A OTO WIEKSZY KONTEKST; PORWANI POLACY SA ZDOLNI DOKONYWANIA
INWENCJI - PODOBNO DOSTALI SATELITARNY DOSTEP; POPRZEDNIO
ZAPROPONOWALI WIEL DLA FILADELFII; TERAZ NIE MAM KONTAKTU


   ( OSTATNIM TARAZEM NIE TYLKO ZAGRAZANO POLSKIM DYPLOMATOM PO TYM,
JAK POMOGLI ZAPROGRAMOWAC COS, ALE IM GROZONO TRAKTOWANIEM ICH JAK
PRZESTEPCOW; OD TEGO CZASU NIE ROZMAWIALAM Z NIMI, ALE NA LINII
CODZINNIE KTOS PLACZE ALBO JEST W KONWULSJACH BOLU KTO MA POLSKIE
NAWYKI - WYDAJE MI SIE, ZE BUSH TORTURUJE POLAKOW; TO NIE JEST NOWA
SYTUCJA W WYPADKU BUSZA;

BUSZ ZACHOWUJE SIE PODOBNIE DO MNIE I MOICH SYNOW

“Everything in the proposal, everything in the American Jobs Act, is
the kind of proposal that’s been supported by Democrats and
Republicans in the past,” he added. “Everything in it will be paid
for.”

Obama’s comments come a week after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor
(R-Va.) warned that Democrats should not expect the House to accept
the proposed jobs act in its entirety. He said the House is instead
likely to make Obama’s bill a starting point for negotiations on how
best to promote job growth."

...

..R.1249
Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both
House and Senate] - ENR)

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --



Sec. 37. Calculation of 60-day period for application of patent term
extension.

                      AM I SEEING IT RIGHT? OBAMA BILL! WAS TO
MINIMIZE IT!

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) DIRECTOR- The term `Director' means the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States
Patent and Trademark Office.

(2) OFFICE- The term `Office' means the United States Patent and
Trademark Office.

(3) PATENT PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE- The term `Patent Public Advisory
Committee' means the Patent Public Advisory Committee established
under section 5(a) of title 35, United States Code.

(4) TRADEMARK ACT OF 1946- The term `Trademark Act of 1946' means the
Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of
trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain
international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5,
1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.) (commonly referred to as the `Trademark
Act of 1946' or the `Lanham Act').

(5) TRADEMARK PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE- The term `Trademark Public
Advisory Committee' means the Trademark Public Advisory Committee
established under section 5(a) of title 35, United States Code.

SEC. 3. FIRST INVENTOR TO FILE.

(a) Definitions- Section 100 of title 35, United States Code, is
amended--

(1) in subsection (e), by striking `or inter partes reexamination
under section 311'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(f) The term `inventor' means the individual or, if a joint
invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the
subject matter of the invention.

`(g) The terms `joint inventor' and `coinventor' mean any 1 of the
individuals who invented or discovered the subject matter of a joint
invention.


    THAT MUST BE BUSJHLAND THAT DISCOVERES! ( BUSH DISCOVERED JESUS
AGAIN, I HEARD - IT IS NOT EVEN A JOKE! BUT TOO MUCH TO EXPLAIN HERE)
`(h) The term `joint research agreement' means a written contract,
grant, or cooperative agreement entered into by 2 or more persons or
entities for the performance of experimental, developmental, or
research work in the field of the claimed invention.

`(i)(1) The term `effective filing date' for a claimed invention in a
patent or application for patent means--

`(A) if subparagraph (B) does not apply, the actual filing date of the
patent or the application for the patent containing a claim to the
invention; or

`(B) the filing date of the earliest application for which the patent
or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of
priority under section 119, 365(a), or 365(b) or to the benefit of an
earlier filing date under section 120, 121, or 365(c).

`(2) The effective filing date for a claimed invention in an
application for reissue or reissued patent shall be determined by
deeming the claim to the invention to have been contained in the
patent for which reissue was sought.

