Tax-payer funded basic research.

[Betruger]

I don't know and won't pretend to.

[chrismb]

No, that's an excellent example of development activity. Those involved in "pure" research never file for patents. Patent work is specifically to support development. Point in fact, you cannot file for patent until you have already proceeded well down the path of development because "ideas" are not patentable.

That is incorrect. One files an idea, has a year to develop it, and during patent examination the balance of evidence to demonstrate it works lies with the applicant. This does not necessitate a functional build. Obviously, to have such a thing is a benefit, but not an essential.

[GIThruster]

No, that's an excellent example of development activity. Those involved in "pure" research never file for patents. Patent work is specifically to support development. Point in fact, you cannot file for patent until you have already proceeded well down the path of development because "ideas" are not patentable.

That is incorrect. One files an idea, has a year to develop it, and during patent examination the balance of evidence to demonstrate it works lies with the applicant. This does not necessitate a functional build. Obviously, to have such a thing is a benefit, but not an essential.

Chris, you may have different qualifications for patent in Europe, but I assure you, ideas are NOT patentable in the United States. The qualifications for patent are very specific to this effect.

[KitemanSA]

Here are the Navy definitions for types of R&D

S&T Activities***

• (6.1) Basic Research
  Systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and/or observable facts without specific applications toward processes or products in mind.
  (6.2) Applied Research
  Systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met.
  (6.3) Advanced Technology Development
  Includes all efforts that have moved into the development and integration of hardware for field experiments and tests.

Looks like Polywell is 6.3. So what is the issue?

[chrismb]

..Point in fact, you cannot file for patent until you have already proceeded well down the path of development because "ideas" are not patentable.

One files an idea, has a year to develop it...This does not necessitate a functional build.

Chris, you may have different qualifications for patent in Europe, but I assure you, ideas are NOT patentable in the United States. The qualifications for patent are very specific to this effect.

I seem to recall that we've argued over your lack of actual knowledge of patent systems before and even though I, and another poster who joined in against your views, have actually filed patents in the US and you have not, you still seemed to press your guesswork onto the forum.

Anyhow, here is s.2164.02 of the 'Manual of Patent Examining Procedure' [though I am sure you will probably say you already know this and then argue as to why you are saying what you are saying].

2164.02 Working Example

Compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, does not turn on whether an example is disclosed. An example may be "working" or "prophetic." A working example is based on work actually performed. A prophetic example describes an embodiment of the invention based on predicted results rather than work actually conducted or results actually achieved.

An applicant need not have actually reduced the invention to practice prior to filing. In Gould v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1074, 1078, 3 USPQ 2d 1302, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1987), as of Gould's filing date, no person had built a light amplifier or measured a population inversion in a gas discharge. The Court held that "The mere fact that something has not previously been done clearly is not, in itself, a sufficient basis for rejecting all applications purporting to disclose how to do it." 822 F.2d at 1078, 3 USPQ2d at 1304 (quoting In re Chilowsky, 229 F.2d 457, 461, 108 USPQ 321, 325 (CCPA 1956)).

The specification need not contain an example if the invention is otherwise disclosed in such manner that one skilled in the art will be able to practice it without an undue amount of experimentation. In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 908, 164 USPQ 642, 645 (CCPA 1970).

Lack of a working example, however, is a factor to be considered, especially in a case involving an unpredictable and undeveloped art. But because only an enabling disclosure is required, applicant need not describe all actual embodiments.

Are you going to be magnanamous and say, "Ah! OK, I can see your point" or are you gonna now stretch out an argument?

[chrismb]

Here are the Navy definitions for types of R&D

S&T Activities***

• (6.1) Basic Research
  Systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and/or observable facts without specific applications toward processes or products in mind.
  (6.2) Applied Research
  Systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met.
  (6.3) Advanced Technology Development
  Includes all efforts that have moved into the development and integration of hardware for field experiments and tests.

Looks like Polywell is 6.3. So what is the issue?

Looks clearly like 6.2 to me.

[GIThruster]

One files an idea, has a year to develop it...This does not necessitate a functional build.

