Ron Reardon

The results of our survey of the NAPP membership are in.  We asked four questions:

1. What does NAPP provide you that you find useful?

2. What does NAPP NOT provide you that you need?

3. What does NAPP provide you that you do not need?

4. What is your preferred location for the 2007 Annual Meeting?

For question 1, it should be no surprise that the NAPP^® Patent Practice Forum^TM is found useful by many of our members for getting their questions answered concerning patent prosecution.  Also highly rated were our annual Short Course, timely rules updates, and the insurance offerings.  The feeling of being connected to other practitioners is also very important to many of our members.

For question 2, the top requests were for: more local meetings; a “new practitioner” guide; a summary/archive of the e-mail discussions; more articles in The Disclosure^® on the impact of recent case law on patent prosecution; and a single location resource listing forms, software, books, and periodicals.

For question 3, responses were few.  Those of you who weighed in commented on political issues, solo practice information, the annual meeting, liability insurance, and the NAPP^® Certification Program.

For question 4, San Francisco narrowly edged out Las Vegas, Seattle, and Monterey.

The details of the survey results (only the comments, no identifying information) were shared with the NAPP^® Directors at the October meeting.  While we will continue to emphasize those initiatives you find useful, we need your help to develop the initiatives requested in question 2.  I encourage each of you to review the list in the responses to question 2 and contact me to volunteer to help NAPP develop even more robust offerings. 

To paraphrase Director Kirk Wilson’s previous article: “You get a lot more from volunteering in NAPP than you put into it.”  Since I was a Physics Major, my first impression is that this observation must violate some physical law.  However, I know from experience that the personal growth and wisdom that comes from writing a paper, giving a speech, presenting a seminar, serving on a committee, or founding a local chapter, etc., far outweigh the time and effort expended.  I look forward to working with each of you that volunteer.  You can reach me at President@napp.org, or 770-241-4907. 

USPTO Rules Update

The USPTO has announced that they will be hosting a Rules Customer Partnership meeting on November 9 at the USPTO.  This partnership meeting is the result of a suggestion made to the USPTO by the NAPP leadership.  The meeting is free and open to the public.  For details click here.

NAPP® Resources Pages

The NAPP resources pages provide monthly updates on USPTO Rule packages as well as additional information of interest to practitioners.  Many practitioners do not realize that the USPTO has been releasing between 2 and 6 new or proposed rule packages each month.  This link will take you to the resources pages.

The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may not necessarily be supported by the NAPP, its members, officers, or directors.

The Standard for Obviousness: KSR International V. Teleflex?

by Linda Judge

Historically, obviousness has been found if a person having ordinary skill in the art would have considered a claimed invention obvious in view of the teachings of one or more prior art references as of the date of the invention.  In KSR International V. Teleflex, Teleflex sued KSR for alleged infringement of Teleflex's Patent No. 6,237,565.  The case was dismissed on summary judgment based on obviousness.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit held that the district court applied an incomplete “teaching-suggestion-motivation test.”  KSR is arguing that the Federal Circuit’s standard for obviousness is too low, and has petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.  Click here to read the full article.

The Disclosure® welcomes the submission of articles on topics related to US and foreign patent practice.  To submit  an article to The Disclosure®, please send it as an e-mail attachment to editor@napp.org.
 

Joy L. Bryant, Esq.

The present focus of the NAPP leadership is directed towards the role of the Executive Director and how various duties of the Executive Director may be shared.  These duties include developing courses and programs that are directed towards patent prosecution practice.  We would like to build these programs to a level that would support all patent practitioners in their practices.  To do this, we need volunteers.  If you would like to assist in developing a teleconference course or other teaching materials, please contact us.  The success of NAPP and its membership is based on a collective effort.

Celebrate NAPP'S 10th Anniversary  - Alexandria, Virginia July 15-18, 2006

The 2006 NAPP® Annual Meeting will be held in Old Town Alexandria, adjacent to the US Patent and Trademark Office.  The Annual Meeting Committee is now beginning to work on programming for next year.  If you are interested in speaking, please contact us.  Speakers enjoy a discount rate to attend the meeting.

The next meeting of the Georgia Regional Chapter is scheduled for January 11, 2006, when David Nour of The Nour Group will  speak on "Relationship Economics."

Donna Fugit has agreed to serve as the new Regional Chapter Director for this chapter.  The next  meeting of the New Jersey Regional Chapter will be held in March 2006.