Monday, October 24, 2016

CAFC vacates award of attorneys fees in Large Audience Display

The CAFC noted in vacating a decision by CD Cal awarding
attorneys fees against Large Audience Display:

the circumstances upon
which a district court relies must actually exist, and
findings that such circumstances do exist must be justified
by the record. Here, many of the “circumstances”
deemed dispositive by the district court, including but not
limited to those noted, supra, either did not occur or were
given undue weight. Thus, we must vacate the trial
court’s finding of exceptionality and award of fees and
costs under § 285. On remand, the district court shall
reconsider whether this case was exceptional. The district
court may properly consider the totality of the circumstances
in making its determination, including
LADS’s use of the Langsam email to oppose Appellees’
motion for attorney’s fees, its opposition to the motion to
transfer venue to the Central District of California, and
the objective reasonableness of LADS’s claims given the
standards and burdens that apply in district court, including
the reasonableness of LADS’s proposed claim constructions.
3 But the district court must assure both that
the circumstances on which it relies are accurate and that
the court affords only the appropriate measure of weight
to each.

Sunday, October 23, 2016

Ontario College of Teachers begins review of Spence plagiarism matter

IPBiz covered the Toronto / Spence plagiarism matter in 2013,
(see ). On October 21, 2016 the Toronto Sun ran a blistering followup in the post Ex top educator accused of plagiarism liked to be in Star

The piece in the Sun suggests the UToronto Ph.D. of Spence is now under review:

It wasn’t just a few words here or there, mistakenly ingested while rummaging through old research and then innocently repeated. This was someone with a U of T doctorate in education — that, too, is now under review — who blatantly copied other people’s phrasing over and over again.

One notes that it was merely a reader, not an academic, who first flagged Spence's plagiarism problem:

The newspaper’s public editor called Bird to let him know a reader had complained Spence’s piece had large sections copied from others, including the New York Times. Had he ever questioned Spence’s sources? “He has a doctorate and he was a published author. I wouldn’t think to ask him about sources,” Bird told the hearing.

As to "what happened after the plagiarism," Spence is alive and well in Chicago:

No wonder he didn’t show up. Spence — who now works as Chicago’s head of Social Services-Family Matters — betrayed the trust of students, colleagues and parents. If found guilty of professional misconduct, the serial plagiarizer should lose his licence to teach.

One recalls that Joe Biden, who was caught plagiarizing at Syracuse Law, went on to become Vice-President.

CBS Sunday Morning on 23 October 2016: treating genetic based diseases

Martha Teichner did the cover story Fighting genetic disease with help from HIV virus, which highlighted the work of Dr. Alessandra Biffi, who is now the leader of the gene therapy program at Dana-Farber/Boston Children’s Cancer and Blood Disorders Center. The big take home message of the piece: "So far, not a single gene replacement therapy has been approved by the FDA."

Other stories Jim Axelrod on Phil Collins, receding glaciers at Glacier National Park in Montana, Lee Cowan on the "Seven Magic Mountains" off I-15 near Las Vegas, Anthony Mason on lawyer John Gresham, Mo Rocca on Maureen Dowd.

Almanac was the first plastic surgery on October 23, 1814.

There was a "buzzword" feature on the word "pivot."

Moment of nature was on the White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire.

"Seven Magic Mountains" was created by Ugo Rondinone. It is about 10 miles south of Las Vegas, near Jean Dry Lake. Earlier, near Jean Dry Lake, there was "Rift," the first of a 530-mile-long series of sculptures Michael Heizer dubbed "Nine Nevada Depressions." Related to "Sunday Morning's" previous discussion of bumper stickers, Magic Mountain uses Day-Glo colors [The Day-Glo colors — brilliant pinks, deep blues and bright greens, eye-searing yellow-orange, Silver State silver, black and white — from review-journal]

Of gene therapy, a paper by Kaufmann et al. [ EMBO Mol Med. 2013 Nov; 5(11): 1642–1661 ] notes

