易贴-在线记事本，网址收藏，网络相册，视频分享，文章摘录。

Written by Gene Quinn
Patent Attorney & IPWatchdog Founder
Posted: September 3, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
Page viewed 315 times
E-mail this article to a friend


On Tuesday, September 2, 2009, the mighty 1600 pound gorilla in the room, also known as Google, was granted a design patent on the look of its search webpage found at Google.com. Yes, the United States Patent and Trademark Office awarded Design Patent No. 599,372 to Google just days ago on an application that was filed on March 6, 2006, and which was a division of an earlier filed Design Patent application filed on March 26, 2004.

What this means for Google is less important than what it means for everyone else who has a website. If Google is allowed to protect its webpage through the acquisition of a design patent then everyone could and should seek to obtain a design patent on their webpage. Design patents had been thought to be tremendously weak and not worthwhile unless obtained in bulk, but all of that changed a little less than a year ago when the Federal Circuit issued its decision in the Egyptian Goddess case. The Federal Circuit changed the design patent infringement test from one that focused only on whether the accused infringer copied the novel aspects of the design to a test that looks at the totality of the design and the totality of the accused infringing product. That being the case, it is now much easier to prove design patent infringement and design patents should be in every patent portfolio. They are cheap to obtain, typically costing in the range of $3,000 from start to finish. Design patents can typically be obtained in 8 to 9 months now, and they are now formidable rights thanks to the Federal Circuit Egyptian Goddess ruling. Obtaining a design patent is an economical way to ward off competition and copyists. If you are a website designer or you design website templates or wordpress templates you really need to apply or a design patent on your new designs.

Design Patent Application Filed for $1,600
IPWatchdog.com | Includes Attorneys Fees, Drawings & Filing Fees

The design patent protection obtained by Google here certainly overlaps with other forms of intellectual property protection Google already owns. It would be a tremendous stretch of the imagination to believe that anyone starting a search engine would be allowed to copy or even nearly copy the design of the Google search page. If you were to design a search page that looked like Google’s page they would have been able to bring a federal complaint based on 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), which relates to the creation of consumer confusion. Under trademark law theories you can prevent others from engaging in activities that would likely lead to consumer confusion. You do not have to actually prove confusion, just that there is a potential for confusion, and it seems likely that anyone getting too close to Google would have been able to be stopped already.

Google may also have some trade dress protection as well, although trade dress protection gives the owner the ability to prevent others from getting to close to the so-called “look and feel” of what the owner of the unique trade dress is doing. Trade dress is the totality of elements in which a product or service is packaged or presented. These elements combine to create the whole visual image presented to customers and are capable of acquiring exclusive legal rights as a type of trademark or identifying symbol of origin. Because trade dress includes all factors making up the total image under which a product or service is presented to customers, it potentially covers almost all aspects of appearance. Things that have been held protectable under the category of trade dress include: (1) the shape and appearance of a product; (2) the shape and appearance of a container; (3) the cover of a book or magazine; (4) the layout and appearance of a business establishment such as a restaurant; (5) the theme and look of a line of greeting cards; and (6) the recognizable shape of an automobile.

With respect to the Google situation, an argument could be made that there is a lack of trade dress I suppose, given that the Google search page is the antithesis of cluttered. The Google search page being largely characterized by white space and wide open design might not lend itself to much, if any, trade dress protection.

Typically that which may be protected through trade dress and that which may be protected via patent are mutually exclusive because the United States Supreme Court has stated that trade dress cannot protect functional aspects. To the extent that there are functional aspects trade dress protection is inappropriate, and any protection provided must be the result of patent protection. This recognizes that the law awards patents for a limited time and if there is a functional aspect to what is being protected then it must fall into the public domain within a limited time. As with trademarks, trade dress can last forever, so there is little real overlap between trade dress and patents, or at least utility patents. Here where the design of the webpage is being protected the protection attaches to the look, not the function of the Google searching software.

This could usher in a new form of gold rush on the Internet, and if you have a unique design you really should consider getting in on the new, improved and worthwhile protection offered by a design patent.
[来源]-

Applicant used repeatedly the functional recitation "adapted for"; the statements following "adapted for" is ambiguous, and MPEP 2106 states that "Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure" does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim. Further, the courts held that USPTO personnel are to give claims the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, E-pass techs., Inc v. 3Com Corp., In re Prater, In re Zletz, In re Hayatt.

US7359223

The Office Action states, on page 2, that the use of the words “adapted to” by the Applicant is ambiguous. Applicant respectfully submits that the term has been clearly defined in paragraph 16 of the application: As used herein, “adapted to”, “configured” and the like refer to features of elements in a system which allow the elements of the system to cooperate to provide a described effect; these terms also refer to operation capabilities of electrical elements such as analog or digital computers or application specific devices (such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC)), amplifiers or the like that are programmed to provide an output in response to given input signals, and to mechanical devices for electrically coupling components together.

