Archive for September, 2009

Brainstorm Patents focuses on working with individual inventors.  While a lot of inventors are leaps and bounds ahead in technical areas, they may not have a solid understanding of the patent system and what it can (and can’t) do to help them in their ever growing quest for marketability and product success.

Below is the first question in a series that aims to shed some light on the details of patent work.  I will do my best to answer everything in layman’s terms.  If you need more clarification, contact us, and we’ll be glad to help!

Question #1: I just came up with a great idea.  What should I do now?

CONGRATULATIONS! Your great idea is the beginning of a long, challenging, and oftentimes, extremely exciting and fun journey.  Did I mention LONG?  This journey will test your patience, your financial priorities, and your personal drive and commitment.  So, think long and hard before you set off on this potentially life-altering adventure….

For the sake of the blog, I’m going to use an imaginary example that I will carry throughout the process to further drive home key points and concepts.  Here goes nothing – enjoy!

I was making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich yesterday and got frustrated at how much time, how much effort, and how many resources it took to make my sandwich.  And then the best idea EVER popped into my head…A PEANUT BUTTER AND JELLY SANDWICH MAKING MACHINE!!!!!  WOW!  How did I not think of this earlier???  I was so excited that I couldn’t even finish making my PB&J.  I quickly ran to my computer and did a search for “I just came up with a great idea.  What should I do now?”  To my chagrin, nothing useful popped up.  So, I resorted to calling a friend of mine to help me chart my course to becoming a multi-millionaire.

Read the rest of this entry »

The purpose of this blog post is to simply summarize the Bilski case and its relationship to Section 101 of the U.S. code.

Summary of the case

This case dealt with a patent application that described a method for providing a fixed bill energy contract to consumers.  The invention calculated the amount a consumer would pay for a future bill based on prior bills.  For further details on the application see patent application number 08/833,892.  The patent examiner rejected all 11 claims on the grounds that “the invention is not implemented on a specific apparatus and merely manipulates an abstract idea and solves a purely mathematical problem without any limitation to a practical application, therefore, the invention is not directed to the technological arts.”  The applicant appealed the rejection to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI).  The BPAI affirmed the rejection, on different grounds than the “technological arts” test.  Their reasoning was that the Applicants’ claims did not involve any patent-eligible transformation.  Finally the applicants appealed the rejection to the Federal Circuit, which upheld the rejection, 9-3.

Read the rest of this entry »