Former pro pitcher now keeps 'strike zone' in proteins

ScienceDaily (Apr. 3, 2012) ? Perhaps no other biochemist in the world has his own baseball card, but University of Massachusetts Amherst doctoral student Elih M. Vel?zquez-Delgado, who gave up a pitching career for science, does. Now the only stats he cares about are experimental data, because, he says, "I fell in love with the fact that I can see a molecule. I can actually see an enzyme and watch how it functions. That captured me."

A native of Puerto Rico who pitched for five seasons in the minors, the Arizona and California Leagues, for the Oakland A's and San Francisco Giants' organizations, Vel?zquez-Delgado says his fast ball was hot enough but he lacked the "killer instinct" required to make it in the majors. He reflects, "I may have the ability but not the mindset."

While pursuing an undergraduate degree in chemistry from the Universidad del Turabo in Puerto Rico, Vel?zquez-Delgado came to UMass Amherst in 2006 as an under-represented minority student summer intern with the help of the Northeast Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate. He says, "I fell in love with what we do here. So I came back after I graduated to pursue a PhD degree."

Now he is working on his doctorate in the chemistry laboratory of Professor Jeanne Hardy and is about to publish his first academic paper with her. They report discoveries about an enzyme that's causally involved in Alzheimer's and Huntington's diseases in the current issue of the journal, Structure.

Though now a biochemistry researcher, Vel?zquez-Delgado still measures success in baseball terms. "The difference between being a good hitter and a bad one comes down to only 3 hits in 10 at-bats," he explains. "If you bat .300 or miss about 7 of 10 opportunities, you'll get somewhere. But if you bat .200 or miss 8 of 10 at bats, you're not going far."

"In research I feel it's the same. If you can get the same 30 percent success rate you'll be awesome. So not being depressed about the seven misses is a skill. If you work hours and hours, devoting your life to it, you'll shave that edge down until you succeed."

Hardy, his advisor, says Vel?zquez-Delgado has solved "a very difficult problem" in a remarkably short time. The goal was to use her lab's expertise in X-ray crystallography to find a way to allosterically inhibit, that is block the action of, the disease-related enzyme caspase-6. In practical terms, she points out, "if you can understand how nature inactivates caspase-6, you can perhaps make a drug that uses the same mechanism and find a treatment for the disease."

Caspase-6 is one of a family of enzymes that "chew up" or cut other proteins and are sometimes depicted as miniature Pac-man characters, all mouth, the chemists explain. One technique that has been used to inhibit their disease-causing cuts in biologically important proteins is to target the "mouth" location, figuratively shoving something in to stop it from chewing.

But the biochemists also know that nature uses another technique, exploiting a different site on the enzyme and inhibiting it there through a natural process called phosphorylation. Vel?zquez-Delgado proposed to use X-ray crystallography to see, with molecular precision, how nature inactivates caspase-6 and perhaps imitate that approach.

"Phosphorylation adds two electrical charges, so most people have assumed that they're critical to the inhibitory action," Hardy explains. "But in fact, in this whole class of enzymes nobody had ever studied how this kind of inhibition works. We suspected it was allosteric, that is not based on the "mouth" or active site, but on the position of an "ear" on the protein, but we had no idea of the molecular mechanism."

Caspases' active sites are composed of four mobile loops that can take a variety of positions. When the protein is phosphorylated at a position outside the active site, one of the four active site loops is forced in the wrong conformation for substrate binding, which means it can't cut substrate and lead to the disease state. Through a series of experiments that Hardy calls "clean and beautiful," Vel?zquez-Delgado discovered how to induce this non-binding state and reverse it again. His structural detective work suggested that by cutting off just one amino acid, the caspase would again be inhibited even in the phosphorylated state. He did the experiment, and it turned out to be correct.

"He found that of more than 5,000 atoms in the protein, if we delete three of those atoms, we reverse the effect and inhibition by phosphorylation doesn't happen. Those three atoms control this function. It's a completely new way to inhibit caspase-6, and it opens the door to developing a drug that works by the same mechanism," Hardy says.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of Massachusetts Amherst, via Newswise.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

Journal Reference:

1. Elih M. Vel?zquez-Delgado and Jeanne A. Hardy. Phosphorylation Regulates Assembly of the Caspase-6 Substrate-Binding Groove. Structure, 2012 DOI: 10.1016/j.str.2012.02.003

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

gilbert arenas dexter dexter facebook timeline kim jong il kim jong il vaclav havel

Patent opposition systems in india - Law Teacher

Patent Opposition Systems In India And Other Countries

Introduction

Many countries have laid down a procedure, in patent laws whereby a person can express his opposition against the grant of a patent or against a granted patent, by filing an opposition with the patent office of the respective country. There are two types of opposition for grant of patents: pre-grant opposition and post grant opposition. An opposition filed before the grant of a patent is called a pre grant opposition and an opposition filed after the grant of a patent is called a post grant opposition. Some countries allow both types of oppositions while some countries allow only one of the two types, based on their respective patent laws. Further, there are various grounds specified by the patent laws of different countries on the basis of which an opposition can be filed. Some of the commonly cited grounds are non-compliance with the patentability criteria and insufficient disclosure of the invention in the specifications. Sometimes a relevant prior art which was not discovered during the examination stage of a patent application, but was known by a third party may also form the basis of an opposition. The advantage of having a pre-grant opposition system is that it precludes bad or frivolous patents from getting granted. However, a common drawback of a pregrant opposition system is that it may cause a delay in grant of a patent. Similarly, the major short coming of a post-grant opposition system is that it leads to a wrongful monopoly of a patent holder until the time an opposition is filed for the patent. This document discusses about the opposition procedures as provided in India, Europe and USA based on their respective patent laws.

