US Patent Proceeding - PDF 無料ダウンロード

Chapter Eight Appendices: 1

Chapter Eight Appendices: 1. USPTO Fee Schedule for FY2009 2. USPTO Allowance Rate for patent examination (1975-2005) 3. State Street Bank (Fed. Cir. July 23, 1998) 4A Semiconductor Energy Lab. v. Samsung Elec. (Fed. Cir. March 02, 2000) 4B Dayco Product v. Total Containment (Fed. Cir. March 23, 2003) 4C STAR Scientific v. RJR (Fed.Cir. Aug. 25, 2008) 5. Phillips v. AWH (en banc Fed. Cir. July 12, 2005) 6A. Festo v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo (Sup Ct. May 28, 2002) 6B. Festo v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo (en banc Fed. Cir. Nov. 29, 2000) 7. Johnson & Johnston v. R.E. Service (en banc Fed. Cir. March 28, 2002) 8. Warner Jenkinson v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co (Sup Ct. March 03, 1997) 9A. KSR v. Teleflex ( : April 06, 2005) 9B. KSR v. Teleflex (Sup. Ct. Oral Heating: Nov. 28 2006) 9C. KSR v. Telelex (Sup. Ct. Apr. 30, 2007) 10 Liebel v. Medrad (Fed.Cir. Mar 22, 2007) 11 Arisocrat Tech. v. Int l Game Tech. (Fed. Cir. March 28, 2008) 12 12A 12B S3818Aug. 2006 (S1145 & H.R. 1908) Apr. 2007 13 14 Taltech Limited v. Esquel Apparel (Fed. Cir. May 22, 2008) 15. ebay v. MercExchange (Sup Ct. May 15, 2006) 16. PAICE LCC v. Toyota Motor Corp. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 18, 2006) 17. Fed Reg (July 23, 2008) Scope of Foreign Lisences Notice 18. Ulead Syste, v. Lex Computer (Fed. Cir. Dec. 09, 2003) 19. In re Bilski (Fed. Cir. en banc Oct. 30, 2008) 2

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE FY 2009 FEE SCHEDULE Effective October 2, 2008 The filing fee (or national fee), search fee, and examination fee are due on filing. The fees subject to reduction for small entities that have established status (37 CFR 1.27) are shown in a separate column. For additional information, please call the USPTO Contact Center at (571) 272-1000 or (800) 786-9199. Payments from foreign countries must be payable and immediately negotiable in the United States for the full amount of the fee required. Patent USPTO Fee Schedule, effective October 02, 2008 Fee Code 37 CFR Description Fee Patent Application Filing Fees 1011/2011 1.16(a)(1) 4011 1.16(a)(1) 1001/2001 1.16(a)(2) 1201/2201 1.16(h) 1202/2202 1.16(i) 1203/2203 1.16(j) 1051/2051 1.16(f) 1081/2081 1.16(s) Basic filing fee - Utility filed on or after December 8, 2004 Basic filing fee - Utility filed on or after December 8, 2004 Basic filing fee - Utility filed before December 8, 2004 Small Entity Fee (if applicable) 330.00 165.00 n/a 82.00 850.00 425.00 Independent claims in excess of three 4 1 220.00 110.00 Claims in excess of twenty 1 52.00 26.00 Multiple dependent claim 390.00 195.00 Surcharge - Late filing fee, search fee, examination fee or oath or declaration 130.00 65.00 Utility Application Size Fee - for each additional 50 sheets that exceeds 100 sheets 270.00 135.00 100 50 1012/2012 1.16(b)(1) Basic filing fee - Design 220.00 110.00 3