China was the first country to introduce a gene based-drug (Gendicine®), into the market in 2004. Gendicine is an adenovirus-p53 based gene therapeutic approved for the treatment of patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (Wilson, 2005). With more than 10,000 treated patients no overt adverse side effects have been reported for Gendicine®. However, the therapeutic efficacy of this drug is still controversial (Sheridan, 2011; Shi & Zheng, 2009). In Europe, alipogene tiparvovec (also known as Glybera®) was approved for the treatment of familial lipoprotein lipase deficiency (LPLD) at the end of 2012, and thus, was the first commercially available gene therapeutic product in the Western world (Büning, 2013; Miller, 2012; Ylä-Herttuala, 2012). The marketing authorization for Glybera® clearly represents a milestone in the development of gene therapy as an accessible therapeutic option for LPLD patients. The Glybera® example also revealed the multiple layers of complexity that have to be solved before a drug-based product reaches the market. In addition to patent issues, the costs for adequate production of the advanced therapy medicinal product (ATMP) according to good-manufacturing practice (GMP) requirements are enormous. Moreover, costly and extensive pharmacology and toxicology studies have to be conducted in the absence of clearly defined standards, even in cases where very similar vector backbones are used. In addition, the review process and eventual authorization by the respective agencies adds another layer of complexity as exemplified by the hurdles encountered during the review process for Glybera® (as reviewed elsewhere (Bryant et al, 2013)). Thus, there are still multiple issues to be addressed in gene therapy before gene-based products enter routine clinical application to provide safe and affordable therapeutic drugs for otherwise non-treatable overt and chronic diseases.

Kaufmann cites a paper by Biffi: Biffi A, Montini E, Lorioli L, Cesani M, Fumagalli F, Plati T, Baldoli C, Martino S, Calabria A, Canale S, et al. Lentiviral hematopoietic stem cell gene therapy benefits metachromatic leukodystrophy. Science. 2013;341:1233158

In passing, a claim from US Patent 8957044 , related to gene-based therapy:

A method of treating a an X-linked myotubular myopathy (XLMTM) in a mammal in need thereof, the method comprising systemically administering to the mammal a composition that increases expression of myotubularin in a muscle of mammal, wherein the composition comprises an adeno-associated viral (AAV) vector comprising a nucleic acid sequence encoding the myotubularin gene (MTM 1) operably linked to a muscle specific promoter, further wherein the function of the diaphragm of the mammal is improved, as compared to the diaphragm of the mammal in the absence of administration of the composition, wherein strength is increased in the muscle.

Friday, October 21, 2016

Can an individual, unaffiliated scientist have ground-breaking ideas? Television shows say "yes".

In an earlier post, IPBiz discussed the "Callisto" episode of the CBS show "Bull," the plot of which involved a case of alleged patent infringement. Although many of the legal details were a bit sketchy, the accused infringer was an individual scientist who "improved upon" an invention disclosed in an issued US patent. Whether or not the work of the accused infringer fell within the scope of an issued claim was not discussed.

However, the idea of work of an individual (unaffiliated) scientist being of interest appeared in 1963 in an early episode of "The Avengers" titled "The Golden Eggs," with Patrick Macnee and Honor Blackman. In the initial scene in Steed's apartment, Steed (Macnee) notes to Gale (Blackman) that the scientist (Ashe) had his own lab and rarely published results. Although the scientist did not publish, someone had broken into the scientist's lab. The viewing audience knows the scientist was attacked and some eggs were taken, although a newspaper account available to Steed says nothing was taken. Gale tries to get more information from the scientist by posing as a reporter for 'Galileo,' trying a personal approach to science, seeking to know what scientists are thinking and who they are instead of just what they're doing. The scientist tells her it's a 'frightful idea' - scientists are boring, narrow-minded and self-opinionated. [We learn later that the eggs contain a virus, Verity Prime, a sample of which Ashe obtained from a colleague at a conference years earlier. The virus itself was not the invention.]

The theft was orchestrated by a criminal (character Redfern) who paid a lower level criminal ( DeLeon ) to steal the eggs, based on information obtained by bribing Ashe's assistant (Diana).

An interesting exchange: Ashe shows Gale some of his research and laughs at Gale's suggestion that he turn it over to the government.

An interesting twist in the ending. Ashe destroys his research and when Gale tries to return the eggs, Ashe says he won't be needing them anymore.