Opposition System In India

In India, provision for filing opposition for a patent was present since The Patents Act 1970 (henceforth referred to as The Act) came into existence. However, the original act only provided a post-grant opposition system. The Indian patent system was revolutionized on 1st January, 2005 when India signed the Trade Related Aspects Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement. Section 25 of The Act was amended in light of the TRIPS agreement to introduce a ?blended' system of both pre-grant and post-grant opposition in India.

The TRIPS Agreement is an international agreement administered by the World

Trade Organization (WTO) to harmonize the patent related rules and guidelines in

the countries party to TRIPS agreement. The TRIPS agreement introduced the

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

Product patent regime in India. It also introduced Section 3(d) in The Act which contains a list of drug forms which do not constitute patentable subject matter under The Act. According to Section 3(d) ?the mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of the substance, the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance, and the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus - unless the process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant?, is not considered as patentable subject matter. For instance, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substances shall be considered to be the same substance unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy. Many opposition cases in India are related to the section 3(d) where foreign pharmaceutical companies trying to patent a new form of a known substance in India have faced opposition charges by the generics manufacturers in India.

Pre-Grant Opposition In India

Any person (including the Government) can represent for opposition, in writing, to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks of India (henceforth referred to as Controller), against the grant of a patent after the application for a patent has been published but a patent has not been granted. The pre-grant opposition procedure acts as a safety net to capture questionable patent applications before a patent is granted on them. The pre-grant opposition can be filed on a number of grounds as specified under section 25(1) of The Act as following:

Wrongfully obtaining the invention

Prior publication in India or elsewhere

Prior claiming in India

Prior public knowledge or public use in India

Obviousness and lack of inventive step

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

Not an invention under The Act or the invention not patentable under The Act

Insufficient description of the invention

Failure to disclose information or furnishing false information pertaining to related foreign filing Patent application not filed within 12 months of filing the first application in a convention country

Wrongful mention of source and geographical origin of biological material used for the invention Invention anticipated with regard to traditional knowledge of any community, anywhere in the world

Proceedings Under Pre-Grant Opposition

Any person can file a pre-grant opposition by way of a representation to the

Controller against the grant of patent on any of the grounds mentioned in Section

2.1 above. The representation is required to include a statement, a request for hearing and evidence (if any) in support of the representation. A representation is required to be filed within a period of 6 months from the date of publication of the patent application under section 11A. The controller considers the representation only after a request for examination for that patent application has been filed.

After considering the representation, the controller notifies the applicant with a copy of the representation. The applicant is required to reply to the notification with his statement and evidence (if any) in support of his application within three months from the date of the notice. The Controller then based on the statement and evidence filed by the applicant either refuses the grant of the patent or asks the applicant for amendment of the complete specification to his satisfaction.

Finally, after considering the representation and response by the applicant the controller proceeds further by either rejecting the representation and granting the patent with amendments to the complete specification or accepting the representation and refusing the grant of the patent within one month from the

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

completion of above proceedings. The flow chart as shown in FIG. 3 below illustrates the proceedings in pre-grant opposition.

Request for examination filed by the applicant Notice for opposition filed by opponent Notice received by the applicant Hearing Response filed by the applicant

Refusal of patent

OR Amendment

OR Grant of patent

Refusal of patent

No

Yes

3 months

1 month

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

Post-Grant Opposition In India

According to the Act, a notice for a post-grant opposition can be filed by any interested person before the expiry of a period of one year from the date of publication of grant of the patent. According to The Act, an interested person includes a person engaged in, or promoting research in the same field of invention. Additionally, interested person also includes an organization that has a manufacturing or trading/financial interest in the goods related to the patented article. Similar to the pre-grant opposition, a post-grant opposition can be filed on a number of grounds as specified under section 25(2) of The Act as listed below. It is noteworthy that many of the grounds given below are similar to the grounds required for filing pre-grant opposition.

Wrongfully obtaining

Prior publication / prior claiming

Prior claiming in India

Prior public knowledge or public use in India

Obviousness and lack of inventive step

Not an invention or the invention not patentable

Insufficient description of the invention

Failure to disclose information or furnishing false information relating to

foreign filing

Convention application not filed within the prescribed time

Incorrect mention of source/geographical origin of biological material

Invention anticipated with regard to traditional knowledge of any

community anywhere in the world

Proceedings Under Post-Grant Opposition

Any interested person can oppose a granted patent by giving a notice of opposition to the Controller on any of the grounds mentioned in section 2.3 within one year from the grant of the patent.

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

An opponent is required to submit a written statement to the Controller, setting out the nature of his interest, the facts upon which he bases his case, relief which he seeks and evidence, if any, along with the notice of opposition. The opponent is also required to send a copy of the statement and evidence if any to the patentee. On receipt of the notice of opposition, the Controller notifies the patentee regarding the notice of opposition.

The Controller then constitutes an opposition board consisting of three members and nominates one of the members as the Chairman of the Board.

Also, the examiner who dealt with the application for patent during the proceeding for grant of patent is not considered eligible to be a member of the opposition board.

If the patentee desires to contest the opposition, the patentee is required to send a reply statement at the appropriate patent office setting out the grounds on which the opposition is contested and evidence if any, in support of his case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the written statement and opponent's evidence. The patentee is also required to send a copy of the reply statement to the opponent.

However, if patentee does not desire to contest the opposition or fails to send his reply and evidence within the specified period, the patent is considered to have been revoked.