1002/2002 1.16(b)(2) 1017/2017 1.16(b)(1) 1007/2007 1.16(b)(2) 1082/2082 1.16(s) 1013/2013 1.16(c)(1) 1003/2003 1.16(c)(2) 1083/2083 1.16(s) 1014/2014 1.16(e)(1) 1004/2004 1.16(e)(2) 1019/2019 1.16(e)(1) 1009/2009 1.16(e)(2) filed on or after December 8, 2004 Basic filing fee - Design filed before December 8, 2004 Basic filing fee - Design (CPA) filed on or after December 8, 2004 Basic filing fee - Design (CPA) filed before December 8, 2004 Design Application Size Fee - for each additional 50 sheets that exceeds 100 sheets Basic filing fee - Plant filed on or after December 8, 2004 Basic filing fee - Plant filed before December 8, 2004 Plant Application Size Fee - for each additional 50 sheets that exceeds 100 sheets Basic filing fee - Reissue filed on or after December 8, 2004 Basic filing fee - Reissue filed before December 8, 2004 Basic filing fee - Design Reissue (CPA) filed on or after December 8, 2004 Basic filing fee - Design Reissue (CPA) filed before December 8, 2004 380.00 190.00 220.00 110.00 380.00 190.00 270.00 135.00 220.00 110.00 600.00 300.00 270.00 135.00 330.00 165.00 850.00 425.00 330.00 165.00 850.00 425.00 1204/2204 1.16(h) Reissue independent claims in excess of three 220.00 110.00 1205/2205 1.16(i) Reissue claims in excess of 20 52.00 26.00 1084/2084 1.16(s) Reissue Application Size Fee - for each additional 50 sheets that exceeds 100 sheets 270.00 135.00 1005/2005 1.16(d) Provisional application filing fee 220.00 110.00 1085/2085 1.16(s) Provisional Application Size Fee - for each additional 50 sheets that exceeds 100 sheets 270.00 135.00 1052/2052 1.16(g) Surcharge - Late provisional filing fee or cover sheet 50.00 25.00 1053 1.17(i) Non-English specification 130.00 The 4000 series fee code may be used via EFS-Web at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/efs_help.html 1111/2111 1.16(k) Patent Search Fees Utility Search Fee 540.00 270.00 1112/2112 1.16(l) Design Search Fee 100.00 50.00 1113/2113 1.16(m) Plant Search Fee 330.00 165.00 1114/2114 1.16(n) Reissue Search Fee 540.00 270.00 1311/2311 1.16(o) Patent Examination Fees Utility Examination Fee 220.00 110.00 1312/2312 1.16(p) Design Examination Fee 140.00 70.00 4

1313/2313 1.16(q) Plant Examination Fee 170.00 85.00 1314/2314 1.16(r) Reissue Examination Fee 650.00 325.00 1501/2501 1.18(a) Patent Post-Allowance Fees Utility issue fee 1,510.00 755.00 1502/2502 1.18(b) Design issue fee 860.00 430.00 1503/2503 1.18(c) Plant issue fee 1,190.00 595.00 1511/2511 1.18(a) Reissue issue fee 1,510.00 755.00 1504 1.18(d) Publication fee for early, voluntary, or normal publication 300.00 1505 1.18(d) Publication fee for republication 300.00 Patent Maintenance Fees 1551/2551 1.20(e) Due at 3.5 years 980.00 490.00 1552/2552 1.20(f) Due at 7.5 years 2,480.00 1,240.00 1553/2553 1.20(g) Due at 11.5 years 4,110.00 2,055.00 1554/2554 1.20(h) Surcharge - 3.5 year - Late payment within 6 months 130.00 65.00 1555/2555 1.20(h) Surcharge - 7.5 year - Late payment within 6 months 130.00 65.00 1556/2556 1.20(h) 1557 1.20(i)(1) 1558 1.20(i)(2) 1801/2801 1.17(e) Surcharge - 11.5 year - Late payment within 6 months Surcharge after expiration - Late payment is unavoidable Surcharge after expiration - Late payment is unintentional Miscellaneous Patent Fees Request for continued examination (RCE) (see 37 CFR 1.114) 130.00 65.00 700.00 1,640.00 1808 1.17(i) Processing fee, except in provisional applications 130.00 1803 1.17(i) Request for voluntary publication or republication 130.00 1802 1.17(k) 1804 1.17(n) 1805 1.17(o) Request for expedited examination of a design application Request for publication of SIR - Prior to examiner s action Request for publication of SIR - After examiner s action 810.00 405.00 900.00 920.00* 1,840.00* 1806 1.17(p) Submission of an Information Disclosure Statement 180.00 1807 1.17(q) Processing fee for provisional applications 50.00 1809/2809 1.17(r) 1810/2810 1.17(s) Filing a submission after final rejection (see 37 CFR 1.129(a)) For each additional invention to be examined (see 37 CFR 1.129(b)) 810.00 405.00 810.00 405.00 1814/2814 1.20(d) Statutory disclaimer 140.00 70.00 5

