse strings,” and “typically spends 80% of that money within 20 miles of home.” 

According to the company’s 2010 Annual Report, as of March 2011, Local.com owned seven U.S. patents.  The ’427 patent brings the company’s total to date to eight U.S. patents.

Filed under Computers, ip, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Satellite communication network; STM Networks, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 8,032,073

December 27, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,032,073, issued on October 4, 2011 to STM Networks, Inc. of Irvine, CA, discloses a satellite communication method between a slave station and more than one gateway station.

    

According to the ’073 patent, satellite communication networks can provide two-way communication (e.g., data, voice, and/or video) between a primary location and a variety of remote locations (e.g., businesses, homes, remote villages or towns), and can be particularly useful where the infrastructure for other types of telecommunication does not exist.  However, existing network systems only allow communication between a single ”master” station and the many “slave” stations of the network.  The ’073 patent describes a system and method for allowing multiple master stations to communicate with the slave stations of the network via a geosynchronous satellite using time-division multiplexing (TDM) or time-division multiple access (TDMA) communication schemes, thereby providing flexibility under various circumstances. 

According to its website, STM Networks is “one of the largest privately held satellite product and communication engineering companies today” with a presence in over 50 countries.  A company video describes the company’s main lines of business: turnkey satellite network systems, rural cellular GSM solutions, and managed services and system integration.   

According to the USPTO database, the ’073 patent is STM Networks’ first U.S. patent. 

Filed under Electronics, ip, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Synchronized digital in-flight entertainment system; Thales Avionics, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 8,027,560

December 21, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,027,560, issued on September 27, 2011 to Thales Avionics, Inc. of Irvine, CA, discloses a system and method for presenting digital audiovisual signals in an in-flight entertainment system to a large number of video monitors and speakers in a synchronized manner.

    

According to the ’560 patent, conventional analog technology for transmitting material on an in-flight entertainment (IFE) system can present analog audiovideo signals to the various speakers/screens in the aircraft that are “typically synchronized to within microseconds.”  It’s desirable to move to digital technology to take advantage of its improved resolution, but the encoding/decoding involved causes issues with synchronizing the various speakers/screens.  The ’560 patent discloses a system and method that uses decoders that correct for the different effects in digital systems that contribute to the non-synchronous displays. 

According to its website, Thales Group is a global company in 50 countries and with 68,000 employees, dealing with technologies in aerospace, defense, security, and transportation.  The Thales Avionics group in Irvine, touted as “the fastest growing IFE company in the world,” is dedicated to developing IFE systems and is described as being “built on entrepreneurial spirit, hard work and the joy of accomplishment.” 

According to the USPTO database, Thales Avionics in Irvine has received three U.S. patents in 2011, including the ’560 patent.

Filed under Electronics, ip, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Disinfecting confined spaces using iodine; BioLargo Life Technologies, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 8,021,610

December 9, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,021,610, issued on September 20, 2011 to BioLargo Life Technologies, Inc. of Irvine, CA, discloses a process to reduce microbial content in a confined area.

     

The claims of the ’610 patent are directed to a process for disinfecting confined areas (e.g., vehicle cabs and seats, dishwashers, refrigerators, freezers, and liquid circulation systems) using two or more particulate reagents that react in the presence of water to form molecular iodine.  At least one of the particulate reagents has a coating that prevents more than 5% of the reagents to react under exposure to atmospheric moisture for twelve hours.  Water is added to the reagents while in the confined area, and the iodine is allowed to “reduce microbial content within the confined area and throughout the enviroment of the confined area.” 

The specification of the ’610 patent describes many other applications and configurations for using iodine for reducing microbial activity.  For example, the sole figure of the ’610 patent (shown above) is a diaper (for which BioLargo received U.S. Pat. No. 7,867,510 earlier this year) in which particulate reagents can be combined in the presence of water to “generat[e] gaseous molecular iodine within the carrier in sufficient concentration to act as a microbicide.”  Other applications described by the ’610 patent include sterilization of surgical instruments and treatment of wastewater and contaminated soil. 