The opponent may file evidence in reply at the appropriate office, within one month from the date of delivery to him of the copy of the patentee's reply statement and evidence. The reply must be strictly confined to the matters in the patentee's evidence. The opponent is also required to send a copy of his reply evidence to the patentee.

No further evidence can be delivered by either party except with the direction of Controller provided such directions are prayed before the Controller has fixed the hearing.

The opposition board then examines the notice of opposition and the filed documents mentioned above, and submits a report with reasons on each

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

ground mentioned in the notice of opposition, with its joint recommendation within 3 months from the date on which the documents were forwarded to the board.

Further, the Controller fixes a day and time for a hearing after completion of presentation of evidence if any, and on receiving the recommendation of Opposition Board. The Controller gives the parties at least 10 days notice for the hearing. Any party desiring to be heard is required to inform the Controller through a notice along with payment of prescribed fees. If neither party is desirous of being heard, then no hearing takes place and the Controller only considers the recommendation of the Board.

After hearing and considering recommendations of the Opposition Board, the Controller decides the opposition case and notifies the parties of his decision and costs awarded if any, giving reasons there for.

The flow chart as shown in FIG. 4 below illustrates the proceedings in a postgrant opposition.

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

Notice of opposition filed by opponent

Notice of opposition received by patentee

Opponent received the response

Hearing

Response filed by patentee

Revocation of patent

OR Amendment (in bibliographic data

only) OR Maintaining the patent

Revocation of patent

No

Yes

Patent granted

Response filed by the opponent

2 months

1 month

FIG. 4: Post-grant Opposition proceedings

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

Landmark Cases Of Opposition In India

Novartis AG vs. Natco Pharma Ltd.

An application for patent was filed in India on 17th July, 1998 by Novartis AG,

Switzerland, claiming Switzerland priority date of 18th July, 1997. Upon publication, the grant of patent was opposed by Natco Pharma Ltd., India on 26th

May, 2005. The grounds for opposition were:

Anticipation by prior publication

Lack of inventive step

Non-patentability under section 3(d)

Wrongfully claiming the priority

The title compound was already known in a US patent (filed in 1993). The US patent claimed a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of the base compound. Another

Document, ?Nature Medicine? (5th May, 1996) also described the title compound.

Also, the claimed salt inherently existed in the most stable form of the salt. Hence, the claims of the application for the product and process in respect of the title compound stood anticipated by prior publications. Additionally, based on section 3(d) the product claim amounted to a mere discovery of the new form of the known substance. Further, the application had claimed Swiss priority, but Switzerland was not a convention country on the date of filing in Switzerland.

Hence, no priority of Swiss application could be claimed in respect of the Indian application.

In view of the above findings and arguments the Controller ruled that the above patent application cannot proceed for grant of patent.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. Vs. Godrej Soaps

In another landmark case a patent filed by Hindustan Lever Ltd. on 14th Oct., 1992 in India was opposed by Godrej Soaps Ltd. The patent had two priorities of UK

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

Dated 14th Oct, 1991 and 14th July, 1992 and was granted on 18th May, 1996 in India. The grounds of opposition were:

Prior publication

Prior public use and prior public knowledge

Obviousness and lack of inventive step

Non-patentability

Insufficiency and clarity of description

The applicant has failed to disclose to the Controller the information required by section 8 or has furnished the information which in any material particular was false to his knowledge After the hearing it was concluded that the teachings of the cited exhibits were insufficient to prove the grounds of opposition mentioned above. The applicant amended the claims and specifications to make their point clear and to overcome the opponent's allegations.

After considering notice of opposition, statements and evidences from both of the parties and hearing, the opposition was dismissed.

Opposition System In Europe

European Patent Office (EPO) has a system of post-grant opposition. According to

Article 99 of the European Patent Convention (EPC), an opposition for a European patent (henceforth referred to as EP patent) can be filed by any person within nine months of the publication of the mention of the grant of the EP patent in the European Patent Bulletin (EPB). An opponent is required to give a notice to the EPO of opposition to that EP patent along with payment of required fees. The opposition applies to the EP patent in all contracting states in which that EP patent has effect. Opposition may only be filed on the following grounds under Article 100 of EPC:

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

Subject matter of the EP patent is not patentable

The EP patent does not disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art Subject matter of the EP patent extends beyond the content of the application as filed, or, if the patent was granted on a divisional application or on a new application filed beyond the content of the earlier application as filed.

Proceedings Under Opposition At Epo

Any person may give notice of opposition to an EP patent with prescribed fee to the EPO, within nine months of the publication of the mention of the grant of the EP patent in the EPB.

Notice of opposition is required to be filed in a written reasoned statement.

The notice of opposition should contain particulars of the opponent, number and title of the EP patent against which opposition is filed, name of the proprietor of the patent (also known as patentee), a statement of the grounds on which the opposition is based, as well as an indication of the facts and evidence presented in support of these grounds.

An Opposition Division is formed by the EPO for the examination of opposition against the EP patent. An Opposition Division consists of three technically qualified examiners, at least two of them are those who were not a part of the proceedings for grant of the EP patent facing opposition.

If the notice of opposition does not comply with the desired requirements, the Opposition Division rejects the opposition as inadmissible, unless the deficiencies are remedied within a specified time period.

The Opposition Division communicates the notice of opposition to the proprietor of the EP patent and gives him the opportunity to file his observations and to amend, where appropriate, the description, claims and drawings within a specified period of time.

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

If several notices of opposition have been filed, the Opposition Division communicates them to the other opponents.

The Opposition Division also communicates any observations and amendments filed by the proprietor of the EP patent to the other parties and may invite the other parties to reply within a specified time period.