`(j) The term `claimed invention' means the subject matter defined by
a claim in a patent or an application for a patent.'.

(b) Conditions for Patentability-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 102 of title 35, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
-`Sec. 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty


`(a) Novelty; Prior Art- A person shall be entitled to a patent
unless--

`(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed
publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the
public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or

`(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under
section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed
published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as
the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

`(b) Exceptions-

`(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE
OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION- A disclosure made 1 year or less before the
effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to
the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if--


        IS THIS MISSPELLING INTENTIONAL? I STRONGLY SUSPECT - YES!
( WAS SUBJECT OPF BUSHLAND ART PRIOR TO JESUS)

`(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by
another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or
indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or

`(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been
publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who
obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the
inventor or a joint inventor.

`(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS- A disclosure
shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2)
if--

`(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly
from the inventor or a joint inventor;

`(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was
effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by
the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject
matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint
inventor; or

`(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later
than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by
the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same
person.

`(c) Common Ownership Under Joint Research Agreements- Subject matter
disclosed and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned
by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the
same person in applying the provisions of subsection (b)(2)(C) if--

`(1) the subject matter disclosed was developed and the claimed
invention was made by, or on behalf of, 1 or more parties to a joint
research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention;

`(2) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities
undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and

IF OBAMA CLAIMS 'LUK', THAT IS A MISS BUT HOW THAT BE EXECUTED!

NO AGREEMENT; PRIOR FILING; USE BY MARCH - APRIL 2008

AND OBAMA VLIMED NOBEL PRIZE ON IT BUT MIGHT HAVE FAILED TO FILE(?)
PHILADELPHIA USE OF 'LUK' IS DOCUMENTED. THE OTEHR PLACE THAT THE
TECHNIQUE WAS APPLIED WAS GREENLAND AND LOCATION IN QUEBEC.

THE NOBEL COMMITTEE WAS NOTIFIED ABOUT OBAMA MANIPULATION AFTER THE
PRESIDENT OF THE AWARD COMMITTEE PUBLICALLY ASKED WHO ELSE DONE A LOT
OR MORE THAN OBAMA, AND WAS ANSWERRED IN PUBLIC.

     ( THEREATS ON LINE; BUT AS IT SEEMS FROM BUSH LINE)

`(3) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or
is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research
agreement.

RESEACH IS NOT THE DISCOVERY OF THE NOVELTY. RESEARCH HAS HYPOTHESES
FOR MANY DIIFERENT REASONS. DISCOVERY OF ANYTHING NEW IS BASED IN
HIGHT POWER TESTING BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE RESEACH AGREEMENT ( OR ONLY
SOMETIMES DOES - BUT THAT SI WHEN THE MAJOR PATH IS SET AND CONTINUITY
OF NOVELTY UNCOVERED; DISCOVERIES ARE NOT PLANNED THAT WAY; THEY OFTEN
ARE IN INDIVIDULA MIND FOR LONG OR EVEN THE LIFE TIME BUT THEY DO NOTB
HAVE AGREEMENT WITH BUSH INDOLENCE FIRST;

DISCOVERIES ARE TYPICALLY DISCRIBED AS INSIGHT - SUDDEN NEW ENERGY
INTO THE RESOLUTION OF PROBLEM; THEY TAKE UNUSUAL CONCENTRATION AND
AGAIN - NOT WITH INDOLENCE IN MIND OR PRESENCE)

`(d) Patents and Published Applications Effective as Prior Art- For
purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is
prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2), such patent
or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed,
with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or
application--

`(1) if paragraph (2) does not apply, as of the actual filing date of
the patent or the application for patent; or

`(2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled to claim a
right of priority under section 119, 365(a), or 365(b), or to claim
the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120, 121, or
365(c), based upon 1 or more prior filed applications for patent, as
of the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the
subject matter.'.