* Reduced by basic filing fee paid. Post Issuance Fees 1811 1.20(a) Certificate of correction 100.00 1812 1.20(c)(1) 1813 1.20(c)(2) 1821/2821 1.20(c)(3) 1822/2822 1.20(c)(4) Request for ex parte reexamination Request for inter partes reexamination Reexamination independent claims in excess of three and also in excess of the number of such claims in the patent under reexamination Reexamination claims in excess of 20 and also in excess of the number of claims in the patent under reexamination 2,520.00 8,800.00 220.00 110.00 52.00 26.00 1814/2814 1.20(d) Statutory disclaimer 140.00 70.00 1251/2251 1.17(a)(1) 1252/2252 1.17(a)(2) 1253/2253 1.17(a)(3) Patent Extension of Time Fees Extension for response within first month 1 Extension for response within second month Extension for response within third month 130.00 65.00 490.00 245.00 1,110.00 555.00 1254/2254 1.17(a)(4) Extension for response within fourth month 1,730.00 865.00 1255/2255 1.17(a)(5) Extension for response within fifth month 2,350.00 1,175.00 1401/2401 41.20(b)(1) Patent Appeals/Interference Fees Notice of appeal 540.00 270.00 1402/2402 41.20(b)(2) Filing a brief in support of an appeal 540.00 270.00 1403/2403 41.20(b)(3) Request for oral hearing 1,080.00 540.00 1462 1.17(f) 1463 1.17(g) 1464 1.17(h) Patent Petition Fees Petitions requiring the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(f) (Group I) Petitions requiring the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(g) (Group II) Petitions requiring the petition fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h) (Group III) 400.00 200.00 130.00 1451 1.17(j) Petition to institute a public use proceeding 1,510.00 1452/2452 1.17(l) 1453/2453 1.17(m) 1454 1.17(t) Petition to revive unavoidably abandoned application Petition to revive unintentionally abandoned application Acceptance of an unintentionally delayed claim for priority, or for filling a request for the restoration of the right of priority 540.00 270.00 1,620.00 810.00 1,410.00 1455 1.18(e) Filing an application for patent term adjustment 200.00 6