Chris, you may have different qualifications for patent in Europe, but I assure you, ideas are NOT patentable in the United States. The qualifications for patent are very specific to this effect.

I seem to recall that we've argued over your lack of actual knowledge of patent systems before and even though I, and another poster who joined in against your views, have actually filed patents in the US and you have not, you still seemed to press your guesswork onto the forum.

Anyhow, here is s.2164.02 of the 'Manual of Patent Examining Procedure' [though I am sure you will probably say you already know this and then argue as to why you are saying what you are saying].

2164.02 Working Example

Compliance with the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, does not turn on whether an example is disclosed. An example may be "working" or "prophetic." A working example is based on work actually performed. A prophetic example describes an embodiment of the invention based on predicted results rather than work actually conducted or results actually achieved.

An applicant need not have actually reduced the invention to practice prior to filing. In Gould v. Quigg, 822 F.2d 1074, 1078, 3 USPQ 2d 1302, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1987), as of Gould's filing date, no person had built a light amplifier or measured a population inversion in a gas discharge. The Court held that "The mere fact that something has not previously been done clearly is not, in itself, a sufficient basis for rejecting all applications purporting to disclose how to do it." 822 F.2d at 1078, 3 USPQ2d at 1304 (quoting In re Chilowsky, 229 F.2d 457, 461, 108 USPQ 321, 325 (CCPA 1956)).

The specification need not contain an example if the invention is otherwise disclosed in such manner that one skilled in the art will be able to practice it without an undue amount of experimentation. In re Borkowski, 422 F.2d 904, 908, 164 USPQ 642, 645 (CCPA 1970).

Lack of a working example, however, is a factor to be considered, especially in a case involving an unpredictable and undeveloped art. But because only an enabling disclosure is required, applicant need not describe all actual embodiments.

Are you going to be magnanamous and say, "Ah! OK, I can see your point" or are you gonna now stretch out an argument?

Once again Chris, you obviously do not know anything about what you're saying. Patent attorneys like my TWIN BROTHER routinely draw the distinction between a mere "idea" which is not patentable, and something that has been much better fleshed out than a mere idea, often but not always called a METHOD. You will find the criteria here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentability

and you will note that NOWHERE IN THE TEXT YOU POSTED DOES IT SAY ANYTHING TO THE EFFECT THAT AN IDEA IS PATENTABLE.

You cannot for example, patent the idea of amplifying light. You can patent the METHOD of amplifying light by a specified means: CDD, CMOS, Solid State Lasers, Chemical Lasers, ALL HAVE DIFFERENT PATENTS.

Really, how can you move from one idiotic statement to the next with such breath-taking bluster?

[chrismb]

Where have I said you can patent an idea?

I said you can file an idea and then develop it. Your claim is that "you cannot file for patent until you have already proceeded well down the path of development"

*YOU* said that you had to be down the road of developing a thing before you can get a patent. I have gone to the trouble of re-printing the actual examiner's handbook that says you can patent a 'prophetic' thing - and if it is 'prohetic' then it clearly isn't 'developed' in the sense you made clear.

You bore me.

...and judging the quality of many a patent application, being a patent attourney merely means you file a dodgy patent and then cream off more money from the applicant for bodging it up into a passable state. Being a patent attourney does not appear to mean that you have a clue what passes for a patent, given the number of iterations and rejections.

...What being a patent attorney's brother means, I do not know...... the significance being...???....my brother used to work in McDonald's -so are you suggesting I know something about frying a big mac? non-sequitur after non-sequitur. Please stop with your made-up no-knowledge.

[KitemanSA]

Here are the Navy definitions for types of R&D

S&T Activities***

• (6.1) Basic Research
  Systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and/or observable facts without specific applications toward processes or products in mind.
  (6.2) Applied Research
  Systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met.
  (6.3) Advanced Technology Development
  Includes all efforts that have moved into the development and integration of hardware for field experiments and tests.

Looks like Polywell is 6.3. So what is the issue?

Looks clearly like 6.2 to me.