Returning to "Callisto," there was not much discussion of how an individual unaffiliated scientist could accomplish so much, and there was a suggestion of access to the patentee's work. The accused copyist in "Callisto" was working for the greater good, but the thief in "The Golden Eggs" was working for personal gain (what motivated Ashe was not clear). Neither the scientist/copyist in "Callisto" nor the scientist in "The Golden Eggs" disclosed publicly the results of the work, clearly lost in the case of "The Golden Eggs." The idea of disclosing the work in "The Golden Eggs" to the government was considered laughable, but the scientist/copyist in "Callisto" kept the information as a trade secret.

A link for "The Golden Eggs":

**Another 1963 episode of "The Avengers" titled "The Undertakers" contained the following text:

John Steed: Now the inventor's royalties alone could amount to, wow, a million pounds!
Mrs. Renter: But I already have a million.
John Steed: I'm sure another one wouldn't be in the way, huh?
Mrs. Renter: Well, I'm not so sure. What with death duties, being rich hardly seems worthwhile.

Thursday, October 20, 2016

The CAFC discusses 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) in Medtronic v. Bosch: institution decisions still final and nonappealable

The bottom line outcome was "final and nonappealable" even after Cuozzo:

The original panel decision, following our decision in
GTNX, Inc. v. INTTRA, Inc., 789 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir.
2015), held that a determination by the Patent Trial and
Appeal Board (“Board”) to discontinue inter partes review
proceedings was not reviewable on appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 314(d). The question is whether that decision is
correct in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Cuozzo
Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 136 S. Ct. 2131 (2016),
which issued after our panel decision.
We now reaffirm our earlier order. The Board’s vacatur
of its institution decisions and termination of the
proceedings constitute decisions whether to institute inter
partes review and are therefore “final and nonappealable”
under § 314(d). Nothing in Cuozzo is to the contrary.

The problem here was NOT naming the real party in interest:

Thereafter the Board granted-in-part Bosch’s motions
seeking additional discovery regarding Cardiocom’s status
as a real party in interest. Based on that discovery, Bosch
moved to terminate the proceedings because Medtronic
had failed to name all real parties in interest.1 The Board
granted Bosch’s motions, “persuaded [by the collective
evidence] that Medtronic [was] acting as a proxy for
Cardiocom,” J.A. 35, including evidence that Cardiocom
was the defendant in district court infringement suits
concerning the two patents, that Cardiocom had previously
filed its own petitions for inter partes review, that
Cardiocom’s senior executives communicated with Medtronic
while Medtronic’s petitions were being prepared,
and that Cardiocom paid a portion of the fees for preparing
Medtronic’s petitions. The Board vacated the institution
decisions and terminated the proceedings because of
Medtronic’s failure to comply with the requirement that
all real parties in interest be disclosed.

Footnote 1:

If Cardiocom were a real party in interest, the petition
would be time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b).

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

"Callisto" episode of CBS show "Bull" does patent law, sort of, on 18 October 2016

The technology at issue in a small Texas town involves blood clotting. The patentee Windermere is suing a woman who furthered his research and Bull and team are working defense. The case seems to be in state court (municipal court) and the voir dire is informal. Two tornado alerts occur during the proceedings, one of which is real and one of which is staged by the Bull team.

Early on, there is talk of the patent being "obvious," and the patent for the pop-up toaster is referenced.

Later, when the plaintiff's attorney asks defendant what defendant has done, the defendant invokes trade secret.

The defense shifts to the "apple strudel" defense. A million ways to combine the ingredients but only one works like that in the local eatery.

Then, during the fake tornado alert, plaintiff and defendant end up in the same basement room, and defendant explains what she has done to the plaintiff. Back upstairs, the plaintiff drops the suit.

For trivia people, the patent number is mentioned, something like 8 117 293, but maybe one needs to listen again.

[from -- Okay. And Mr. Windemere's drug, recognized by United States patent number 6-B 117293, dated August 11, 1999, counteracts this process. It does. His synthetic clotting factor, under certain circumstances, increases the efficacy of coagulation. Diana: Ms. Ketchum's product utilizes the same factor? Yes. So they're the same.--

One notes US patent 6117293, titled Method for producing hydrophilic monomers and uses thereof , was issued Sep 12, 2000.

link: ]

Not a good presentation of how patent litigation works, but some interesting views about how tv writers view patent law.