1456 1.18(f) Request for reinstatement of term reduced 400.00 1457 1.20(j)(1) Extension of term of patent 1,120.00 1458 1.20(j)(2) 1459 1.20(j)(3) Initial application for interim extension (see 37 CFR 1.790) Subsequent application for interim extension (see 37 CFR 1.790) PCT Fees - National Stage 420.00 220.00 1631/2631 1.492(a) Basic National Stage Fee 330.00 165.00 1640/2640 1.492(b)(1) National Stage Search Fee - U.S. was the ISA or IPEA and all claims satisfy PCT Article 33(1)-(4) 0.00 0.00 1641/2641 1.492(b)(2) National Stage Search Fee - U.S. was the ISA 100.00 50.00 1642/2642 1.492(b)(3) National Stage Search Fee - search report prepared and provided to USPTO 430.00 215.00 1632/2632 1.492(b)(4) National Stage Search Fee - all other situations 540.00 270.00 1643/2643 1.492(c)(1) National Stage Examination Fee - U.S. was the ISA or IPEA and all claims satisfy PCT Article 33(1)-(4) 0.00 0.00 1633/2633 1.492(c)(2) National Stage Examination Fee - all other situations 220.00 110.00 1614/2614 1.492(d) Claims - extra independent (over three) 220.00 110.00 1615/2615 1.492(e) Claims - extra total (over 20) 52.00 26.00 1616/2616 1.492(f) Claims - multiple dependent 390.00 195.00 1681/2681 1.492(j) 1617/2617 1.492(h) 1618 1.492(i) National Stage Application Size Fee - for each additional 50 sheets that exceeds 100 sheets Search fee, examination fee or oath or declaration after thirty months from priority date English translation after thirty months from priority date PCT Fees - International Stage 270.00 135.00 130.00 65.00 130.00 1601 1.445(a)(1) Transmittal fee 300.00 1602 1.445(a)(2) 1604 1.445(a)(3) Search fee - regardless of whether there is a corresponding application (see 35 U.S.C. 361(d) and PCT Rule 16) Supplemental search fee when required, per additional invention 1,800.00 1,800.00 1605 1.482(a)(1) Preliminary examination fee - U.S. was the ISA 600.00 1606 1.482(a)(1) Preliminary examination fee - U.S. was not the ISA 750.00 1607 1.482(a)(2) Supplemental examination fee per additional invention 600.00 1619 Late payment fee variable 1621 1.445(a)(4) Transmitting application to Intl. Bureau to act as receiving office PCT Fees to Foreign Offices ** 300.00 1701 International filing fee (first 30 pages - filed in paper 1,237.00 7

1710 with PCT EASY zip file or electronically without PCT EASY zip file ) International filing fee (first 30 pages) - filed electronically with PCT Easy zip file 1,137.00 1702 International filing fee (first 30 pages) 1,338.00 1703 Supplemental fee (for each page over 30) 15.00 1704 International search (EPO) 2,665.00 1709 International search (KIPO) 244.00 1705 Handling fee 171.00 1706 1708 Handling Fee - 90% reduction, if applicants meets criteria specified at: http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/fees/fee_reduction.pdf Sequence listing and/or sequence-related table on electronic medium only (PCT AI Section 801) 17.10 6,000.00 ** PCT Fees to Foreign Offices subject to periodic change due to fluctuations in exchange rate. Refer to the Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for current amounts 8

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 10

CAFC 96-1327 July 23, 1998 State Street Bank State Street Bank & Trust Co., Signature Financial Group, Inc. Partially Translated By Tatsuo YABE on Sep. 23, 1998 11

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 16

Semiconductor Energy Lab. (SEL) v. Samsung Electronics Co., CAFC Nos. 98-1377, 99-1103 2000 03 02 Virginia : 17

DISCUSSION 20

Dayco Products, Inc., v. Total Containment, Inc., CAFC 02-1497 Decided: May 23, 2003 Commented by Tatsuo YABE on July 22, 2003 IDS IDS IDS 102 IDS IDS 156 2 156 (i) (ii) IDS Dayco 23

IDS 56 (d) 56 IDS Dayco OA Dayco IDS (Example) Dayco decision (Decided: May 23, 2003; Federal Circuit 02-1497) made clear that the rejections made by another examiner examining an application having similar claims to the present application is material under 37CFR1.56. Thus, you are hereby encouraged to review the necessity of informing another examiner who is handling a separate application having similar claims with the present application about the present rejections in the outstanding office action. If you believe there is/are related application(s) having claims similar to or substantially the same as the claims in the present application and is/are 24

being examined by another patent examiner, please inform the examiner about the existence of the present application and the rejections in the outstanding office action. 25

Dayco Products, Inc., v. Total Containment, Inc., 26

Dayco Product Inc. (Dayco) Total Containment, Inc. (TCI) CAFC 02-1497 Decided: May 23, 2003 IDS Dayco Dayco 1989 9 15 408161 27

31 32 Dayco 993196 1992 12 18 196 28

196 DavidArola 196 EricNicolson 196 Nicholson Arola 196 196 Nicolson 196 Oetilker Wilson Nicholson Wilson Oetiker Arola Wilson Arola Discussion: I. (Inequitable Conduct) TCI Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim GMBH, 237 F.3d 57 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 2001) clear and convincing evidence 29

