Received the search report for a patent application from the UK Intellectual Property Office. The report has cited an existing X document that, in the report's view, destroys the novelty of our application. Myself and the other co-inventors listed on the application disagree with this appraisal and are of the mind that there are substantial differences between the design and use of the invention contained in our application and that detailed in the X document. We have been advised that the next step is to obtain another search report from a different patent office and we are due to enter the PCT phase next year. Is it normal to encounter a certain number of novelty destroying X documents in the initial search? Or is our application dead in the water?
Here is claim 1 of the recent patent:
- A computerized system for grading a collectible, comprising: an image acquisition device configured to capture at least one image of said collectible and prepare at least one output signal comprising at least said at least one image of said collectible; and a computer system comprising at least one processor comprising processor-executable computer instructions; wherein said computer system is configured to transmit at least one signal to said image acquisition device, wherein said at least one signal comprises one or more instructions for said image acquisition device; wherein said computer system is configured to receive said at least one output signal from said image acquisition device in response to the one or more instructions of the at least one signal; wherein at least one processing routine is applied to the at least one output signal by said at least one processor, such that a grade report of said collectible is produced based on at least the results of said at least one processing routine.
Here is claim 1 of the old patent:
- A method of developing a system for automated grading of a coin image, comprising the steps of: a. interviewing at least one expert numismatist to determine the process by which the numismatist grades coins; b. providing directives each of which contains a command to form an electronic imaging processing or scoring operation using appropriate corresponding variables, and storing said directives in a computer memory; c. retrieving said directives from said memory and arranging a set of selected directives into a script based on interviews of said numismatist; d. testing the script by causing a computer to execute the directives in the script in order to electronically process an electronic image of a coin and thereby grade the coin; e. comparing the grade obtained by said computer upon executing the directives in said script with a grade determined manually by said numismatist; f. varying said script by retrieving said directives from said memory and arranging a second set of selected directives into a second script; g. repeating steps d and e.
Are there some details in the recent patent claim that I am overlooking that might make it not obvious and/or novel?
Thanks for your help in understanding!
Yippie! If we get a coordinated FR, DE, IT push, we could even get eurofed by 2025, Martin Schulz was a prophet.
I know it's a stretch, but it's possible now.
More info about the GNU GPL
Article and Reddit Post about the Namco Patent expiry.
Cheers!!
EDIT: I should mention, I'd give full credits. Not trying to act like I came up with doom loll. just thought it'd be a fun little easter egg/minigame :)
I consider the gathering an expression of many people, released from the never ceasing pressures of adult life in modern society.
I know a lot of people don't like the noise and the mess, but i also know many people who consider this one of the best days of their life, and with 8,000 people attending each year i think that as a celebration of playful connection which spans and unites all demographics, it deserves to be protected as part of London's cultural heritage.
Can this legally be framed as an 'assembly', or even a 'protest against the lack of playful fun present in adult life' to keep it going?
If i move it does that make me liable for personal injuries sustained? and would a disclaimer link at the header of an event description (like at paintball) remove that risk?
If i can go ahead with it i'd launch a crowd-funder to cover clean up costs (although i know most protests do not), and there is absolutely no profit involved. Its short notice, but i'd do my best to encourage as many people as possible to bring environmentally sustainable and ethically produced pillows also.
Tbh, i suspect many people will come to Trafalgar Square anyway, out of habit and with the square closed they will probably battle/play in the roads. The Mayors office is ignoring my emails about their safety and the best alternative is to promote and put signs to a nearby location, like Green Park.
I'd greatly appreciate your help in preserving something many people consider an institution. Thank you :0)
We recently defended an opposition in which the opponent raised a large number of fairly weak and poorly defined added matter attacks that applied to all of the requests (incidentally, the provisional opinion had advised that none of the requests added matter). Following deliberation, the Opposition Division decided that all requests added matter and advised us to submit new requests. However, when issuing this decision, the Opposition Division did not give any guidance about which of the many added matter attacks they found persuasive and, when we asked for guidance about this, the Chairman seemed surprised and just advised that there were "lots of problems". Obviously, this left us in a difficult position when formulating our new requests as we were essentially trying to hit an invisible target. However, this is not the first time I have encountered an Opposition Division being reluctant to explain their reasons for refusing requests during oral Proceedings.
Is this opaqueness about the specific reasons for the refusal of requests during Oral Proceedings normal or did we just have an uncooperative Chairman? What are people's experiences with demanding that the Opposition Division fully explain their reasons for refusing requests at Oral Proceedings in order to enable new requests to be formulated?
This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 74%. (I'm a bot)
> " 1.... The European Union, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Norway, and Singapore "must be investigated for blocking a faster global vaccine rollout leading to the loss of countless lives.
> More than two million nurses from 28 countries across the globe filed a complaint Monday calling on the United Nations to investigate the rich countries that are blocking a proposed patent waiver for coronavirus vaccines, an appeal that came as public health experts raced to understand the newly detected Omicron variant.
> "This unequal distribution of vaccines is not only grossly unjust for the people in low- and moderate-income countries who remain at high risk for contracting and further transmitting Covid-19, it also provides for the possibility for the development of new variants, some of which may be resistant to the current available vaccines," the filing reads.
> The complaint specifically targets the European Union, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Norway, and Singapore, wealthy nations that have stonewalled the patent waiver at the World Trade Organization, defying the will of a majority of that institution's member countries.
> In its complaint on Sunday, the coalition of nursing unions argues that the proliferation of variants is a predictable outcome of rich nations' refusal to "distribute vaccines and treatments equitably to the vast majority of people of low- and moderate-income countries.
> "High-income countries have procured upwards of 7 billion confirmed vaccine doses, while low income countries have only been able to procure approximately 300 million doses.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: vaccine^#1 variant^#2 countries^#3 world^#4 nurses^#5
Post found in /r/worldpolitics2, [/r/worldnews
... keep reading on reddit ➡
https://twitter.com/labour_history/status/1457984815236517896?s=21 We don't celebrate the achievements of previous non Attlee governments enough I think, so here's a good one
I require the pdf version of the book ''Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights'' ideally the 5th version.
From Bulldog revolvers, to the absurdly small Kolibri, to practical designs like Bergmanns and FN Brownings, there are dozens of early centerfire and self loading firearms meant for, I assume, personal protection. Were European cities that dangerous? If so, were these ever really used for defense? Were there notable incidents that prompted some countries to change their gun laws?
Received the search report for a patent application from the UK Intellectual Property Office. The report has cited an existing X document that, in the report's view, destroys the novelty of our application. Myself and the other co-inventors listed on the application disagree with this appraisal and are of the mind that there are substantial differences between the design and use of the invention contained in our application and that detailed in the X document. We have been advised that the next step is to obtain another search report from a different patent office and we are due to enter the PCT phase next year. Is it normal to encounter a certain number of novelty destroying X documents in the initial search? Or is our application dead in the water?
