This post originated from an RSS feed registered with Ruby Buzz by Rick DeNatale. Original Post: US Patent #7,464,384 Feed Title: Talk Like A Duck Feed URL: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/articles.atom Feed Description: Musings on Ruby, Rails, and other topics by an experienced object technologist. Latest Ruby Buzz Posts Latest Ruby Buzz Posts by Rick DeNatale Latest Posts From Talk Like A Duck

Patents are only for the old machine
© Alexandre Dulaunoy

When I retired from IBM some years ago, I had a couple of pending patent applications. I always wondered if and when the patent(s) issued, whether or not I would hear about it.

Early this week, I got notification that one of the applications had been granted last Tuesday, and I’m now recorded as the inventor of US Patent #7,464,384 “Method for inter-object communication”

Word came not from IBM, but from an outfit which sells plaques commemorating the issuance of patents. I still haven’t heard and don’t know if I ever will, from IBM.

The road to patent issue can be long and winding. I’ve looked at transaction history for this patent on the US Patent office’s web site and see this history (some details omitted):

03-14-2002

Application filed

11-02-2004

Non-Final Rejection mailed to IBM

02-01-2005

IBM response after Non-Final Action

06-10-2005

A second Non-Final Rejection mailed

08-01-2005

IBM responds again

09-28-2005

Patent office mails a Final Rejection

11-16-2005

IBM submits an Amendment after Final Rejection

12-09-2005

Patent office mails an Mail Advisory Action

12-14-2005

IBM files Notice of Appeal

02-14-2006

Appeal Brief Filed

06-06-2006

Yet another Non-Final Rejection

09-06-2006

IBM files another Notice of Appeal

11-06-2006

Appeal Brief Filed

12-06-2006

Appeal Forwarded to Examiner

12-06-2006

Appeal Brief Review Complete – a quick review!

02-26-2007

Another Non-Final Rejection

05-24-2007

Another response from IBM

08-02-2007

A second Final Rejection

What had been going on was an argument between the Patent examiner, and the lawyer representing IBM about the claims in the patent application. The claims are what gives a patent force. Each claim can be defended individually. Most patents contain one or more series of claims starting with specific claims followed by more and more general claims. For example if you had invented the Car, you might first claim a motor vehicle with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion gasoline engine. A broader claim might be the invention described in the first claim with any kind of internal combustion engine, then with any kind of engine. Other variations might hinge on the number of wheels, etc. The original patent application contained 30 claims, and at this point the Patent Examiner had rejected all of them.

11-05-2007

And another Notice of Appeal Filed

11-05-2007

Request for Pre-Appeal Conference Filed

12-20-2007

Pre-Appeals Conference Decision – Reopen Prosecution

12-21-2007

Mail Appeals conf. Reopen Prosec.

IBM submitted a detailed defense of the claims in the patent.

12-21-2007

Date Forwarded to Examiner

12-28-2007

Mail Non-Final Rejection

04-04-2008

Request for Extension of Time – Granted

04-04-2008

Response after Non-Final Action

05-09-2008

Date Forwarded to Examiner

07-15-2008

Mail Notice of Allowance

IBM’s attorney apparently finally convinced the Patent examiner to accept the most specific claim in the patent. I assume that this is the point at which it was determined that the patent would be issued.

So it took six years and four months to convince the Patent office of the validity of the application, and just shy of fiver more months before the patent issued.

What a trip!

And to be honest, I’m rather ambivalent on the whole issue of software patents