Member Info for KonarA

For the record.. there is still no single patent application. There are many, at least one in every jurisdiction. Some are granted, some are not.

I wanted to make sure i wasn't missing anything, so i googled counterpart and found this.

Counterpart - The flotsam of a shipwreck on which a drowning man valiantly clings onto, in an ultimately futile attempt to keep his head above the water. See also - Giraffe and Blancmange for equally irrelevant words.

Seems deffinitive to me.

..ask the expert.

Inanaco Friday 13:15 (kindly labelled "The Important Part")

"don't you actually follow the thread Ruck ... bermuda was suggesting that the PCT was only just about the application point .. when actually the International search gets a written opinion which is adopted (wrong - you should read the Moditope ISR because if the opinion had to be adopted we would have no patents) otherwise you would have 152 written opinions (ultimately they do have many written opionions in each juristiction) .. and our poor lawyer would have to translate and reply into chinese or 150 languages (wrong - they do) and deal with 152 different jurisdictions (wrong - they do) based on 152 local searches (wrong - they do. Each region carries out its own substantive examination)

so we have this set procedure but the ultimate decision is still with the member state but based on the Written opinion (wrong - if it was we would have no patents) and search (wrong - the ISR found about 10 documents which we classed as blocking the patent from being novel) which is why Scancell only had to deal with one negotiation and questioning (wrong they are questioned and negotiate at every national level).

The ISR was on the broad spectrum patent that was entirely um-patentable. They negotiate it down with the local examimer, giving away just enough to get it approved.

Other than that, no one has disputed that the PCT application establishes your patent application as prior art from the date of application, and identifies art which may contest it.

Anyways, considering you now seem to think you know so much about patents, i can do the board a favour and leave it to you to update everyone.

..and my very final point for this board - you're right, i am not a patent lawyer, in much the same way that you are not a scientist.

C7 i have tremendous sympathy for the position you find yourself in, and if there was any way i could ease your burden I would.

But this is a discussion board, and its very purpose is to discuss. The other day you asked a pertinent question about patents and we responded. That triggered further discussion and clarification on the process. It was, by its very nature, the exact purpose of a discussion board. I am entirely unapologetic for being involved in that discussion, but i appreciate that you have specifically said you feel i have nothing to apologise for. So we are on the same page there.

Contrary to some peoples belief, it is not a case of attacking the man. In fact the other day i posted to compliment the quality of some of his recent posts. But things always degenerate when inanaco is challenged on anything, particularly when he is so obviously and provably wrong. I find that both ironic and extremely hypocritical, given how impassioned he is on correcting others.

But ultimately, I just hope that you can accept this board for what it is, and do not let it affect your health.

So if someone posts something incorrect about the science, then it is perfectly acceptable to challenge and correct that.

But if someone posts something incorrect about the patent application process we are all supposed to just accept it unchallenged? If certain posters just had the good grace and humility to admit they are wrong, when they are wrong, then there would be no need for 108 posts of childlike defense.

there are some nuggets of valuable information in amongst it

i give up. you are trying like crazy to wriggle any way out of the fact that you are wrong.

I have no further need to educate you on this, as i am sure deep down you already know you are wrong.

eer no.. again.. that is the case. You can go and look online and see the communication between Scancell (and their lawyers) and each of the designating states.

European Examiner was Werner Thumb
US Examiner is Mark Halvorson
Japanese Examiner is Hiromitsu Fukuzawa...

shall i go on?

no it isnt

no one has disputed that an international search report is carried out, and communicated to the designated states along with the regional application. The point is that the international search report does not define if you have a valid claim or not. In fact, if you look at the Moditope ISR, it states that we do not have a valid claim for ANY of the claims in the moditope application, and only claim 1 is partial.

i'm not missing the point, you're just wrong. And i am not attacking the man, i am refuting the points you make.

I fully support the statement the Bermuda made.

ever heard the saying "when you are in a hole, stop digging"?

http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/guide/np02.html#_chapt2

The national phase is the second of the two main phases of the PCT procedure. It follows the international phase and consists in the processing of the international application before each Office of or acting for a Contracting State that has been designated in the international application (see International Phase). In each designated State the international application has the effect of a national (or regional) application as from the international filing date, and the decision to grant protection for the invention is the task of the Office of or acting for that State (the “designated Office”).

...which end at "Enter National Phase".. for the reasons that we are telling you.

the world wide patent application process is only intended to take an application from your home state (Great Britain in this case), and then duplicate that application into all the other states, whilst retaining the original filing date.

no discussion takes place between the US and EU Patent office. The questions are not put back to scancell from the worldwide patent. After the initial international search report is completed (which is quite high level and forms an initial opinion), an application is autmoatically generated in each region. Each regional application is then examined, searched, reported on and discussed with the applicant as entirely stand alone applications. Each region will have its own patent laws that need to be satisfied, and it is no certainty that a favourable international search report will result in a patent (nor vice versa).

If you want to see a copy of the US Search report, then follow this link:

https://register.epo.org/documentView?number=US.201514614964.A&documentId=12-1-US++146149641EP1+

if it is true that they have had both the China and Japan patents awarded, then it is a shame they didn't feel that warranted an RNS.