The Opposition Division examines those grounds for opposition which are invoked in the opponent's statement. Grounds for opposition not invoked by the opponent may also be examined by the Opposition Division of its own motion if they would prejudice the maintenance of the European patent.

During the examination, the Opposition Division invites the parties, as often as necessary, to file observations on communications from another party or issued by itself.

If the Opposition Division is of the opinion that at least one ground for opposition prejudices the maintenance of the EP patent, the Opposition Division revokes the EP patent, else, the Opposition Division rejects the opposition.

If however, the Opposition Division after considering the amendments made by the proprietor of the EP patent during the opposition proceedings is of the opinion that the EP patent meets the requirement of the EPC, it maintains the EP patent as amended, else, it revokes the EP patent.

If the EP patent is maintained as amended by the Opposition Division, the EPO publishes a new specification of the EP patent as soon as possible after the mention of the opposition decision has been published in the EPB.

Re-Examination Procedure In United States Of America (Usa)

USA has the provision of a re-examination procedure to challenge the validity of a granted patent. Any person (or a third-party) at any time during the period of enforceability of a patent, may cite to the United States Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO), any prior art which that person believes to have a bearing on the

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

patentability of any claim of a particular patent. A request for re-examination by the USPTO is required to be filed in writing along with the payment of required reexamination fee by the requestor. The request is also required to set forth the pertinency and manner of applying cited prior art to every claim for which reexamination is requested.

There are two types of re-examination procedures in USA: Ex parte re-examination and inter partes re-examination. Congress introduced ex parte reexamination in 1980 to provide a vehicle for a third party or patent owner to obtain reexamination of a patent. Ex parte re-examination of patents, and the procedures for same, were established by Congress to serve as an expedited, low-cost alternative to patent litigation for reviewing only certain aspects of patent validity, based on patents and printed publications. However, subsequent Congressional review indicated infrequent use of ex parte re-examination, primarily because a third party who requested re-examination was unable to participate in the examination stage of the re-examination after initiating the reexamination proceeding. To address these concerns, Congress enacted the "Optional Inter Partes Reexamination Procedure Act of 1999" as Subtitle F of the "American

Inventors Protection Act of 1999" (AIPA). Under the inter partes re-examination procedure, the third party can participate in the examination stage of the reexamination proceeding, appeal to the USPTO's administrative Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) and participate in the patent owner's appeal to the BPAI.

A re-examination proceeding is concluded by publication of a re-examination certificate. The certificate amends the text of the patent that was re-examined, in a manner similar to a certificate of correction. The re-examination certificate contains the text of all changes to the text of the patent that was the subject matter of the re-examination proceeding. Finally, Publication of a re-examination certificate is announced in the Official Gazette.

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

Proceedings Under Ex Parte Re-Examination

Proceedings under ex parte re-examination system have been provided under 35

USC ?301 - 35 USC ?307. Any person may file a request for re-examination by the

USPTO, of any claim of a patent on the basis of any prior art cited in writing and accompanied by payment of an ex parte re-examination fee. The request must set forth the pertinency and manner of applying cited prior art to every claim for which re-examination is requested. After receiving a request for re-examination,

the Director of USPTO (henceforth referred to as Director) sends a copy of the request to the owner of the patent, unless the requesting person himself is the owner of the patent. In ex parte re-examination procedure, at a written request of the person citing the prior art, his or her identity can be excluded from the official file of the patent and kept confidential.

Within three months following the filing of a request for re-examination, the Director determines whether a substantial new question of patentability, affecting any claim of the patent concerned, is raised by the request, with or without consideration of the prior art cited by the requestor or discovered by the Director on his own. In case the Director determines that there is no substantial new question of patentability raised, the determination is considered final and nonappealable.

If, however, the Director finds that a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of a patent is raised, the determination by the Director includes an order for re-examination of the patent. A record of the Director's determination is placed in the official file of the patent, and a copy of the determination is sent to the owner of the patent and to the person requesting re-examination.

The patent owner is then provided a period of two months from the date of mailing of the Director's determination to him, to file a statement, including any amendment to his patent and new claim or claims he may wish to propose, for consideration in the re-examination. However, no proposed, amended or new claim enlarging the scope of a claim of the patent is permitted in a re-examination

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

proceeding. The patent owner is also required to serve a copy of his statement to the person who has requested re-examination. Subsequently, the requestor may file within a period of two months from the date of service, a reply to the statement filed by the patent owner and also serve the patent owner a copy of the reply filed.

After the time limits for filing the statement and reply have expired, reexamination is conducted by the Director. In any re-examination proceeding the patent owner is permitted to propose any amendment to his patent and a new claim or claims thereto, in order to distinguish the invention as claimed from the prior art cited. The patent owner involved in a re-examination proceeding may also appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) with respect to any decision adverse to the patentability of any original or proposed amended or new claim of the patent. When the time for appeal has expired or any appeal proceeding has terminated, the Director issues and publishes a certificate canceling any claim of the patent finally determined to be unpatentable, confirming any claim of the patent determined to be patentable, and incorporating in the patent any proposed amended or new claim determined to be patentable.

Proceedings Under Inter Partes Re-Examination

Proceedings under inter partes re-examination system have been provided under 35 USC ?311 - 35 USC ?318. In a request for an inter partes re-examination, a third party is required to include in writing the identity of the real party in interest and set forth the pertinency and manner of applying cited prior art to every claim for which re-examination is requested, accompanied by payment of an inter partes re-examination fee. The Director after receipt of such a request sends a copy of the request to the owner of the patent.

