HOW FEDERAL COURTS CRUSH INVENTORS AND PROTECT GLOBAL CORPORATE INTERESTS

No patent issued by the Patent Office (PTO) is secure and getting patents is time consuming and costly, especially for individuals. Far from securing patents, the PTO unsecures them under an unconstitutional presumption of validity and makes them tickets to federal courts. See http://inventors.coolissues.com/eunpto.htm The PTO is always under the leadership of global executives and this is the global's first line of defense of controlling the nation's intellectual property. For the individual inventor, without disparaging the capable examiners, the PTO is an organization under the absolute control of the globals, who also control the legislators who write the patent laws and appoint the PTO administrators provided by the globals. The global's second line of defense of controlling the nation's intellectual property are the federal courts where legislators write the laws and appoint the judges, all paid for by the globals. Once in court, individual inventors get slaughtered by the simple method of summary judgement of patent invalidity without being heard on their claims of infringement of their patents by the globals and their requests for jury trials. Only the globals are permitted this treatment. In effect, the federal courts are designed only to hear disputes between the globals. They are designed to crush inventors. See http://inventors.coolissues.com/fcourts.htm Wake up people, your patent system belongs to the globals.

For example, consider U.S. Patent No. 3,950,635 issued to inventor James Constant. On summary judgement motions by 17 global corporations, the federal courts dutifully obliged by asking the global's hack attorneys to write up and then rubberstamping the facts and law. The Constant '635 patent was held invalid under 35 USC 102 (b) in view of the Allen and Westerfield article (A&W)1 and the Stalcup patent 2and further was held invalid under 35 USC 103 in view of the Springer article3. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., (CAFC 88) 848 F.2d 1560, 7 USPQ2d 1057,1063, cert. den. 488 U.S. 892 (1988). However, a court's jurisdiction rests on the patent owner's claim of patent infringement and not on the alleged corporate infringer's defense of patent invalidity. Christianson v. Colt Industries (1988) 108 SCt 2166, 100 LEd2d 811. Had the inventor been heard on his claims of patent infringement, as required by Christianson, and proved that the global corporations were infringing his patents, the summary judgement would have been in his favor. As it stands, the courts arbitrarily decided the case without jurisdiction without giving the inventor his due right to be heard on his claims of infringement by the global corporations.

On merits, to bar a patent under Section 102(b) each limitation of a claim must be found in the reference. In re Donohue, 226 USPQ 619,621 (CAFC 1985). The A&W (Fig 24) and Stalcup (Fig 3) correlators are different from each other and the courts did not explain how these two different structures differently connected can each describe each connected element of the invention claims. The references do not show the claimed digital delay RAM means, digital address counter, digital clock means and digital means for shifting signals, and are not identically connected. Stalcup does not use a digital multiplier but uses a comparator and both A&W and Stalcup show an analog filter not the claimed digital integrator. Nevertheless, the court says that each reference individually discloses all elements of the '635 patent. Constant, supra at 1063. Here, the court admits that the references both use magnetic core memories instead of semiconductor RAMs but concludes that "magnetic core memory is a type of RAM" and says that "The limitations on which the appellant relies (i.e. semiconductor, logn, address lines, connection through a decoder) are not stated in the claims" and "limitations concerning semiconductor RAMs and logn lines should not be read into the claims". Constant, supra at 1064. However, 35 USC 112 provides that means plus function language in a claim shall be construed to cover the structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Constant, supra at 1065. Thus, while the court invokes 35 USC112 to construe the claimed digital multipler as an exclusive-OR gate described at col 4 lines 61-62, col 5 lines 17-18, col 6 lines 3-6, col 7 lines 13-15 of the '635 patent (favoring corporate infringers), Constant, supra at 1065, it refuses to invoke this same statute to construe the claimed digital RAM, digital address counter, and digital clock means as semiconductors, with logn address lines connected through a decoder structures described in the '635 patent at col 4 lines 19-26, 47-57, col 6 lines 45-48 (semiconductors), col 5 lines 34-39 (logn address lines), col 6 line 63 through col 7 line 9 (clock and address counter), (all favoring the inventor), Constant, supra at 1064. This is a double standard which amounts to fraud in the administration of justice.

Also, on merits, the courts say that it would be obvious to use Springer reference disclosed in the '635 patent to make the claimed invention improvements. Constant, supra at 1063-64. However, the inventor's disclosure is not a source of evidence and the court admits that Springer's article, which describes a semiconductor RAM shift-register, falls short of claim 1 of the '635 patent it relies solely on the artisan's high level of skill to overcome the differences between the claimed invention and the selected elements in Springer, and it relies upon the high level of skill in the art to provide the necessary motivation. The court does not explain what specific understanding by the artisan of the nature of the problem to be solved and the teachings of the Springer reference that would suggest the claimed combination. Where does the artisan obtain an understanding of the nature of the problem to be solved, as disclosed in the patent?4 Here, the court impermissibly invokes the high level of skill in the art to provide motivation. A lofty level of skill alone does not suffice to supply a motivation to combine. In re Rouffet (CAFC) 7/15/98 No. 97-1492. To imbue one of ordinary skill in the art with knowledge of the invention in suit, when no prior art reference or references of record convey or suggest that knowledge, is to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the inventor taught is used against its teacher. W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. V. Garlock, Inc., 721 F2d 1540,1553, 220 USPQ 303,312-313 (CAFC 1983).

