Neural Networks Data Services Pty LTD

Livid About Non-precedential Avid Decision from Federal Circuit
PostMaster web application When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of §112, ¶6, the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in means-plus-function element in the claim. As emphasized by the Federal Circuit, “the ‘broadest reasonable interpretation’ that an examiner may give means-plus-function language is that statutorily mandated in paragraph six…, the PTO may not disregard the structure disclosed in the specification corresponding to such language when rendering a patentability determination.” In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 1994)(en banc); see also, MPEP 2182, 8th Ed. (August 2012). But here, the Federal Circuit held that there was no error in the Board’s reliance on the broadest reasonable interpretation for language appearing in a seemingly means-plus-function claim element. Related posts:
  1. Federal Circuit on Software Patents: Show Me the AlgorithmsEarlier today the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit, Inc. According to the Federal Circuit the specification of the ’435 patent must contain an algorithm that performs the function associated with the “access means” limitation, otherwise the limitation is indefinite and the claim invalid. Ultimately, the Federal Circuit would determine that the algorithm disclosed was incomplete. This lead the Court to explain that when the specification discloses an algorithm that only accomplishes one of multiple identifiable functions performed by a means-plus-function limitation, the specification is treated as if...

Source: IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law

You might also like:

Intermec CN3 Mobile Computer
Intermec CN3 Mobile Computer
Leighton Contractors - A Day in the Life
Leighton Contractors - A Day in the Life
Gamma Solutions Pty Ltd
Gamma Solutions Pty Ltd

Stock market analysts on trial

2002-02-09 14:24:25 by on-trial

The amount of poor and self-interested advice that is being issued by brokerages and their analysts. To this day, the majority of stockbrokers are compensated on the number of trades their customers make, not on the returns they generate for them or on the quality of the advice they provide. We believe that the price targets and analyst ratings are made with several masters in mind, none of whom are the individual investor. In a similar fashion, sell-side stock analysts are generally compensated based upon the overall profitability of their firms, not the quality or accuracy of their analysis. In the end, analysts have minimal structural incentive to be accurate in their predictions; rather their built-in incentive is to be as favorable to their corporate clients as possible. It is a...

Gurus' Results Stay Consistently Bad  — Forbes
Investment gurus make their money selling market predictions, not following them. Their overall performance has been historically and consistently dismal. Why people pay for market predictions is a one of Wall Street's biggest mysteries.

Springer Neural Information Processing: 13th International Conference, ICONIP 2006, Hong Kong, China, October 3-6, 2006, Proceedings, Part III (Lecture Notes ... Computer Science and General Issues)
Book (Springer)

Related posts:

  1. Neural Networks in Trading
  2. Neural Networks in Perl
  3. Neural Networks for Excel
  4. Neural Networks in the Cockpit
  5. Neural Networks: A Survey