Not later than 3 months after the filing of a request for inter partes reexamination, the Director determines whether a substantial new question of patentability affecting any claim of the patent concerned is raised by the request,

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

with or without consideration of the prior art. In case the Director determines that there is no substantial new question of patentability raised, the determination is considered final and non-appealable. If however, the Director finds that a substantial new question of patentability affecting a claim of a patent is raised, the determination of the Director includes an order for inter partes re-examination of the patent. The order may be accompanied by the initial action of the USPTO on the merits of the inter partes re-examination conducted. A record of the Director's determination is then placed in the official file of the patent, and a copy of the determination is mailed to the owner of the patent and to the third-party requester.

Once an order for inter partes re-examination of a patent has been issued, the patent owner may obtain a stay of any pending litigation which involves an issue of patentability of any claims of the patent which are the subject of the inter partes re-examination order.

In any inter partes re-examination proceeding, the patent owner is permitted to propose any amendment to the patent and a new claim or claims, except that no proposed amended or new claim enlarging the scope of the claims of the patent are permitted. With the exception of the inter partes re-examination request, any document filed by either the patent owner or the third-party requester is required to be served on the other party. In addition, the USPTO sends to the third-party requester a copy of any communication sent by the USPTO to the patent owner concerning the inter partes re-examination proceeding. Each time the patent owner files a response to an action on the merits of the patent from the USPTO, the third-party requester is provided one opportunity to file written comments addressing issues raised by the action of the USPTO or the patent owner's response thereto.

The patent owner involved in an inter partes re-examination proceeding may appeal with respect to any decision adverse to the patentability of any original or proposed amended or new claim of the patent. Further, even the third-party

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

requester may appeal with respect to any final decision favorable to the patentability of any original or proposed amended or new claim of the patent. In an inter partes re-examination proceeding, when the time for appeal has expired or any appeal proceeding has terminated, the Director issues and publishes a certificate canceling any claim of the patent finally determined to be unpatentable, confirming any claim of the patent determined to be patentable, and incorporating in the patent any proposed amended or new claim determined to be patentable.

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

List Of Acronyms

AIPA - American Inventors Protection Act

BPAI - Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

EPB - European Patent Bulletin

EPC - European Patent Convention

EPO - European Patent Office

TRIPS - Trade Related Aspects Intellectual Property Rights

USPTO - States Patents and Trademarks Office

WTO - World Trade Organization

IPpro Services (India) P. Ltd.

References

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2200.htm

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/usc_sup_01_35_10_III.html

http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legal-texts/html/epc/2000/e/apv.html

http://www.epo.org/patents/law/legaltexts/

html/epc/2000/e/rcv_i.html

http://www.ficci.com/media-room/speechespresentations/

2008/sep/Day2/session4/PCGandhi.pdf

http://www.who.int/hiv/amds/MSFopinion.pdf

http://www.patentoffice.nic.in/ipr/patent/DraftPatent_Manual_2008.pdf

http://www.patentoffice.nic.in/ipr/patent/patents_filing.pdf

Do you need to translate this page?

To translate this page into another language, please select the correct language from the box below.

Subscribe below and get new essay/resource uploads direct to your inbox

Did you know that we also provide a service that can help you in other law areas such as:

Want to see what our customers say about us? Click here to watch our video.

Want to become a writer for Law Teacher and earn up to ?4,000 per month? Click here now!

Secure your law degree, order your family law essay right now!

chipper jones dancing with the stars cast mickael pietrus george zimmerman heart transplant the international preppers

S.Sudan: Sudan bombing country to scare investors

South Sudan Minister of Information, Barnaba Marial Benjamin speaks to journalists in Nairobi, Kenya, Monday, April 2, 2012. The government of South Sudan says it is not satisfied with the mediation role of the African Union in resolving its disputes with Sudan. South Sudan Government spokesman Barnaba said Monday that South Sudan is disappointed by a report by the AU to the U.N. Security Council that he said portrayed South Sudan as the aggressor in the hostilities between the two countries. (AP Photo/Khalil Senosi)

South Sudan Minister of Information, Barnaba Marial Benjamin speaks to journalists in Nairobi, Kenya, Monday, April 2, 2012. The government of South Sudan says it is not satisfied with the mediation role of the African Union in resolving its disputes with Sudan. South Sudan Government spokesman Barnaba said Monday that South Sudan is disappointed by a report by the AU to the U.N. Security Council that he said portrayed South Sudan as the aggressor in the hostilities between the two countries. (AP Photo/Khalil Senosi)

South Sudan Minister of Information, Barnaba Marial Benjamin speaks to journalists in Nairobi, Kenya, Monday, April 2, 2012. The government of South Sudan says it is not satisfied with the mediation role of the African Union in resolving its disputes with Sudan. South Sudan Government spokesman Barnaba said Monday that South Sudan is disappointed by a report by the AU to the U.N. Security Council that he said portrayed South Sudan as the aggressor in the hostilities between the two countries. (AP Photo/Khalil Senosi)

South Sudan Minister of Information, Barnaba Marial Benjamin speaks to journalists in Nairobi, Kenya, Monday, April. 2, 2012. The government of South Sudan says it is not satisfied with the mediation role of the African Union in resolving its disputes with Sudan. South Sudan Government spokesman Barnaba said Monday that South Sudan is disappointed by a report by the AU to the U.N. Security Council that he said portrayed South Sudan as the aggressor in the hostilities between the two countries. (AP Photo/Khalil Senosi)

NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) ? Sudan is bombing oil-rich regions of South Sudan in order to scare away American and Chinese investors, a South Sudan official said Monday, as U.S. President Barack Obama expressed concern about the growing tensions between the two countries.

