On Nov 8, 10:37*am, Regis wrote:
And I would advise you again not to lie under some stupid pseudonym on
the internet: *lying is a bad thing*
All "prior art" references including EPO search results are listed on
the US patent's front page
EPO hasn't cited any other references
The US patent prosecution history is available to anyone
EPO examiners are not smarter than US examiners, and, in this
particular case, EPO examiner showed his complete cluelessness and
made a big fool out of himself by misunderstanding and misinterpreting
"nonanalogous art" reference cited in good faith by patent applicant
himself in the initial patent filing, and then extensively discussed
in interview and office actions with USPTO (content of those USPTO
office actions and discussions being available to anyone on the
internet including EPO examiner)
Trying to screw little-known american inventor out of rightfully
deserved european patent sure looks great for EPO reputation... And
your posts can only add to this...
EPO is one big ripoff
OK, tell me then how the US examiner, granting your patent in 2006,
has taken into account the following two documents, cited by the EPO
examiner in 2008 !
Lathrop et al : "Characterization of an experimental strange attractor
by periodic orbits", Physical review A, vol.40, Number 7, 1 october
1989.
This second one was cited in the european search report in 2005, but
was it discussed at the USPTO (I only see US patent references) ?
Banbrook et al: "Speech characterization and synthesis by non linear
methods", IEEE Transactions on speech and audio processing, Vol.7 no.
1, January 1999.
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You don't have Internet at EPO ?
All this info was publicly available from
www.uspto.gov to anyone on
the internet including EPO examiners
First reference (Lathrop et. al) ) was discovered and cited in good
faith by patent applicant himself in IDS filed in 2002.
Second reference (Banbrook) was cited in another IDS filed after EPO
search report came in 2005
Both references were considered by US examiner and made of record
(they are listed on the officially granted patent under "Other
references")
Second reference is only marginally relevant - there is nothing to
discuss about it other than the general field of research and it was
mentioned only in the passing by EPO examiner.
EPO examiner relied on the first reference (Lathrop et al :
"Characterization of an experimental strange attractor by periodic
orbits", Physical review A, vol.40, Number 7, 1 october 1989) to state
lack of novelty.
In doing so, EPO examiner made a 100% erroneous statement, confusing
imaginary "periodic orbits" characterizing the behaviour of aperiodic
chaotic strange attractor described in the reference with "periodic
signals"
To be honest, US examiner initially made the same error but was
corrected after extensive discussions and a personal interview.
The contents of those discussions are publicly available to anyone on
the internet as part of US patent prosecution history as early as
2006.
Here is the link to Lathrop et al. reference:
http://complex.umd.edu/papers/attractororbits1989.pdf
You can judge for yourself how it affects the novelty of pitch
(fundamental frequency) determination methods disclosed in US Patent
7,124,075 (if you are qualified to read and understand Lathrop et al.
paper, which is almost certainly not the case)