|
|
Value of claim structure for a revolutionary
Posted by Anonymous . updated on 2/26/2009
A new structure has been labeled "supercapacitor" because it can store substantially
greater amounts of energy than previous capacitor structures. The supercapacitor
(or superbattery in a different embodiment) is already finding use as an
electrical-energy-storage unit in structures as different as camera flashes and
electric automobiles.
A recently-issued patent 7,466,536 for such structures could therefore have great
value if its claims are properly written. The patent has a single claim group in which
the independent claim is directed to a fabrication method for an electrical-energy-storage unit.
This independent claim comprises 26 detailed steps. An exemplary step is "bonding together
ten of said elements with an adhesive having a curing temperature of 80?C for a duration of
10 minutes to create a component".
Although the claims of a revolutionary patent are generally granted a wider scope than
succeeding patents, can a claim with 26 detailed fabrication steps possibly provide
valuable protection ?
Answers (8)
| |
|
klavier...
|
Quote from: jc4patents on 01-22-09 at 10:32 am Although the claims of a revolutionary patent are generally granted a wider scope than
succeeding patents, can a claim with 26 detailed fabrication steps possibly provide
valuable protection ?
Possibly? Yes.
Probably? No.
Probably not? Yes.
|
|
| |
|
rts
|
Curiosity got the better of me, so I looked at the claims. 26 steps, no kidding. Here's step q) q) repeating steps m through p 100 times to fabricate multilayer sheets Sorry, but a claim like this is totally worthless. What if I repeat steps m through p 110 times? 99 times? 100 seems a little too round a number to be the only feasible choice. Step q) is a deal breaker along with, say, half of the other steps, many of which mention very specific temperatures, pressures, and processes. I very much doubt that all of that was needed for novelty. Even if it all were needed to overcome the prior art, with so many options to sidestep your claim, you gotta ask is a patent really the way to go? u) bonding together ten of said elements with an adhesive having a curing temperature of 80 C for a duration of 10 minutes to create a component; Ok, so I can bond 12 of these elements at 65 C for 20 minutes and escape literal infringement of the claim. Wait a second, I could probably literally infringe the entire claim because there's no way an outsider would have enough access to my plant to verify that I was infringing all 26 steps of this claim. It would be quite the feat for an industrial spy or disgruntled employee to identify all 26 steps in my plant and compare them to this monsterous claim. Even if someone were to improbably do this, all I'd have to do is change one temperature/pressure/time and I'd be clear. Lesson of the day: Get some good counsel, keep the inventors' hands out of the pot, and reissue this beast. Or better yet, hopefully you filed a continuation.
|
|
| |
|
jc4pate...
|
The tragedy of it is that the assignee has invested considerable time, assets and money into developing "energy dense electric storage units" as reported by the following excerpts from an online news release.
"Cedar Park Texas-based EEStor Inc. is an intriguing though secretive company to those who follow the development of electric cars. Although no known prototypes exist, they claim the ability to make extremely lightweight highly energy dense electric storage units (EESUs) that could revolutionize energy storage in electric vehicles --- on December 16th EEStor was granted a US patent for their EESU. The patent is a highly information-rich document that give a remarkable insight into these potential devices. EEStor notes ?the present invention provides a unique lightweight electric-energy storage unit that has the capability to store ultrahigh amounts of energy?."
Perhaps EEStor's secretiveness caused them to prepare (or have prepared) a patent with one claim group that has an independent claim which recites a multitude of limitations - for one wishing to design around this claim, it is almost too good to be true.
|
|
| |
|
jc4pate...
|
As a further remark on the independent claim, it was obviously written by an engineer
or scientist who was proud of the fabrication method they had invented but who forgot
they were writing a claim and not an engineering treatise.
|
|
| |
|
jc4pate...
|
As a final remark on the independent claim, its only function, unfortunately, was to place
EEStor's hard-earned technical concepts in the public domain as of the patent's issue date.
|
|
| |
|
jc4pate...
|
As a really-final remark (honest) on the independent claim, there were no
art rejections during prosecution so the damage was self-inflicted.
|
|
| |
|
rts
|
Yeah, I agree.
Claim 1 is exactly the opposite of what a claim should be.
I wonder if their secretive nature led them to draft and file this thing themselves? Of course, it's foolish to think that even a little known firm would steal any invention*, since they make far more money from an honest reputation than they would from working inventions.
*Except perhaps the formula to turn paper into gold. Trust no one with that gem, especially law firms
|
|
| |
|
IPtech75
|
If any of you are interested in a good read, take a look at the file history for this patent.
A brief synopsis (and a lesson as to why inventors should not go pro se):
Application originally filed by the inventor along with a non-publication request (take a look at the claims as written by the inventor, many basic mistakes as to form)
USPTO issues a notice to file missing parts (NFMP) because the claims do not begin on a separate page (the inventor never files a response)
3 months after the final extension period for response to the NFMP expired, a law firm files a petition to revive
Law firm then files request to rescind non-publication request because a PCT application is filed
A 2nd law firm enters the scene and prosecutes application to issue
2nd law firm files a continuation application (of course they are stuck with the originally filed application that was drafted by the inventor, good luck getting broader claims)
Lots of holes for a potential infringer's counsel to invalidate the patent even if someone is actually infringing the 25+ steps in the claims.
|
|
Related Questions
 |
My question concerns patent laws specifically if claim 1 is an independent claim and claim 2 is a dependent claim of claim 1 would it be considered infringement of the patent if one were to copy claim 2 with... Read More |
|
re patent term extension application: facts: 1. PTO rejects initial application for patent term extension, 2. applicant requests reconsideration, 3. PTO again rejects application, making it a ''final agency ... Read More |
|
If a patent was issued in 2004 dated from 2001 that was a continuation in part of a 98 patent app, now abandoned that was a Continuation of a 96 patent app, now abandoned does the ''first to invent'' date go... Read More |
|
My question concerns patent law, specifically claims. If claim A is an indpendent claim and claims B through J are dependent claims of claim A is it necessary for all dependent claims B through J to be prese... Read More |
|
How can one protect Medical Indication Inventions and what is and how can one use in this context the so called "swiss claims format" Read More |
|
Next question: Trademark >>
- Patent Express is the fastest and easiest way for an individual inventor to file a U.S. Patent or Trademark Application.
- Patent Express fills the gap for those who cannot afford a U.S. patent attorney or agent, but want to have their patent drafted and issued.
- Patent Express is backed by a 100% money back guarantee.
|