South Sudan government spokesman Barnaba Marial Benjamin said Sudan is bombarding disputed areas in South Sudan despite a Feb. 10 nonaggression and cooperation pact signed by both countries in African Union-led negotiations in Ethiopia.

"As we speak today they are continuing bombing villages," Benjamin said.

Sudan described as "false and unfounded" claims by South Sudan that Khartoum was attacking and occupying southern Sudan territories.

A statement issued by Sudan's government delegation to the talks to resolve disputes between the two countries in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, instead accused South Sudan of attacking a region in Sudan.

Sudan and South Sudan have previously blamed each other for starting the conflict in the disputed regions.

President Obama asked South Sudan President Salva Kiir in a telephone conversation to ensure that South Sudan's military exercises maximum restraint and is not involved in or supporting fighting along the border, according to a statement from the White House. Obama said it is important for the two sides to reach an agreement on oil.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on the governments of Sudan and South Sudan "to immediately cease hostilities" and implement agreements already reached on security, border monitoring and the disputed border region of Abyei, U.N. spokesman Martin Nesirky said.

Ban called on Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to meet with Kiir as soon as possible, Nesirky said.

A meeting scheduled between the two leaders for Tuesday was canceled by Sudan.

Benjamin said the despite the bombings South Sudan still would welcome al-Bashir to meet with Kiir.

Benjamin, who is also South Sudan's minister for information and broadcasting, linked the bombings in the Upper Nile, Unity and Western Bahr Al Ghazal states to South Sudan's shutting down of its oil sector earlier this year. Landlocked South Sudan shut down oil production in January, saying that its northern neighbor had stolen oil which was meant to be exported through Sudan.

Benjamin said since South Sudan stopped production, Sudan increased aerial bombardment of the disputed areas and organized ground attacks in late March which were repulsed by the South Sudanese troops.

He accused Sudan of trying to scare away investors, including American and Chinese companies, in the oil-rich regions where there are plans to build oil refineries which he said will be operational in six to seven months. The oil refineries will help South Sudan process some oil to help meet local demand, he said.

Echoing the words of South Sudan's president, Benjamin said South Sudan remains committed to peace and would fight back only to defend its territorial integrity.

"We will not be dragged into a senseless war," he said.

Benjamin also complained that the African Union is not doing a satisfactory job mediating talks with Sudan. South Sudan is disappointed by an AU report to the U.N. Security Council that Benjamin said portrayed his country as the aggressor in hostilities between the two countries. He suggested that a regional bloc known as IGAD take over.

The seven-nation IGAD ? the Inter Governmental Authority for Development ? negotiated the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended a decades-long civil war between Sudan and South Sudan. That deal led to South Sudan's secession from Sudan last year.

Among the unresolved issues from the split is the demarcation of the border and an agreement to share oil revenue.

Benjamin said South Sudan shutdown its oil production because Sudan had stolen millions of barrels of oil and increased oil transit fee through its pipeline to $36 a barrel. Benjamin said it was better that South Sudan's oil stay in the ground.

Benjamin said that South Sudan will construct two pipelines ? one to Kenya and one across Ethiopia into Djibouti. Benjamin said the South Sudan is also seeking international loans in order to fill in the budget deficit caused by the shutdown in oil production.

___

Associated Press write Mohamed Osman contributed to this report in Khartoum, Sudan.

Associated Press

referendum scarlett johansson glee project winner kris humphries remember the titans wale wale

8th Annual Builders St. Charles Home Show is April 20-22 at the St ...

The Home Builders Association of St. Louis and Eastern Missouri will again bring the best of its quality Builders Home & Garden Show to St. Charles, Lincoln and Warren Counties. The 8th Annual Builders St. Charles Home Show will be held Friday, April 20 through Sunday, April 22 at the St. Charles Convention Center. Find the latest home products and helpful information in your own backyard!

The Builders St. Charles Home Show is the place to see, learn about and buy the latest home products and services from reputable companies you can trust. Find windows, doors, fencing, decks, kitchen and bath products, pools, spas, home accessories and much more ? plus national and local speakers present helpful seminars.

The St. Charles Convention Center is conveniently located just off Interstate 70 at Fifth Street in St. Charles. The state-of-the-art facility is an ideal venue for a county home show, with 62,000 square feet of exhibit space and 1,100 FREE parking spaces. The show will include approximately 350 booths from 250 quality companies, filling both levels of the Convention Center.

Attend a seminar by horticulturist, author and lecturer Erica Glasener to learn how to solve your gardening problems. Erica is best known for her award-winning work on HGTV?s A Gardener?s Diary, which she hosted for 14 years. She has an ornamental horticulture degree and has written numerous articles and several books. Her seminars will be filled with great information for both the experienced and the new gardener. Topics include Designing a Four Season Garden; Plant This with That ? Stunning Combinations for Sun and Shade; and Perennials for Every Purpose.

Jeff Holper, The Mole Hunter presents Taking Your Lawn Back from Moles and Voles, an educational, entertaining program to help you get rid of moles, voles and other vermin in your yard. Bring your questions and your bugs, and let him help you with your pest problems. Scott Mosby, KMOX Home Answer Man will talk about The Best Place to Spend your Home Improvement Dollars. And visit the Mosby Solution Center where a group of local home care experts can give you answers to all of your home improvement questions.

Attend floral design seminars full of fun, innovative ideas presented by Walter Knoll Florist?s world-class design team at the Walter Knoll Floral Stage. Learn how to create fantastic floral decorations that will impress your guests and make your home beautiful. Each seminar may include information about these techniques: floating arrangements, flower bundles, bouquets created in foam, basket designs and vase arrangements. You could even be chosen to have a hands-on floral experience!