Patent applicant CONSTANTIN EFTHYMIOPOULOS loses at CAFC, but Judge Newman dissents

The ’141 application of CONSTANTIN EFTHYMIOPOULOS relates
to methods of treating or
preventing influenza by administering the drug
zanamivir1 by oral inhalation.

Judge Newman's dissent in In re EFTHYMIOPOULOS concludes:

It was undisputed that, at the time of this invention,
it was believed that the influenza virus infected primarily
the upper respiratory tract, that is, the nasal passages. It
was undisputed that there was not a reasonable expectation
that administration to the lower respiratory tract by
oral inhalation would be effective. The Von Itzstein
references do not show or suggest oral inhalation, either
for zanamivir or for any related compounds. The Board’s
statement that inhalation is “reasonably understood” to
include oral inhalation, PTAB Op. 12, is without authority.
There was no record showing or supporting such an
understanding. There was no suggestion or hint in any
reference that treatment by oral inhalation would have a
reasonable expectation of success.

This mode of therapy is taught only by this inventor.
There was not substantial evidence to support the Board’s
ruling of obviousness. From the court’s flawed analysis
and unsupported conclusion
, I respectfully dissent.

Of expert opinion:

Hayden, who discussed a large international study in which
he participated, and concluded that the “effectiveness of
orally inhaled zanamivir as compared with nasal administration
. . . could be considered an unexpected result”:
In part because uncertainties existed regarding
the transmission and pathogenesis of influenza as
of the effective filing date of the present application,
it was unclear whether oral inhalation of
zanamivir with the dry powder inhaler device utilized
in the studies would be clinically effective
alone for prevention or treatment of naturally occurring
uncomplicated influenza. In view of this
uncertainty, the clinical effectiveness of orally inhaled
zanamivir as compared to nasal administration
for prevention of naturally occurring
uncomplicated influenza above could be considered
an unexpected result. Similarly, the effectiveness
of orally inhaled zanamivir without
intranasal zanamivir for treatment of naturally
occurring uncomplicated influenza alone could be
considered an unexpected result.

Monday, October 17, 2016

Should computers be considered inventors under US Patent Law?

Here is an interesting law review article: Ryan Abbott. I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law. Boston College Law Review, 57 B.C.L. Rev. 1079 (2016)
which contains within the abstract-->

this Article argues that creative computers should be considered inventors under the Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution. Treating nonhumans as inventors would incentivize the creation of intellectual property by encouraging the development of creative computers. This Article also addresses a host of challenges that would result from computer inventorship, including the ownership of computer-based inventions, the displacement of human inventors, and the need for consumer protection policies. This analysis applies broadly to nonhuman creators of intellectual property, and explains why the Copyright Office came to the wrong conclusion with its Human Authorship Requirement. Finally, this Article addresses how computer inventorship provides insight into other areas of patent law. For instance, computers could replace the hypothetical skilled person that courts use to judge inventiveness. Creative computers may require a rethinking of the baseline standard for inventiveness, and potentially of the entire patent system.


CAFC affirms ND Cal; Synopsys loses 35 USC 101 case

From the opinion:

Synopsys, Inc. appeals the District Court for the
Northern District of California’s grant of summary judgment
invalidating certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
5,530,841; 5,680,318; and 5,748,488 (collectively, the
Gregory Patents) under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Synopsys,
Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 78 F. Supp. 3d 958 (N.D.
Cal. 2015) (Summary Judgment Order). Synopsys argues
that, contrary to the district court’s holding, the Gregory
Patents are not directed to ineligible subject matter
because they relate to complex algorithms used in computer-
based synthesis of logic circuits. We disagree. A
review of the actual claims at issue shows that they are
directed to the abstract idea of translating a functional
description of a logic circuit into a hardware component
description of the logic circuit.1 This idea of reviewing a
description of certain functions and turning it into a
representation of the logic component that performs those
functions can be—and, indeed, was—performed mentally
or by pencil and paper by one of ordinary skill in the
art. Moreover, the claims do not call for the involvement
of a computer. They therefore cannot be characterized as
an improvement in a computer as a tool. The claims add
nothing to the abstract idea that rises to the level of an
“inventive concept” as required by precedent. We therefore
affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment
of invalidity.

