What Are the Strengths of A Z Patent?
Go back to home page || Go back to last page
1. A Z Patent Innovation in Professional Tools
A Z Patent is probably a pioneer who has successfully separated three components in any typical legal work: legal component,scientific component and administrative component and find a way to handle them efficiently. The following
example will give you a clear picture that shows how the three components are integrated into one.
When a patent attorney receives an office action from the Patent and Trademark Office, where the examiner rejects a patent claim on the ground that limitation "fastener"is too broad. From his own experience, the attorney agrees to replace broad "fastener" with narrower "pin". This job function is purely a legal component. It took the attorney perhaps 30 minutes to review the office action and relevant case law, and make the decision. The attorney then will need about 2 hours to
There are many legal work contains actually science components. Central argument on probabilities (e.g., what might have happened?) in each trial and appeal case is within the field of mathematicians and statisticians. Attorneys struggle daily in dealing with this question, and they routinely hire expert witnesses. A central dispute often sounds like "what is the odd that
a defective tie will blow up?" Clearly, a tire engineer is in a much better position to answer this question than attorneys.
In carving patent claims, the most critical issue is also of science nature: how to design claims with varying scopes so they can catch future infringers with the best chances. From the surface, it is a question of both science and law. However, after John Wu, Ph.D., carefully studied the problem, he found they are separable. An attorney drafts the broadest claim commonly known as base
claim. The narrowest claim for a given invention is implied by inventors' disclosure and prior art incorporated. When the attorney and the inventor have defined the broadest and the narrowest end of the ladder, the rest task--to place steps in the ladder between the two ends--contain more science component than law. This is similar to designing multi-layers fishnets that are intended to catch fish of various sizes without catching fish that is smaller than the minimum legal size. The fishnet designers do not know where and when the fishnet will be used and what the minimum legal size will be. It is similar to patent cases where the drafter does not know who will infringe it, when a person will infringe it, and how the person will infringe it.How to put dozens limitations together to defeat an elusive and manipulative future infringer is largely a question of science.Obviously, attorneys are not schooled to handle this kind of question. A mathematician, who is trained in probabilities and statistics, or a smart gambler, who has developed good intuition on odds from gambling career, are in a better position to tackle the problem. This precisely explains why no attorney has ever tackled this
very critical problem in depth. Instead, the profession gets around the headache problem by experience and unspoken teachings. There is no guideline on how to design claims' ladder-like structure in any detail.Most of claim structures have "flatten" ladder shape because it is easy to draft.
Following the conventional thinking, it is absolutely impossible to sever any of those components from the rest. A Z Patent has tackled this issue persistently and found a way to sever them. Upon successful separation of those components, attorney's time will be reduced to only a fraction. Both the science component and the administrative component can be delegated to a CPU that runs a program
designed to perform such administrative and science functions. A 1.6 MHz Pentium 4 can easily beat hundreds of attorneys who perform this component function. That is why the firm can deliver services with productivity in different magnitudes. Unfortunately,
such professional tools are not designed for general users just like chip-designing tools that are only for professional chip-designers.
This explains why the firm can offer low fixed fee services. It is able to eliminate a great deal of repetitive administrative time and efficiently take care of intertwined administrative component and science component by novel computer algorithms.
2. Professional tools: PatentMill(v1.1) and DocStudio(v1.3)
While A Z Patent is a relatively new professional business, but it has rich proprietary professional tools such as PatentMill (v1.1) and DocStudio (v1.3). Those professional tools are developed based upon the promise to deliver the highest productivity theoretically possible. For many tasks such as making amendments, they are capable of reducing hours of billable time into
minutes or one click.
All tools are developed to perform specific functions with the minimum key strokes possible. Yet, such tools do not impose any restraints on content or attorney's judgment. The drafter is allowed to create content ab initio. Its newly added professional tool, DocStudio (v1.3) can write document according to drafter's instructions. The result could be a client letter, a retainer agreement, and licensing agreement, a service agreement, articles of incorporation, or a 200-page merge agreement in a selected style. For example,
to select multiple level nested heading style or one-level heading style with title, the only difference is to select a different key. (It takes less than one key stroke to make a complete different style.) Such documents also maintain accurate mathematical results (number input and result output may be anywhere in the document) and correct internal reference which is updated when it is
revised.
DocStudio gives the firm another sharp edge. Amending patent applications using the conventional method is very time-consuming and the task cannot be delegated to secretaries. However, the task of making amendments can be delegated to a CPU. While the current version PatentMill permits patent attorneys to rewrite and amend patent claims easily, it does not have the capability to generate a document explaining the differences between the original and amended applications. To satisfy the requirement of the Patent and Trademark Office, the patent attorney has to spend a great deal of time to write out what is added and what is deleted. A Z Patent intends to improve existing tools so that they are capable of automatically generating a clean copy and a marked-up copy of an patent application, and an explanation note pointing out all changes (except for legal arguments) automatically whenever a patent application is amended. This is equivalent to reducing many hours of attorney's work into one error-free click. Its productivity will reach apex or a theoretical limit. At this point, it is absolutely feasible to add this function except that it takes a great deal of time to implement the idea.
For clients who want to see such work, A Z Patent will be glad to send them samples. In dealing with complex inventions, such
profession tools, which contain complex computation algorithms, can break human IQ's barrier in constructing claim structures.
3.Inventions that A Z Patent handle
A Z Patent Law Firm is different from other law firms in many aspects. While it will prosecute any invention the firm is competent to handle, it has the technical strength for handling inventions that involve complex technology and requires highly specialized knowledge and experience in chemistry, biochemistry, biological science, biotechnology, material science, physics, biophysics, electronics and devices, laser and telecommunication, food technology and processing engineering, bioengineering, computer software, and simple
appliances. If a client hires a wrong patent attorney who lacks technical strength to handle the invention, the client will pay a lot more attorney fees if the charges are based upon billable hours.If you have really complicated inventions in your hands and cannot find a right patent attorney for your inventions, the chances are that A Z Patent may be able to handle them.
The firm also handles appeal cases in front of the board of Patent Appeals, District Court for the District Columbia (de novo trial), and The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (judicial review).
For more information, please contact the firm
Go back to home page || Go back to last page
|
