hello, you there
hi Monty thanks for your knowledeable input
you are welcome
I do not fully understand the question yet
I have read it several times
Lex Machina Site Definition: Web site, services, features, functionalities, etc., may be collectively referred to as “Lex Machina” or the “Lex Machina Services”.have a data base of 130,000 legal decisions and 6m datasets for dealing with patents a consortium of Apple Google IBM etc not positive.
OK sorry maybe my own mental confusion. I have 3 patents my thinking has been that the end user is entitled to a text analysis of the probabilities using BN and NN and also a graphical display using DTS. My question is are there any proective teeth in #2 and #3?
and my thinking is that there is no indication Lex Macina is using either BN or NN or DTS to deal witht he issues.
give me a minute
time is no problem
hello, I am reading a little of the 3 patent NN again
Thx. It was initially rejected but my patent attorney and I agreed to modify it to piggyback with the BN patent.
yes, I saw that and the Examiner required a restriction I belive
not a restrictin
I think we proposed the restriction to overcome the rejection
OK, I quickly reviewed the File wrapper, did not go too deep into the issues\
that takes lost of time
OK, could you ask your questions again
perhaps reword the question
Do you see a significant protective value re NN in #3?
give me a few more minutes. I am reviewing the written description as to your definitions for BN and NN and the differences between the two.
I assume you are of the view that there are hundreds of AI algorithms around: BN, NN, decision trees, support vector machines, k-nearest neighbors, evolutionary algorithms, fuzzy logic, rough sets, association rules, and all are building blocks that don't create an application by themselves – there is a need for heavy investment as AI cannot do everything by itself, like a magic.
yes, lots of AI algorithms
I guess my question is to what extent would my patents together cover AI algorithims in the legal decision making field using BN, NN and or DTS?
OK, the claims of the third patent
seem basically the same as the claims for the first patent with the addition of the NN limitations
if that a fair evaluation ?
I am reading the disclosure on artifical neural network
sorry I do not understand your phrase the "addition of the NN limitations"
Looking at Claim 1 for 8,306,936 (first patent) and 8,447,713 (third patent)
as you noted, and based on my review, Claim one in the third patent simply adds the neural network requirement (i.e. limitations) to the claimed method.
OK still confused by the term "limitation"
that could have two meanings
when one is considering the scope of a claim, any claimed feature that narrows the scope of a claim is a "limitation"
OK so it is a permissive extension to some extent of the BN but what effect does that have, if any on NN copycats
as in "limitation" to the claim's scope
not a negative thing
claims must contain "limitations" or they will not be valid
the trick is to only have desired and necessary limitations
OK I have finally grasped that concept
so you asked "Do you see a significant protective value re NN in #3?"
Answer: Only if patent one is found to be invalid because of prior art.
So I guess it comes back as always to potential blocking of BN, NN and DTS copycats and whether I need additional non-provisionals
restated, I believe claim 1 of patent 3 could have been a dependent claim to claim 1 of patent 1
OK so if #1 is found to be invalid #3 still has some protective value with regard to NN argorithms
with the necessary disclosure in the written description
claim 3 is basically a safety net
for someone to infringe claim 1 of patent 3 they will also have to infringe claim 1 of patent 1
OK you have me interested (as in need of higher education)
I am speaking a little loosely here
excellent, I appreciate that
If you were to sue for infringement of patent 1 and patent 3
claim 1 in both patents
are the same
and the accused infringer is held to have infringed claim 1 of patent 3
such an infringer will also have infringed claim 1 of patent 1
thus, why I say patent 3 is simply a safety net just in case someone comes up with some previously unknown to you prior art that invalidates claim 1 of patent 1 but not claim 1 of patent 3
such is also the purpose of dependent claims
any overall thoughts, I seem to be short of new questions at the moment- but my own observation is that a prototype is not brain surgery, although it is brain surgery momentarily with regard to crisis management patent evaluation mergers and acquisitions, in the high end legal sphere.
If you get your system to work and and prove same, it would/will be valuable.
If your algorithms provide accurate "answers" time after time you software would put lots of attorneys out of business
Yes many thanks for your thoughts so far, I am sure I will have many more so long as you are available.
I hope I have helped.
I not sure I really give you that much value in the above answers.
My thinking is that it is a fast forward for clients and attorneys that enables both to accomplish more and make more $$ at the same time.,
it will be a good tool
and there will still be a need to verify the answer is likely correct and in clear error
Yes although there are still buggy makers and bugy whip makers int he legal field
I hope to char wirth you again!
yes, those jobs would go away
come back anytime.
because they are not that valuable at least to the clients
bye, have a good day.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).