From the procedural history:

The parties subsequently cross-moved for summary
judgment on Mentor Graphics’ defense that the Gregory
Patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court
granted Mentor Graphics’ motion and invalidated all
asserted claims of the Gregory Patents. See Summary
Judgment Order, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 966. In reaching its
decision, the court applied the now common two-step test
described by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS
Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). See Summary
Judgment Order, 78 F. Supp. 3d at 962–63.
The court observed that “[e]ach of the steps in the claimed
methods can be performed by a skilled designer either
mentally or with pencil and paper.” Id. at 961. Due to
the breadth of the claims, the court found, under the first
step of the Alice test, that “the claims are directed to a
mental process . . . ‘a subcategory of unpatentable abstract
ideas.’” Id. at 963 (quoting CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir.


Turning to the second step of the Alice test, the court
rejected Synopsys’ argument that the claims necessarily
contained an inventive concept because Mentor Graphics
failed to present prior art that disclosed the claimed
methods. Id. at 964. The court then found that, while the
claims were directed to a “specific” mental process, they
nonetheless “preempt[ed] a building block of human
ingenuity.” Id. at 965. Finally, it found that the claims
concerned “well-understood, routine, conventional activity,
previously engaged in by those in the field.” Id. (“As
acknowledged in the specification, skilled designers had
been inferring the necessary parts and connections for ICs
long before the Gregory patents issued.”).

The CAFC observed:

While the Supreme Court
has altered the § 101 analysis since CyberSource in cases
like Mayo and Alice, we continue to “treat[] analyzing
information by steps people go through in their minds, or
by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially
mental processes within the abstract-idea category.” Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).


Synopsys’ reliance on TQP Development, LLC v. Intuit
Inc., No. 2:12-cv-180-WCB, 2014 WL 651935 (E.D. Tex.
Feb. 19, 2014), is therefore misplaced. See Appellant’s
Opening Br. 39 n.8. In that case, the district court denied
the defendant’s motion for summary judgment that claims
for a specific data encryption method for computer communication
were invalid under § 101. TQP, 2014 WL
651935, at *1. It distinguished the claims at issue from
the mental processes found unpatentable in cases like
Gottschalk. It explained that unlike those “simple,”
“basic” processes, the plaintiff’s “invention involves a
several-step manipulation of data that, except in its most
simplistic form, could not conceivably be performed in the
human mind or with pencil and paper.” Id. at *4 (emphasis
added). This case is different. Representative claim 1
is directed to generating a representation of a single
specific hardware component and can be—and was—
performed mentally or with pencil and paper.

An interesting nuance:

While Synopsys may be correct that the inventions of
the Gregory Patents were intended to be used in conjunction
with computer-based design tools, the Asserted
Claims are not confined to that conception. The § 101
inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted
Claims themselves. See Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v.
Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir.
2013) (admonishing that “the important inquiry for a
§ 101 analysis is to look to the claim”); see also Content
Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“We
focus here on whether the claims of the asserted patents
fall within the excluded category of abstract ideas.”), cert.
denied, 136 S. Ct. 119 (2015).

On their face, the claims do not call for any form of
computer implementation of the claimed methods. Synopsys
stops short of arguing that the Asserted Claims
must be construed as requiring a computer to perform the
recited steps.


Just as we have held
that complex details from the specification cannot save a
claim directed to an abstract idea that recites generic
computer parts, the Gregory Patents’ incorporation of
software code cannot save claims that lack any computer
implementation at all. See Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1345
(“[T]he complexity of the implementing software or the
level of detail in the specification does not transform a
claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patenteligible
system or method.”).
For this reason, we need not decide whether a computer-
implemented version of the invention would not be
“directed to” an abstract idea. And, for the same reasons,
Synopsys cannot rely on our decisions in Enfish13 and
McRO14 to support the patentability of the Asserted
Claims. In Enfish, we held that claims “directed to a
specific improvement to the way computers operate” to
store and retrieve data were not unpatentably abstract.
822 F.3d at 1336. The claims were not simply drawn to a
disembodied data table.