Driscoll v. Cebalo 221 USPQ 745, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1982). Fox Indus., Inc. v. Structural Pres. Sys., Inc., 17 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 1990); Gardco Mfg., Inc. v. Herst Lighting Co., 820 USPQ2d (Fed. Cir. 1987) Akron Polymer Container Corp. v. Exxel Container, Inc., 47 USPQ2d 1533, 1534 Fed. Cir. 1998) 37CFR1.56(a) (1991) 1992 37CFR1.56(1992) (Rule 56) 1992 1992 56 196 196 196 Arola MPEP2001. 06(b) 30

196 Arola 196 196 TCI Akron 2 1 Akron 196 Arola Wilson 2 Wilson Wilson Wilson Nicholson Wilson Wilson 31

Wilson Wilson Wilson 196 Golden Valley Microwave Foods, Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co., 837 F. Supp. 1444, 1474 (N.D. Ind. 1992) ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law, Annual Report 1993-1994 (1994). Akron Polymer (148 F.3d at 1382, 47 USPQ2d at 1534) 56 1992 56 32

37 CFR 1.56 (b) (2) (2002) 37 C.F.R. 1.56(b) (2003) 1.56 (b) (2003) information is material to patentability when it is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application, and 1. it establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or 2. it refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the applicant takes in i. Opposing an argument of unpatentability relied on by the Office, or ii. Asserting an argument of patentability (i) (ii) A prima facie case of unpatentability is established when the information compels a conclusion that a claim is unpatentable under the preponderance of evidence, burden-of-proof standard, giving each term in the claim its broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, and before any consideration is given to evidence which may be submitted in an attempt to establish a contrary conclusion of patentability. 56 33

II III IV II-IV Dayco 103 34

STAR SCIENTIFIC v. RJR (RJR TABACCO COMPANY: NC Corp & NJ Corp) CAFC Decision 2007-1448: Decided on August 25, 2008 Tatsuo YABE on Sep 28, 2008 35

Inference 41

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 42

Phillips v. AWH Corp. Fed. Cir. En Banc July 12, 2005 Summarized By Tatsuo Yabe On July 16, 2005 (Revised on July 21, 2005) http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/phillips_20en_20banc_20decision.pdf 43

Texas Digital Systems. Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc 45

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 48

A FESTO CORP. V. SHOKETSU KINZOKU KOGYO KABUSHIKI CO., LTD., ET AL Supreme Court Decided: 2002 05 28 Summarized by Tatsuo YABE on June 08, 2002 49

B Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd. CAFC 2000 11 29 By Tatsuo YABE December 06, 2000 53

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 56

Johnson & Johnston Associates Inc., v. R.E. Service Co., Inc. and Mark Frater 57

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 66

Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem Co., Decided on March 03, 1997 67

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 74

A KSR International Co., (Petitioner) v. Teleflex In, and Technology Holding Co., (Respondents) 75

4. A vehicle control pedal apparatus (12) comprising: a support (18) adapted to be mounted to a vehicle structure (20); an adjustable pedal assembly (22) having a pedal arm (14) moveable in force and aft directions with respect to said support (18); a pivot (24) for pivotally supporting said adjustable pedal assembly (22) with respect to said support (18) and defining a pivot axis (26); and an electronic control (28) attached to said support (18) for controlling a vehicle system; 76 said apparatus (12) characterized by said electronic control (28) being responsive to said pivot (24) for providing a signal (32) that corresponds to pedal arm position as said pedal arm (14) pivots about said pivot axis (26) between rest and applied positions wherein the position of said pivot (24) remains constant while said pedal arm (14) moves in fore and aft directions with respect to said pivot (24).

