For those who don't follow me on Twitter and are not participating with either the Friends of NextStage LinkedIn Group or the NextStage Facebook FanPage and who haven't read Explaining NextStage's second patent...sort of., you may not know that we've received our second patent.
NextStage's IP Counsel, Todd Sullivan, explained the second patent's significance to the Friends of NextStage LinkedIn Group (you should join, really) and I'm sharing it here for those with an interest.
Joseph has asked me
to explain the differences in the two patents and, at risk of saying
something inappropriate (at least in the context of what attorneys would
deem appropriate), here goes:
The easiest way to look at this patent is the conclusion of a painfully
long process that started back in 2001 when we filed the original
application. After battling with the patent examiner, who engaged in
much handwringing over the breadth of the claims and his inability to
find prior art on point, we ended up appealing our claims to take the
patent out of the hands of the patent examiner. That Examiner withdrew
his rejection and presented a new rejection that was not all that much
more interesting. We appealed again.
The results of the appeal were mixed. Some claims were allowed and
others were rejected as they were written a bit too broadly. At that
point we had the option of revising the rejected claims in light of what
the appeal board indicated was allowable, but to do so we had to go
back to the original patent examiner, with whom we never saw eye to eye.
Instead, we permitted the allowed claims to issue and revised the
rejected claims in a second patent application we filed. The patent
that issued Tuesday is that second patent application that contains
those revisions of the rejected claims.
Since the first patent, the Supreme Court has looked at the
patentability of software (In re Bilski) and made changes to limit the
patentability of some software. The Supreme Court has also looked
obviousness and, raised the bar for obtaining patents. The second
patent was issued despite these changes in the interpretation of patent
claims and evidences the durability both patents will have in the
changing patent landscape.
Rather than trying to describe the differences between the two patents, I
would say that the second patent expands on the breadth and scope of
the protection afforded by the claims in the first patent and closes the
loop in the protection of NextStage's Evolution Technology as it was
devised nine years ago. We have more patent applications in the
pipeline that reflect improvements made by NextStage in the technology
as well as more focused applications of the technology and building
blocks of the technology. With these two patents, we have completed the
foundation from which we will build the rest of the patent structure.
Thanks, Todd.
Special thanks to NextStage's growing client list. Our analytics tools are more successful than we could have hoped. We've also started an Authorized Solutions Provider program for those with an interest. Feel free to contact NextStage for details on how to participate.
Sign up for The NextStage Irregular, our very irregular, definitely frequency-wise and probably topic-wise newsletter.
You can follow me and my research on Twitter. I don't twit often but when I do, it's with gusto!
Have you read my latest book, Reading Virtual Minds Volume I: Science and History? It's a whoppin' good read.
Learn the latest regarding NextStage blog posts, conference sightings,
whitepapers, tools, presentations and more via The NextStage RSS feed 
.
| |