**As to Gottschalk:

That a human circuit designer may not use the specific
method claimed when translating a functional description
of a logic circuit into a hardware component
description of the logic circuit as Synopsys contends does
not change this result. Indeed, the Supreme Court rejected
this argument in Gottschalk. There, the Court reviewed
a claimed “method for converting binary-coded
decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numerals.”
Gottschalk, 409 U.S. at 64. It recognized that the claimed
method had been designed for use on a computer and
“varie[d] the ordinary arithmetic steps a human would
use by changing the order of the steps, changing the
symbolism for writing the multiplier used in some steps,
and by taking subtotals after each successive operation.”
Id. at 67. It found that the claimed method, which
“c[ould] be performed without a computer,” was nonetheless
not patent-eligible. Id.

As to Alice step 2:

But, given that the claims are for a mental
process, assignment conditions, which merely aid in
mental translation as opposed to computer efficacy, are
not an inventive concept that takes the Asserted Claims
beyond their abstract idea.15 Unlike the claims at issue in
DDR Holdings and BASCOM, the Asserted Claims do not
introduce a technical advance or improvement. They
contain nothing that “amounts to significantly more than
a patent upon the [abstract idea] itself.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 2355 (citation omitted).

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Plagiarism in Russian academics?

There is an interesting piece in gulfnews titled Russian academics fight back against fraud, plagiarism

Fake dissertations, produced by copy-pasting existing texts and merely switching a few introductory pages, are common

This is predominantly about the thesis of one Vladimir Medinsky and includes text:

Among the glaring errors in the work, Medinsky — who states up front that the merit of a historical fact should be determined by whether it is in Russian national interests — implies that Catholicism is not a part of Christianity and does not appear to know that Denmark is in Scandinavia.

There is also discussion of Panfilov 28. A July 2015 post at Eurasianet stated:

The only trouble is, the legend looks to be a lie.

Some of the soldiers said to have died valiantly, in fact, lived on for years after the alleged feat, according to new documents that have come to light.

On July 8, [2015] the state archive published a scan of a formerly top secret, now declassified document from 1948 in which the chief Soviet military prosecutor informed powerful Soviet politburo member Andrei Zhdanov that the legend “does not correspond with reality,” saying it is based on the "fiction" of a Red Army journalist.

Historians have long said the legend of the 28 guardsmen contained glaring inaccuracies.

But the publication of these documents serves as long-sought hard evidence that lays to rest any remaining doubts, according to Andrei Zubov, a prominent Russian historian.


**Separately, from Blawgsearch on October 16, 2016, for the week of October 16:


*for the month-->

Patent application on the QUANTUM SPACE ENGINE (EM drive)

A story on the patent application for the EM drive contains the following text:

“The patent process is a very significant process, it’s not like an academic peer review where everyone hides behind an anonymous review, it’s all out in the open,” Shawer told Marry-Ann Russon at the International Business Times.

He went on to say that “this is a proper, professional way of establishing prior ownership done by professionals in the patent office, and in order to publish my patent application, they had to first carry out a thorough examination of the physics in order to establish that the invention does not contravene the laws of physics.”

Elsewhere in the post is a reference to SWAS:

The program delaying patent applications is called the Sensitive Application Warning System (SWAS). Usually, when an application is submitted for a patent approval, it requires a couple of examiners who work with the Patent office to go through their process of approval. This process usually takes approximately 1 to 2 years, but applications that are filed in SAWS must be approved by several people, and can be delayed for a number of years.

One great example (out of many) of delayed patent applications comes from Dr. Gerald F. Ross. He filed a patent application for a new invention he had devised to defeat the jamming of electromagnetic transmissions at specified frequencies. It was not until June 17, 2014 (almost 37 years later) that this patent was granted (source).


CBS Sunday Morning on October 16, 2016: who invented the bumper sticker and "when" was it invented?

Within the show, one had Martha Teichner doing a piece on "bumper stickers" titled -- Bumper stickers: A vehicle for political expression --. There was a sort of inventorship matter:

But then came World War II, and along with technology (including day-glo colors) and adhesive paper. It wasn’t long before somebody put them together.