I could go either way, but it still comes down to "what is the issue?" Neither 6.3 nor 6.2 is "Basic Research". Polywell is NOT basic research. So even by the most communistic of the hollerings above, EMC2 is copacetic, no?

[chrismb]

Given these definitions, I would say whether either basic or applied research, it should be for the public good if it is publically funded...

... and, no, I don't buy the "wherever companies make profits then the public *do* get benefit" argument.

If the Navy were really funding 6.3 then I would tend to agree that it can proceed with commercially withholding results. But subject to the caveat that EMC2 has put their/investor own money into getting it to the point where it was viable technology that could be 'integrated'. But, a) it's all been navy funding, from WB0, b) is Polwell *really* at the stage of integrating it into a ship??!? C'mon!......

I think we can agree to disagree here.

[krenshala]

Where have I said you can patent an idea?

Your post above, on Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:44 pm.

Chris, you may have different qualifications for patent in Europe, but I assure you, ideas are NOT patentable in the United States. The qualifications for patent are very specific to this effect.

I seem to recall that we've argued over your lack of actual knowledge of patent systems before and even though I, and another poster who joined in against your views, have actually filed patents in the US and you have not, you still seemed to press your guesswork onto the forum.

To me, you appear to be arguing that you have patented ideas via the US patent system, and that GIThruster doesn't know what he's talking about, while GIThruster is arguing that per his patent lawyer brother one cannot patent ideas and you don't know what you're talking about.

For me, at least, its an entertaining argument that appears to be going against you considering you don't remember what you've posted.

[chrismb]

Where have I said you can patent an idea?

Your post above, on Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:44 pm.

For me, at least, its an entertaining argument that appears to be going against you considering you don't remember what you've posted.

Oh, really!

Please reprint the actual sentence that you claim I said you can patent an idea. I would, indeed seem to have forgotten, if that is you claim and you are correct. So, just reprint the sentence in that post. I can't see it.

I'm saying that you can file an idea without having to develop it beyond an idea. After one year, you have to refile as, at least, a prophetic disclosure of a method and/or apparatus which has utility.

You can file a bloody cartoon of Mickey Mouse, if you like! So long as it contains all the salient information for your final submission a year later and you add no new material, then that is fine.

This might well be hinging on the pedantery of 'an idea' but IT IS NOT AS GIT HAS CLAIMED - IN NEED OF BEING DEVELOPED BEFORE FILING. Providing the idea contains the essential inventive step, you can file it.

[ladajo]

Here are the Navy definitions for types of R&D

S&T Activities***

• (6.1) Basic Research
  Systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and/or observable facts without specific applications toward processes or products in mind.
  (6.2) Applied Research
  Systematic study to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and specific need may be met.
  (6.3) Advanced Technology Development
  Includes all efforts that have moved into the development and integration of hardware for field experiments and tests.

Looks like Polywell is 6.3. So what is the issue?

Looks clearly like 6.2 to me.

I could go either way, but it still comes down to "what is the issue?" Neither 6.3 nor 6.2 is "Basic Research". Polywell is NOT basic research. So even by the most communistic of the hollerings above, EMC2 is copacetic, no?

The navy thinks it is Basic Research. I personally think it is 6.2 seeking justification for 6.3, but the navy believes it is 6.1 (probably until April). This also may have something to do with the protection of the project aspect.

[chrismb]

I guess the issue is that the Navy may think it's 6.1, we are likely to find a majority view it's 6.2, and EMC2 are arguing it's 6.3!

[GIThruster]

That is incorrect. One files an idea, has a year to develop it. . .

Where have I said you can patent an idea?

I'm sure you'll say you said something else, or that you didn't say this, or that it was your evil twin, or that momma forgot to wipe your chin and you were distracted. . .or whatever. . .

I know, it's those shiny new shoes distracted you and you were gibbering like an idiot. Only trouble is, you ALWAYS jibber like an idiot. Doesn't matter the topic. Doesn't matter whether you actually believe what you type. So long as you can get the attention you don't get at home. . .right?

Momma's boys are just SO annoying.