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 80

B KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court, Oral Arguments) 81

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 86

C KSR v. Teleflex (Supreme Court Decision) 2143: Basic Requirement of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, three basic criteria must be met. First, there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings. Second, there must be a reasonable expectation of success. Finally, the prior art reference (or references when combined) must teach or suggest all the claim limitations. 87

KSR 88

4. A vehicle control pedal apparatus (12) comprising: a support (18) adapted to be mounted to a vehicle structure (20); an adjustable pedal assembly (22) having a pedal arm (14) moveable in force and aft directions with respect to said support (18); a pivot (24) for pivotally supporting said adjustable pedal assembly (22) with respect to said support (18) and defining a pivot axis (26); and an electronic control (28) attached to said support (18) for controlling a vehicle system; said apparatus (12) characterized by said electronic control (28) being responsive to said pivot (24) for providing a signal (32) that corresponds to pedal arm position as said pedal arm (14) pivots about said pivot axis (26) between rest and applied positions wherein the position of said pivot (24) remains constant while said pedal arm (14) moves in fore and aft directions with respect to said pivot (24). 89

United States v. Adams 383 U.S. (1966) Anderson s Black Rock, Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. (1969) Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. (1976) 91

A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton DyStar Textifarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. H. Patrick Co., 464 F. 3d (2006) 92

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 94

LIEBEL-FLARSHEIM COMPANY and MALLINCKRODT, INC., v. MEDRAD. INC., CAFC Decided on March 22, 2007 Summarized by Tatsuo YABE On April 02, 2007 CAFC CAFC CAFC 95

As we have held previously, where the specification teaches against a purported aspect of an invention, such a teaching is itself evidence that at least a significant amount of experimentation would have been necessary to practice the claimed invention AK Steel, 344 F.3d at 1244 Liebel 4 CAFC Liebel v. Medrad 358 F.3d 898 Fed. Cir. 2004 Liebel USP5456669 USP5658261 USP5662612 USP5928197 Liebel MEDRAD 96

: pressure jacket 669 MEDRAD Liebel SP5456669 30: Jacket Assembly 31: Pressure Jacket 32: Syringe 112 1 MEDRAD Liebel 97

CAFC Liebel Liebel ( ) Medrad CAFC Liebel Wands Liebel Medrad Liebel CAFC CAFC Medrad AK Steel, 344 F.3d at 1244; Also Wands, 858 F.2d at 736-37 98

CAFC psi 669 In the injection phase where the plunger is driven forward, pressures are developed in the syringe that range from, for example, 25 psi for some applications to over 1000 to 1200 psi for other applications. Syringes that will contain fluid under such pressures are expensive and therefore impractical where the syringes are to be disposable. Accordingly, many such injectors, such as angiographic injectors, for example, have been provided with pressure jackets fixed to the injector units and into which the syringes are inserted. The pressure jackets contact the outer surfaces of the syringe to restrain the walls of the syringe against the internal pressures. 99

Liebel Liebel CAFC Spectra (Spectra-Physics., Inc. v. Coherent Inc., Fed Cir. 1987) CAFC Liebel Spectra Spectra attachment means Spectra AK STEEL AK STEEL 1 2 2 1 2 1 AKSTEEL 1 CAFC AK STEEL 100

Liebel 101

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 102

Arisocrat Tech. v. International Game Tech. (CAFC decided on March 28, 2008) Tatsuo YABE on April 08, 2008 revised on April 12, 2008 103

Claim 1 of USP 6,093,102 A gaming machine having display means arranged to display a plurality of symbols in a display format having an array of N rows and M columns of symbol positions, game control means arranged to control images displayed on the display means, the game control means being arranged to pay a prize when a predetermined combination of symbols is displayed in a predetermined arrangement of symbol positions selected by a player, playing a game, including one and only one symbol position in each column of the array, the gaming machine being characterized in that selection means are provided to enable the player to control a definition of one or more predetermined arrangements by selecting one or more of the symbol positions and winning combination the control means defining a set of predetermined arrangements for a current game comprising each possible combination of the symbol positions selected by the player which have one and only one symbol position in each column of the display means, wherein the number of said predetermined arrangements for any one game is a value which is the product of k1... x... ki... x... km where ki is a number of symbol positions which have been selected by the player in an ith column of the N rows by M columns of symbol positions on the display (0 < i <_ M and ki <_N). 104