(2) CONTINUITY OF INTENT UNDER THE CREATE ACT- The enactment of
section 102(c) of title 35, United States Code, under paragraph (1) of
this subsection is done with the same intent to promote joint research
activities that was expressed, including in the legislative history,
through the enactment of the Cooperative Research and Technology
Enhancement Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-453; the `CREATE Act'), the
amendments of which are stricken by subsection (c) of this section.
   AHA!

The United States Patent and Trademark Office shall administer section
102(c) of title 35, United States Code, in a manner consistent with
the legislative history of the CREATE Act that was relevant to its
administration by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The item relating to section 102 in the
table of sections for chapter 10 of title 35, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:

`102. Conditions for patentability; novelty.'.

(c) Conditions for Patentability; Nonobvious Subject Matter- Section
103 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
-`Sec. 103. Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

WHAT IS THAT? INDOLENCE?


`A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding
that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth
in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and
the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would
have been obvious

THAT MUST BE BY USA CONGRESS PERPETGUATE CONFLICT OF INTEREST AMERICAN
ASSOCIATINS WITH ITS BICAMERAL SUBDIVISION BY CORNYN,
 THE REPRESENTATIVE.

 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person
having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention
pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which
the invention was made.'.

   HALLO,. MORONS ( I SHELL MENTION WHAT THE MATTER - NOVELTY IS
ALWAYS NEW - SORRY FOR TAUTOLOGY- AND THE INDOLENCE HAS THE LAST WORD
ON IT!)

(d) Repeal of Requirements for Inventions Made Abroad- Section 104 of
title 35, United States Code, and the item relating to that section in
the table of sections for chapter 10 of title 35, United States Code,
are repealed.

  SO THEY MEAN THAT THEY HAVE CERTAIN STANDARDS FIOR NOVEL THNKING
WHILE AWAY FROM USA.  ( IS THIS LEGISLATIVE NOVELTY ITSELF? IS IT
FILED?))

(e) Repeal of Statutory Invention Registration-

   O, SORRY

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 157 of title 35, United States Code, and the
item relating to that section in the table of sections for chapter 14
of title 35, United States Code, are repealed.

(2) REMOVAL OF CROSS REFERENCES- Section 111(b)(8) of title 35, United
States Code, is amended by striking `sections 115, 131, 135, and 157'
and inserting `sections 131 and 135'.

(3) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this subsection shall take
effect upon the expiration of the 18-month period beginning on the
date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any request for
a statutory invention registration filed on or after that effective
date.

(f) Earlier Filing Date for Inventor and Joint Inventor- Section 120
of title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking `which is
filed by an inventor or inventors named' and inserting `which names an
inventor or joint inventor'.

(g) Conforming Amendments-

(1) RIGHT OF PRIORITY- Section 172 of title 35, United States Code, is
amended by striking `and the time specified in section 102(d)'.

(2) LIMITATION ON REMEDIES- Section 287(c)(4) of title 35, United
States Code, is amended by striking `the earliest effective filing
date of which is prior to' and inserting `which has an effective
filing date before'.

(3) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION DESIGNATING THE UNITED STATES: EFFECT-
Section 363 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking
`except as otherwise provided in section 102(e) of this title'.

(4) PUBLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION: EFFECT- Section 374 of
title 35, United States Code, is amended by striking `sections 102(e)
and 154(d)' and inserting `section 154(d)'.

(5) PATENT ISSUED ON INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION: EFFECT- The second
sentence of section 375(a) of title 35, United States Code, is amended
by striking `Subject to section 102(e) of this title, such' and
inserting `Such'.

(6) LIMIT ON RIGHT OF PRIORITY- Section 119(a) of title 35, United
States Code, is amended by striking `; but no patent shall be granted'
and all that follows through `one year prior to such filing'.