As shown in the '635 patent, the prior art does not go beyond the single chip digital semiconductor devices identified at col 1 lines 33-46, col 2 lines 3-8, col 5 lines 6-15. Thus, the disclosed Whitehouse Fig 14 device which, at the time of the present invention, implements a single semiconductor chip signal processor with shift registers not RAMs. Whitehouse was more expert than the skilled artisan whom the court says could clearly use Springer's multiple RAM shift register to obviate the invention.

As admitted by the Court, Constant, supra at 1063, Springer's reference falls short of independent claim 1 and thus lacks identity of function under 35 USC 112 4th par. Springer fails to suggest the problem and solution provided by the invention. Disclosure of the problem and its solution is made in the '635 patent. Other than the inventor's disclosure in the '635 patent, Springer does not show or suggest the improved elements of the invention.

Obviousness is a legal question based on factual inquiries. Constant, supra at 1065. Such factual determinations include what a reference teaches and whether a reference teaches toward or away from the claimed invention. In re Bell, 991 F2d 781,784, 26 USPQ2d 1529.1531 (CAFC 1993). The court's conclusions of law, on obviousness, are based on conjenctures not facts. "If the prior art does not show or suggest the improved element itself, it defies logical reasoning to say that the same prior art suggests the use of that improved element in a combination". In re Bernhart, 417 F2d 1395, 163 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1969). Accord: Radio Steel & Mfg Co. v. MTD Products, Inc., 731 F2d 840, 221 USPQ 657 (CAFC 1984), cert. den. 469 US 831 (1984).

The Section 103 rejection is arbitrary because the court has not shown that the Springer reference shows or suggests the improved element itself, namely,

Indeed, the court admits that the Springer reference falls short of independent claim 1 of the '635 patent. Constant, supra at 1063.

In summary, relying solely on the inventor's disclosure and old art cited in the '635 patent, the court concludes that the skilled artisan would clearly recognise the foregoing improved elements of the invention without specifically pointing to where the prior art shows or suggests these elements.

It is well settled that the only proper basis for an old combination rejection is "that portion of Section 112 which requires that the claims specifically point out and distinctly claim the invention". In re Bernhart, 417 F2d at 1403, 163 USPQ at 618.

From the foregoing it is clear that the 1988 decision in Constant, supra was made in the clear absence of jurisdiction of the subject matter, not justified on merits, and in fraud of the administration of justice. The judicial method arbitrarily assumes jurisdiction of the subject matter and arbitrarily cherry-picks facts and law to make opinions thus favoring the global corporations. Internet search reveals that Constant, supra is now a precedent in several hundred cases, i.e., a complete breakdown of the justice system. The inventor filed complaints against the global infringers and against federal judges for fraud in the procurement of the judgement in Constant, supra. These were, of course, denied and severe costs and sanctions were imposed on the inventor. The inventor was driven to bankruptcy court in 1989 where he again claimed relief from the acts of the global corporations and federal judges. The global corporations responded, first, by using the bankruptcy system to take the inventor's remaining patents to thus keep the inventor from bringing similar suits against them and, second, they used the judicial system delays to keep the inventor in perpetual bankruptcy. The bankruptcy is still pending through 2000. The global corporations got the inventor's patents, all his assets, and the hack judges and attorneys all got paid well by this corrupt system.

The corporations, lawyers, and judges who made this fraud in the administration of justice and fraud in the obtaining of judgement in case Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., (CAFC 88) 848 F.2d 1560, 7 USPQ2d 1057,1063, cert. den. 488 U.S. 892 (1988) and continue suppression of the inventor in his bankruptcy are named in Supreme Court Petitions for Certiorari, Nos 89-425, 93-1518, 93-1413 cert. den. at http://petitionforcertiorari.coolissues.com/88-308.htm,

http://petitionforcertiorari.coolissues.com/89-425.htm,

http://petitionforcertiorari.coolissues.com/93-1413.htm, and

http://petitionforcertiorari.coolissues.com/93-1518.htm

The celebrated rule olf law is mythology. Individual inventors are being crushed by the federal courts whose mission is to protect the global interests.

Add/View Links Page at http://coolissues.com/cgi/links/links.htm

________________________________________

1. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, January, 1964, page 121

2. 3,295,107

3. Disclosed in the '635 patent at col 4 lines 19-24

4. See '635 patent col 2 lines 47-50,51-55; col 2 line 64 through col 3 line 2; col 3 lines 36-39; col 6 lines 31-37,43-58

Copyright by patentreform