105

106

A Patent Reform Act of 2006 (S3818) By Tatsuo YABE Summarized on August 19, 2006 107

108

109

http://www.ipo.org/template.cfm?section=bills_and_other_documents1&contentid=23017&templat E=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm 110

Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S1145 & H.R. 1908) By Tatsuo YABE Summarized on April 22, 2007 111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 122

By Tatsuo YABE Revised on October 25, 2008 Summarized on August 19, 2006 123

124

125

126

By Tatsuo YABE Summarized on August 19, 2006 MPEP708.02(a) 127

128

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/presentation/focuspp.html#accelerated 129

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 130

2006 1 3 USPTOWebsite http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/71fr61.pdf Summarized by Tatsuo YABE on January 15, 2006 11 1 USPTO CA 2 RCE 1 5 25 ESD E PTO CAFC OA FINAL RCE RCE 131

2 1.78(d)(1) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) 120 121 365 (c) 1.17(f) 111 (a) 4 1.78(f): Applications and patents naming at least one inventor in common. 1.78(f)(1) 1.78(f)(1) 2 4 1.78(f)(2) 1. 78(f)(2) 132

1.78(f)(2)(i) 1.78(f)(3) 1.114 1.114 Request for continued examination (RCE): 1.114(a) ( 1.17(e)) 1.114(f) 1.17(f) 400 2 1.17(f) 400 2 11 1 USPTO PTO CAFC 133

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 134

11 1 USPTO CA 2 RCE 1 5 25 ESD E PTO CAFC 135

) 136

11 1 USPTO PTO CAFC 137

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 138

2008 4 1 East.-Dist. Court of Virginia Invalidates USPTO's New Rules! A victory to Plaintiffs Dr. Tafas and Company GlaxoSmithKline 04 01 11 1 USPTO CA 2 RCE 1 5 25 ESD USPTO CAFC( 30 5 CAFC 1 30 PTO Watching Tatsuo YABE on April 02, 2008 revised on April 08, 2008 USPTO 2 PTO 139

Chrysler Corp v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979) CA RCE GSK Tafas) CA RCE 120 RCE 132 USPTO ESD) PTO GSK Tafas PTO ESD 102 103 131 2 Because the USPTO s rulemaking authority under 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2) does not extend to substantive rules, and because the Final Rules are substantive in nature, the Court finds that the Final Rules are void as otherwise not in accordance with law and in excess of statutory jurisdiction [and] authority. 140

Dudas 141

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 142

Taltech Limited v. Esquel Apparel: Fed. Cir. May 22, 2008 143

144

145

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 146

ebay v. MercExchange Supreme Court Decision on May 15, 2006 147

148

PAICE LLC. v. TOYOTA MOTOR Corp. CAFC CAFC 2007 10 18 Parice Parice 25 CAFC CAFC 149

150

7Scope of Foreign Filing Licenses, Notice [PDF] (23Jul2008) 151

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 152

ULEAD SYSTEM v. LEX Computer Decided 2003 12 9 20 small entity small entity status non-small entity small entity status CAFC 4538188 Lex 1.28(c) 153

Lex United States Patent 4,538,188 Barker, et al. August 27, 1985 Inventors: Barker; Ronald C. (Weston, MA); Schuler; Chester L. (Sudbury, MA) Assignee: Montage Computer Corporation (West Concord, MA) Appl. No.: 452287 File d: December 22, 1982 Video composition method and apparatus Abstract 154

2 1992 8 27 USPTO 1998 09 28 Lex 3 USPTO Lex Lex Lex 155

156

157

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 158

CAFC en banc Decision Fed.Cir. In re Bernard L. BILSKI Decided on October 30, 2008 Tatsuo YABE on Nov. 01, 2008 159

160

161

162

163

164

165

g{ á Ñtzx ãtá ÇàxÇà ÉÇtÄÄç Äxyà uätç~a 166

167