(7) INVENTIONS MADE WITH FEDERAL ASSISTANCE- Section 202(c) of title
35, United States Code, is amended--

(A) in paragraph (2)--

(i) by striking `publication, on sale, or public use,' and all that
follows through `obtained in the United States' and inserting `the 1-
year period referred to in section 102(b) would end before the end of
that 2-year period'; and

(ii) by striking `prior to the end of the statutory' and inserting
`before the end of that 1-year'; and

(B) in paragraph (3), by striking `any statutory bar date that may
occur under this title due to publication, on sale, or public use' and
inserting `the expiration of the 1-year period referred to in section
102(b)'.

(h) Derived Patents-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 291 of title 35, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:
-`Sec. 291. Derived Patents


`(a) In General- The owner of a patent may have relief by civil action
against the owner of another patent that claims the same invention and
has an earlier effective filing date, if the invention claimed in such
other patent was derived from the inventor of the invention claimed in
the patent owned by the person seeking relief under this section.

`(b) Filing Limitation- An action under this section may be filed only
before the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the
issuance of the first patent containing a claim to the allegedly
derived invention and naming an individual alleged to have derived
such invention as the inventor or joint inventor.'.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- The item relating to section 291 in the
table of sections for chapter 29 of title 35, United States Code, is
amended to read as follows:

`291. Derived patents.'.

(i) Derivation Proceedings- Section 135 of title 35, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
-`Sec. 135. Derivation proceedings


`(a) Institution of Proceeding- An applicant for patent may file a
petition to institute a derivation proceeding in the Office. The
petition shall set forth with particularity the basis for finding that
an inventor named in an earlier application derived the claimed
invention from an inventor named in the petitioner's application and,
without authorization, the earlier application claiming such invention
was filed. Any such petition may be filed only within the 1-year
period beginning on the date of the first publication of a claim to an
invention that is the same or substantially the same as the earlier
application's claim to the invention, shall be made under oath, and
shall be supported by substantial evidence. Whenever the Director
determines that a petition filed under this subsection demonstrates
that the standards for instituting a derivation proceeding are met,
the Director may institute a derivation proceeding. The determination
by the Director whether to institute a derivation proceeding shall be
final and nonappealable.

`(b) Determination by Patent Trial and Appeal Board- In a derivation
proceeding instituted under subsection (a), the Patent Trial and
Appeal Board shall determine whether an inventor named in the earlier
application derived the claimed invention from an inventor named in
the petitioner's application and, without authorization, the earlier
application claiming such invention was filed. In appropriate
circumstances, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may correct the
naming of the inventor in any application or patent at issue. The
Director shall prescribe regulations setting forth standards for the
conduct of derivation proceedings, including requiring parties to
provide sufficient evidence to prove and rebut a claim of derivation.

`(c) Deferral of Decision- The Patent Trial and Appeal Board may defer
action on a petition for a derivation proceeding until the expiration
of the 3-month period beginning on the date on which the Director
issues a patent that includes the claimed invention that is the
subject of the petition. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board also may
defer action on a petition for a derivation proceeding, or stay the
proceeding after it has been instituted, until the termination of a
proceeding under chapter 30, 31, or 32 involving the patent of the
earlier applicant.

`(d) Effect of Final Decision- The final decision of the Patent Trial
and Appeal Board, if adverse to claims in an application for patent,
shall constitute the final refusal by the Office on those claims. The
final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, if adverse to
claims in a patent, shall, if no appeal or other review of the
decision has been or can be taken or had, constitute cancellation of
those claims, and notice of such cancellation shall be endorsed on
copies of the patent distributed after such cancellation.

`(e) Settlement- Parties to a proceeding instituted under subsection
(a) may terminate the proceeding by filing a written statement
reflecting the agreement of the parties as to the correct inventors of
the claimed invention in dispute.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING! I CAN ONLY THINK THAT THE INDOLENCE WANTS TO
MAKE NOISY CONTENSION, CAUSE PROBLEM AND EXTORT INVENTIONS;'
BNOTHING SO FAR SPEEDS THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTING INVENTION.
 Unless the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finds the agreement to be
inconsistent with the evidence of record, if any, it shall take action
consistent with the agreement. Any written settlement or understanding
of the parties shall be filed with the Director. At the request of a
party to the proceeding, the agreement or understanding shall be
treated as business confidential information, shall be kept separate
from the file of the involved patents or applications, and shall be
made available only to Government agencies on written request, or to
any person on a showing of good cause.

