Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The following is a list of celebrity inventors and their patents. (For the purposes of this article, an inventor is a person who has been granted a patent.)After Google released a patent search [1] online in December 2006, a website called Ironic Sans, [2] made the public aware of a number of celebrity patents found through the new patent search engine.
Kenneth P. Weiss is an American entrepreneur, human factors engineer and inventor. ... He holds 22 U.S. patents, as well as foreign patents. [citation needed]
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining the patent eligibility of a process, but rather "a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101."
In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008), was an en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on the patenting of method claims, particularly business methods.
An interference between U.S. patent 4,816,567 (the original "Cabilly patent") co-issued to Genentech and City of Hope and U.S. patent 4,816,397 (the "Boss" patent) issued to Celltech resulted in the issuance of a second "Cabilly patent" to Genentech in 2001. This new patent would extend into 2018, an effective term of 29 years.
Ken Olsen, the MIT-educated inventor who started Digital Equipment Corp. with $70,000 in venture capital in the 1950s and built it into a company with billions of dollars in sales and more than ...
Edward H. Phillips v. AWH Corporation, Hopeman Brothers, Inc., and Lofton Corporation : Decided: July 12 2005: Citations: 415 F.3d 1303; 75 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321: Holding; The most important source in the evidentiary hierarchy of claim construction is the ordinary meaning of the language of the claims themselves and other intrinsic sources like the ...
A commentator asserted that an example illustrating the proposition that satisfying the machine-or-transformation test is not a sufficient condition for patent-eligibility occurs in U.S. Pat. No. 6,701,872. [31] This patent covers a method and apparatus (machine) for entertaining a cat by using a moving laser beam (relatively high technology).