Don?t miss the 6th Annual St. Charles Sausage Festival & Wine Tasting. This special feature area will have free tastings from local sausage producers and wineries. Show visitors can try tasty samples and purchase items to take home. Davis Meat Processing, Swiss Meat & Sausage Co., and Williams Brothers Meat Co. will offer tastings of summer sausages, snack sticks, smoked link sausages and bratwursts, and specialty sausages like cheddar, apple and andouillette. Attendees can also taste wines from Fahrmeier Family Vineyards, located in Lexington, MO, Mount Pleasant Winery, located in Augusta, MO and Stone Hill Winery, located in Hermann, MO. Varieties available to taste may include Chambourcin, Chardonel, Traminette, Vignoles, Vidal and Norton, among others.

Then shop for great bargains at the Building Products Warehouse Sale. Habitat for Humanity of St. Charles County, a local affiliate of Habitat for Humanity International, has a retail store in St. Peters. The Habitat for Humanity ReStore sells new and used home improvement merchandise to the public at deeply discounted prices. They are bringing a mini Habitat ReStore to the Show, so visitors can shop for great deals on home improvement merchandise. Items may include doors, cabinetry, appliances, sinks, and smaller items like nails, screws, tile and light fixtures. The merchandise is great for the average home owner, rental property owners and contractors of all levels. All proceeds benefit Habitat for Humanity of St. Charles County.

Bring the kids to the St. Charles Home Show for family fun. Kids will love the shows by Magician and Ventriloquist, Mike Niehaus. Mike has a fresh and funny approach to comedy, magic and ventriloquism, and his highly energetic style makes for a hilarious experience. Don?t miss this fun, family-friendly show, sponsored by Suburban Journals.

Visit the Ultimate Outdoor Living Space, created by Rivers West Landscaping for inspiration on how to turn your backyard into the outdoor space you have always wanted. Learn how to create an area that is perfect for all of your family?s entertaining needs, and register to win a $1,000 Pavestone stone fire pit kit and circle paver patio package (restrictions apply).

Are you looking to do some home improvements? Visiting the show is the first step. Finding the products and services you need and the companies who can help will go a long way toward getting that project done.

Show hours are 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on Friday, April 20 and Saturday, April 21 and 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, April 22. Admission and parking are free. For more information, visit www.STLHomeShow.com.

The Home Builders Associaton of St. Louis and Eastern Missouri is a local trade association representing the residential construction industry. Along with member services, the HBA produces 3 highly-regarded, well-attended consumer Home Shows each year.

###

Keywords

home improvement, remodeling, gardening, landscaping, building products

Read other press releases

state of the union address 2012 obama state of the union 2012 2012 state of the union address state of the union sotu boehner john boehner

Whitney Houston's 'Sparkle' Trailer Debuts

We finally get a glimpse of singer/actress' final performance.
By Fallon Prinzivalli

Whitney Houston in "Sparkle"
Photo: Sony Pictures

The trailer for Whitney Houston's "Sparkle" debuted Monday (April 2), giving fans a sneak peek at the singer/actress' final performance.

The first glimpse of Houston in the trailer shows her character, Emma, dancing to the Motown music her daughters are playing in the living room, sung by one Cee Lo Green. Houston jokes, "Yeah, y'all like that, huh? Makes you want to dance, huh? I'm going to get it and you will too. Keep dancing like that, you'll bring home some kid you can't feed." The humor continues as her daughters jump into bed together to hide from Emma after arriving home after their curfew. "My babies," she says. "I know y'all don't love each other that much."

As the trailer progresses, the comedy dims and the weight of fame takes its toll. On the precipice of getting a record deal, Emma is hesitant to let her daughters pursue music as a career. She says, "Was my life not enough of a cautionary tale for you?" And while the sisters cope with the spotlight, one deals with an abusive marriage that may force her to abandon her dream.

The trailer shows a preview of a performance that will leave fans amazed, while at the same time feeling the great loss the music industry suffered with Houston's death.

Co-star Derek Luke shared his thoughts on Houston's last performance when MTV News spoke to him at the Independent Spirit Awards. "The beautiful thing about being in 'Sparkle' is that we had something that was recorded that I can hold onto, and in that time, me and my wife and Whitney ... the other cast, we really bonded," he said of working with the star. "Whitney did an amazing job, so I can't wait for people to see it and there's no great way to go out, but what a performance she had."

The movie centers on three talented sisters who deal with the struggles of fame after they form a musical group. Houston not only starred in the remake of the 1976 Irene Cara film, but was executive producer as well. "It was definitely her baby," Jordin Sparks told Entertainment Weekly about Houston's role in "Sparkle."

Sparks stars as Sparkle Williams, the title role. "Even before she passed I wanted to be able to represent this movie in a way that would honor her and respect her, because she worked so hard on it. With her passing, it's definitely been a lot more pressure." From the looks of the trailer, she has nothing to be nervous about. We think Whitney Houston would've been very proud.

"Sparkle" is scheduled to hit theaters on August 17.

Check out everything we've got on "Sparkle."

For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com.

Related Artists

• Whitney Houston
• Jordin Sparks

earthquake california earthquake california curmudgeon daylight savings time 2011 bobolink bobolink breeders cup

Death anxiety increases atheists' unconscious belief in God

ScienceDaily (Apr. 2, 2012) ? New University of Otago research suggests that when non-religious people think about their own death they become more consciously skeptical about religion, but unconsciously grow more receptive to religious belief.

The Department of Psychology research also found that when religious people think about death, their religious beliefs appear to strengthen at both conscious and unconscious levels. The researchers believe the findings help explain why religion is such a durable feature of human society.