That somebody was Forest Gill, of Kansas City, Missouri.

“He put the idea of the bright colors and the sticky paper together to come up with a bumper sticker,” said Gill’s son-in-law, Mark Gilman, the chairman of Gill Studios, now located in Lenexa, Kansas. “His innovation was to make the bumper sign self-sticking.”

America’s post-war love affair with the automobile guaranteed that these traveling billboards got around. But tourist attractions -- not political campaigns -- were the original users.

Not likely that Day-glo colors were used on bumper stickers in or around 1946; from an ACS publication

In 1946, the Switzer Brothers ended their agreements with Continental and founded Switzer Brothers, Inc. (now Day-Glo Color Corp.), in Cleveland. Flaw detection products continued to be a large portion of their product lines, but they also expanded their research to improve daylight fluorescent pigments for commercial uses.

After a series of developments in the field, a milestone came in 1957 with the patent for a new process for producing daylight fluorescent pigments. Combining the fluorescent dyes with a new class of polymers and then milling the composition to an appropriate particle size produced material that behaved like traditional organic and inorganic pigments in printing techniques. These new pigments could be used as traditional paint and inks and had sufficient light stability to be used outdoors.

Growth in the use of fluorescent pigments for marketing and packaging took off following the War. The company made inroads by marketing their products—DayGlo brand silk-screen inks, paint, and papers—to advertisers. Their first big break in packaging came in 1959 in an application that’s still known by its DayGlo colors today: Tide® detergent. Fluorescent boxes of Tide were soon on display on grocery shelves nationwide, and fluorescent colors began to appear on an increasing number of consumer products.


**It is interesting to note that the combination of self-adhesive and Day-glo appeared in a 2012 NYTimes piece:

Gill seized on two new technologies ­ — self-adhesive paper and Day-Glo paint — and combined them into a novelty item perfectly adapted for America’s highways. By the 1960 presidential election, bumper stickers were everywhere, rivaling buttons as a favorite way for voters to declare their intentions.


As noted, Day-Glo was not ready for "outdoor" usage (as on bumper stickers) until after 1957.

**In the "older" days of "CBS Sunday Morning", one might have expected this story to have been done by Bill Geist or Mo Rocca.

Almanac did the be-heading of Marie Antoinette.

Jane Pauley did a puff profile on Sarah Jessica Parker.

S. C. Johnson of Racine was discussed. Remember Kringles of Racine? The piece on S.C. Johnson touched on the "research tower," and thus obliquely on inventorship:

Next door is the 15-story Research Tower that Wright also designed. It opened in 1950. Its odd skeleton can best be seen at dusk.

“It has a central core that’s 13 feet in diameter, like the trunk of a tree” said Greg Anderegg, who used to work for SC Johnson and later helped with the tower’s restoration. “And all of the floors are hung off of that central core like the limbs of a tree.”

[Frank Lloyd] Wright again wanted to allow in natural light, but instead of just plates of glass, he decided to use glass tubes instead -- 17 miles of them.

“We hand-cleaned every one of them -- I might point out that we used Windex to do that!” Anderegg laughed. “And they look sparkling and look great.”

It now looks much as it did when Bob O’Brien worked here. He said, “It was always bright. But you just felt like you’re working in a snow globe.”

Despite having to wear sunglasses while formulating his products, he loved it.

“Formulation is an art. And I would come into work, and these benches in this laboratory that was our canvas, a canvas that Frank Lloyd Wright built, right? So you come in here and you just couldn’t help but feel inspired. There was just the energy.”

The Tower became integral to SC Johnson’s success -- even part of its ad campaigns. It was the womb for some of the company’s most recognizable brands, from Glade air freshener to a bug’s worst nightmare. Raid was developed by Sam Johnson, Fisk’s father. It killed bugs but not plants, which at the time was revolutionary. But it was also the first of Sam Johnson’s string of products that didn’t contain any wax.


Moment of nature did whale sharks near Isla Mujeres, which is near Cancun. Not mentioned was
MUSA (Museo Subacuatico de Arte) also nearby. Recall the December 30, 2012 Sunday Morning wherein Mo Rocca does "Sunken Treasures" in Cancun, Mexico. [ ]