According to its website, BioLargo’s CupriDyne™ technology combines “micronutrient salts with liquid from any source to deliver free-iodine on demand, in controlled dosages, in order to balance efficacy of performance with concerns about toxicity.”  The company’s first product, “Odor-No-More” is designed for use in the animal health industry (e.g., for animal bedding, cat litter, facilities and equipment wash), and is demonstrated in a YouTube video.  The company’s 2010 Annual Report explains that BioLargo is seeking opportunities in the oil and gas industry (to treat wastewater from “fracking”) and in the food processing industry as well. 

According to the USPTO database, BioLargo owns five U.S. patents, including the ’610 patent. 

 

Filed under Chemical, Cleantech, ip, orange county, patent Tagged with , , ,

Front-end circuit for RF transceiver; RFaxis, Inc.; U.S. Pat. No. 8,019,289

December 8, 2011 Leave a comment

U.S. Patent No. 8,019,289, issued on September 13, 2011 to RFaxis, Inc. of Irvine, CA, discloses a circuit for coupling an antenna to a transceiver for wireless communication systems.

In the context of wireless communications, a radio-frequency (RF) transceiver “encodes the digital data to a baseband signal and modulates the baseband signal with an RF carrier signal,” which is then transmitted by an antenna.  When the RF carrier signal is received by another antenna connected to another RF transceiver, “the transceiver down-converts the RF signal, demodulates the baseband signal, and decodes the digital data represented by the baseband signal.”  According to the ’289 patent, a conventional RF transceiver typically includes an RF switch structure that connects the antenna either to an output of a power amplifier (when transmitting signals) or to an input of a low noise amplifier (when receiving transmitted signals).  Such RF switch structures are intended to “prevent interference during the transition between transmission and reception,” but “[i]nterrelated performance, fabrication, and cost issues have necessitated the fabrication of the RF switch on a different substrate than the substrate of the power amplifier and the low noise amplifier.” 

Because the RF switch can be a significant constraint on the design of the transceiver, the ’289 patent discloses a front-end circuit configuration which avoids using such RF switches while providing “sufficient transmitter output and receiver sensitivity for time-domain duplex applications.”  By eliminating the RF switches, the front-end circuit disclosed by the ’289 patent can “be fabricated on a single die with common transistor structures.”

According to its website, RFaxis “is a fabless semiconductor company focused on innovative, next-generation RF solutions for the wireless connectivity and celluar mobility markets,” and “is home to the world’s first RF Front-end Integrated Circuit (RFeIC).”  The website further explains that the company’s RFeIC architecture integrates the power amplifier, low noise amplifier, and other circuitry into “a true single-chip, single-die, BiCMOS device.”  Earlier this year, RFaxis’ “RFX2402 Single-Chip Single-Die Silicon RFeIC“ was named the winning innovative product of the 2011 TechAmerica Orange County High-Tech Innovation Award in the semiconductor category.     

The ’289 patent resulted from one of six patent applications that were filed nearly concurrently with one another.  RFaxis filed a first patent application on March 26, 2009, and the next day filed five continuation applications that all claimed priority to the first patent application.  Generally, applicants file such multiple concurrent applications in instances where there are a large number of claims to be pursued, and the excess claim fees that would otherwise be due are larger than the cost of filing separate applications.  Another reason can be to pursue different sets of claims that are directed to patentably distinct inventions, but are based on the same specification.  Since a patent application is supposed to only be directed to a single invention, having multiple claim sets directed to patentably distinct inventions can be the basis for the USPTO requiring that claims to all but one of these inventions be removed.  These removed claims can then be pursued in one or more separate patent applications.

The ’289 patent is the first of the set of six applications to be granted, and it was allowed in a “first action allowance.”  The other four continuations and the first patent application are all still pending at the USPTO.  According to the USPTO database, the ’289 patent is RFaxis’ first U.S. patent, and the company was recently issued two more U.S. patents (U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,073,400 and 8,073,401) resulting from two other patent applications. 

Filed under Electronics, ip, orange county, patent Tagged with , , , , , , ,

← Older posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 67 other followers