However, for simplicity, Applicant has changed the terminology to “configured” which is also used throughout the specification and defined in paragraph 16.

Web Browser Audio Controls
20090106657
[来源]-

Electronic book security and copyright protection system

The flowchart(s) and block diagram(s) in the figures illustrate the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementations of systems, methods and computer program products according to various embodiments of the present invention. In this regard, each block in the flowchart(s) or block diagram(s) may represent a module, segment, or portion of code, which comprises one or more executable instructions for implementing the specified logical function(s). It should also be noted that, in some alternative implementations, the functions noted in the block may occur out of the order noted in the figures. For example, two blocks shown in succession may, in fact, be executed substantially concurrently, or the blocks may sometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon the functionality involved. It will also be noted that each block of the block diagram(s) and/or flowchart illustration(s), and combinations of blocks in the block diagram(s) and/or flowchart illustration(s), can be implemented by special purpose hardware-based systems that perform the specified functions or acts, or combinations of special purpose hardware and computer instructions.

The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of the invention. As used herein, the singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the” are intended to include the plural forms as well, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. It will be further understood that the terms “comprises” and/or “comprising,” when used in this specification, specify the presence of stated features, integers, steps, operations, elements, and/or components, but do not preclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, integers, steps, operations, elements, components, and/or groups thereof.

In the following description, usage of suffixes such as ‘module’, ‘part’ or ‘unit’ used for referring to elements is given merely to facilitate explanation of the present invention, without having any significant meaning by itself. It should be noted that ‘module’, ‘part’, and ‘unit’ can be substitutively, alternatively or mixedly used.
[来源]-

http://www.twice.com/article/CA6638805.html
[来源]-

財團法人工業技術研究院（簡稱工研院）專利仲介與拍賣業務越來越順手了，繼先前協助宏碁（Acer）力抗美商惠普（HP），並取得勝利後，近日再次出手協助瑞軒（AmTRAN Technology），試圖挑戰日本船井電機（Funai Electric）之專利訴訟大戰。

先前報導見【攻擊是最好的防禦-看宏碁反訴惠普侵權】與【宏碁以戰逼和策略奏效，工研院專利記上一功】。

瑞軒是美國數位電視領導品牌Vizio之母公司，先前Vizio相關訴訟見【Vizio又中箭，在美被控侵犯Sony之14件專利】說明，或購買本室【2007-2008年台灣面板廠美國訴訟地圖】完整調查。在Vizio與船井電機訴訟關係上，船井電機除於去年（2007年）3月在美中加州聯邦地方法院控告Vizio等侵權外，並於去年（2007年）於美國國際貿易委員會（ITC）提起侵權訴訟。

今年（2008年）9月17日，瑞軒在工研院協助下，取得美國著名研究機構（SRI International）子公司Sarnoff Corp.之22件專利，完整專利列表請來訂購。事實上，工研院也曾協助聯發科取得211篇Sarnoff Corp.專利，以強化聯發科專利組合。

2008 年12月18日，瑞軒主動出擊，在美西威斯康新州聯邦地方法院（Wisconsin Western District Court）控告船井(Funai Electric與Funai Corporation)侵犯該公司兩件專利，分別為US5,635,995與US6,721,152，其中US5,635,995即是購買自 Sarnoff Corp。在上述訴訟案中，代表瑞軒事務所為Casimir Jones S.C.之John Mitchell Jones與Sidley Austin LLP之Peter H. Kang、Philip W. Woo、Patrick M. Lonergan、Theodore W. Chandler與Jim S. Zeng。

俗話說久病成良醫，綜觀近期瑞軒與Vizio法務能量是強化一些，但數位電視領域專利訴訟錯綜複雜，看來也只能好好再補足基本功了！另外，以今年台灣科技廠商在美國被告頻率日增來看，工研院的生意該是做不完的。（本文：648字；訟案地圖：15頁6221字）

關鍵字：智慧財產經營；專利布局；專利訴訟策略；專利組合

(科技產業資訊室-- David 編撰，2008/12/19)
[来源]-

We already saw the writing on the wall, but now the deed is purportedly done -- or close enough, anyway. Reuters has it that Japan's Funai Electric will take over Philips' North American DVD, Blu-ray and other audiovisual operations starting next month. It's anticipated that the deal will boost Funai's North American sales by around $332 million, and of course, maintaining that well-known Philips badge is sure to be of assistance in that department. The agreement lays out that Funai will make periodic royalty payments to use the Philips brand rather than just buying up the whole thing outrightly. First the TV division, now this -- is there anything left of Philips worth caring about in the US?
[来源]-

US 5311591 and US 5412717

to be read why this patent is allowed.

Method, device and software for querying and presenting search results