`(f) Arbitration- Parties to a proceeding instituted under subsection
(a) may, within such time as may be specified by the Director by
regulation, determine such contest or any aspect thereof by
arbitration.
REALLY - THE DIRECTOR HIMSELF DOES NOT HAVE CRITERIA FOR THE MERITS OF
THE PATTENT? AND AS IT SEEMS IT IS NOT WHEN THE ADRESSED BY INVENTION
PROBLEMS HAS ALTERNATIOVES - IT IS ANY!! ( ARE WE THAT INDOLENT?)

 Such arbitration shall be governed by the provisions of title 9, to
the extent such title is not inconsistent with this section. The
parties shall give notice of any arbitration award to the Director,
and such award shall, as between the parties to the arbitration, be
dispositive of the issues to which it relates. The arbitration award
shall be unenforceable until such notice is given. Nothing in this
subsection shall preclude the Director from determining the
patentability of the claimed inventions involved in the proceeding.'.

(j) Elimination of References to Interferences- (1) Sections 134, 145,
146, 154, and 305 of title 35, United States Code, are each amended by
striking `Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences' each place it
appears and inserting `Patent Trial and Appeal Board'.

(2)(A) Section 146 of title 35, United States Code, is amended--

(i) by striking `an interference' and inserting `a derivation
proceeding'; and

(ii) by striking `the interference' and inserting `the derivation
proceeding'.

(B) The subparagraph heading for section 154(b)(1)(C) of title 35,
United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(C) GUARANTEE OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR DELAYS DUE TO DERIVATION
PROCEEDINGS, SECRECY ORDERS, AND APPEALS- '.

(3) The section heading for section 134 of title 35, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
-`Sec. 134. Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board'.


(4) The section heading for section 146 of title 35, United States
Code, is amended to read as follows:
-`Sec. 146. Civil action in case of derivation proceeding'.


(5) The items relating to sections 134 and 135 in the table of
sections for chapter 12 of title 35, United States Code, are amended
to read as follows:

`134. Appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board."
...

PRESENTING PROBLEM IS THAT CRIMINALS ARE TRYING TO BLOCADE AMERICAN
PROGRESS IN EACH WAY POSSIBLE INCLUDING CLAIMING THAT THEY DID NOT
ONLY FORGOT TO FILE BUT DID NOT HAVE TO FILE AFTER Leahy toauching
upon the issue and obamna  signing it but will be collecting on the
invention. SUCH APPROACH CAN ONLY BE IKLLEGAL - AMERICAN LEGISLATURE
DOES NOTN REGUIIMENT EVER THE NOVEL THINKING ABROAD BUT THAT DOES NOT
MAKE THEM LEGAL WHILE DISINTEGRATING OTHER OPEOPEL PATENTS HERE. ALL
THIS STINKS MOBBING BY INTERNATIONAL SCAMMERS AGAINT SOLID  SCIENTINTS
INSIGHT THE USA.

   (HACKERS)

OTHER PROBLEM THAT THEY HAVE A MOBING INVESTED  IN ARBITRATION;
CLAIMING SOMETHING LIKE MANDATORILY GIVE THEM PART OR ALL OF THE
PATENT WITHOUT A REL COURT BUT UNDER THE PREASURE OF THE MOB. PEOPEL
INVOLVED IN THESE ILLEGAL GIOMMICKS ARE NOT ANY SCIENTIST INNOVATION
PRONE.

THEY APPEAR CRIMINAL TO ME ESPECIALLY AFTER EGZANING THEIR OPERATION
FIRST HAND IN WASHINGTON DC PAPERS And thuink tanks there driven into
their mobbing. Mobbing in American English is bulling ( the archaic of
it is teen driven
perpetuate and this one is not filed either)