In three studies, which involved 265 university students in total, religious and nonreligious participants were randomly assigned to "death priming" and control groups. Priming involved asking participants to write about their own death or, in the control condition, about watching TV.

In the first study, researchers found that death-primed religious participants consciously reported greater belief in religious entities than similar participants who had not been death-primed. Non-religious participants who had been primed showed the opposite effect: they reported greater disbelief than their fellow non-religious participants in the control condition.

Study co-author Associate Professor Jamin Halberstadt says these results fit with the theory that fear of death prompts people to defend their own worldview, regardless of whether it is a religious or non-religious one.

"However, when we studied people's unconscious beliefs in the two later experiments, a different picture emerged. While death-priming made religious participants more certain about the reality of religious entities, non-religious participants showed less confidence in their disbelief," Associate Professor Halberstadt says.

The techniques used to study unconscious beliefs include measuring the speed with which participants can affirm or deny the existence of God and other religious entities. After being primed by thoughts of death, religious participants were faster to press a button to affirm God's existence, but non-religious participants were slower to press a button denying God's existence.

"These findings may help solve part of the puzzle of why religion is such a persistent and pervasive feature of society. Fear of death is a near-universal human experience and religious beliefs are suspected to play an important psychological role in warding off this anxiety. As we now show, these beliefs operate at both a conscious and unconscious level, allowing even avowed atheists to unconsciously take advantage of them."

The paper co-authors also included Jonathan Jong, currently at the University of Oxford, who undertook the experiments as part of his PhD thesis, and Matthias Bluemke, currently at the University of Heidelberg. Associate Professor Halberstadt was Jong's supervisor.

The findings from the three experiments will be published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of Otago.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

Journal Reference:

1. Jonathan Jong, Jamin Halberstadt, Matthias Bluemke. Foxhole atheism, revisited: The effects of mortality salience on explicit and implicit religious belief. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2012 [link]

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

jay cutler oscar nominations rough riders joy division dodd frank norco rand paul detained

Police in Ky. assess handling of post-game mayhem

Kentucky fans dance around a fire on State Street as they celebrate Kentucky's 69-61 win over Louisville in an NCAA Final Four semifinal college basketball tournament game, Saturday, March 31, 2012, in Lexington, Ky. (AP Photo/The Courier-Journal, Amy Wallot) NO SALES; MAGS OUT; NO ARCHIVE; MANDATORY CREDIT

Kentucky fans dance around a fire on State Street as they celebrate Kentucky's 69-61 win over Louisville in an NCAA Final Four semifinal college basketball tournament game, Saturday, March 31, 2012, in Lexington, Ky. (AP Photo/The Courier-Journal, Amy Wallot) NO SALES; MAGS OUT; NO ARCHIVE; MANDATORY CREDIT

Kentucky fans uproot a traffic sign on the corner of Elizabeth and State Streets as they celebrate Kentucky's 69-61 win over Louisville in an NCAA Final Four semifinal college basketball tournament game, Saturday, March 31, 2012, in Lexington, Ky. (AP Photo/The Lexington Herald-Leader, Jonathan Palmer)

Kentucky fans flip a car on State Street as they celebrate Kentucky's 69-61 win over Louisville in an NCAA Final Four semifinal college basketball tournament game, Saturday, March 31, 2012, in Lexington, Ky. (AP Photo/The Lexington Herald-Leader, Jonathan Palmer)

Kentucky fans burn furniture and dance in the middle of State Street as they celebrate Kentucky's 69-61 win over Louisville in an NCAA Final Four semifinal college basketball tournament game, Saturday, March 31, 2012, in Lexington, Ky. (AP Photo/The Lexington Herald-Leader, Jonathan Palmer)

Police said Sunday that they are satisfied with their work to control the crowds that spilled onto the street after the University of Kentucky defeated crosstown rival Louisville, despite the images of rowdy revelers burning couches and a car that had been flipped over.

So while authorities are evaluating how things went as they prepare for the possibility of more celebrations ahead of Monday night's Final Four Championship game, they aren't anticipating big changes to their plans.

The Lexington Herald-Leader reported that police had to dodge beer bottles while putting out dozens of fires in the streets.

Lexington police spokeswoman Sherelle Roberts said there were less than 20 people arrested, no serious injuries and no serious property damage. She said nothing happened that wasn't anticipated and that police were "very pleased."

"I think we did pretty good, all things considered," she said.

She said the department would meet Sunday afternoon to evaluate things and determine whether any adjustments are needed Monday, when the Wildcats play in the championship.

Kentucky guard Doron Lamb said he wasn't surprised to hear about the mayhem.

"I knew it was going to happen," he said. "Our fans are real crazy about us. If we win tomorrow, it'll be even more crazy."

Police had braced for the possibility of post-game violence and resorted to pepper spray, though large amounts weren't needed before they ultimately began dispersing the throngs, Roberts said.

She said 150 officers deployed on the streets at one point to quell what she called "a very dangerous situation" with the fires and violence that dragged on for hours.

The scene was similar in 1998 when Kentucky won the national championship game. That year, 300 officers in full riot gear lined downtown streets as a mob of nearly 15,000 fans celebrated.

Police made 10 arrests, and 25 people were treated for minor injuries.

Two years prior to that, though, chaos ensued following Kentucky's championship game ? officers were pelted with beer bottles, and a television news crew's van was overturned.

___

Associated Press Writer Colin Fly contributed to this report from New Orleans.

Associated Press

joe philbin miss america pageant 2012 shipwreck jose aldo vs chad mendes lana del rey john 3 16 alex smith 49ers