±Forensic Focus Partners

Become an advertising partner

±Your Account


Username
Password

Forgotten password/username?

Site Members:

New Today: 2 Overall: 34621
New Yesterday: 0 Visitors: 250

±Follow Forensic Focus

Forensic Focus Facebook PageForensic Focus on TwitterForensic Focus LinkedIn GroupForensic Focus YouTube Channel

RSS feeds: News Forums Articles

±Latest Articles

±Latest Webinars

IEF 5.7 ? Patent Pending ?

Computer forensics discussion. Please ensure that your post is not better suited to one of the forums below (if it is, please post it there instead!)
Reply to topicReply to topic Printer Friendly Page
Forum FAQSearchView unanswered posts
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next 
  

Re: IEF 5.7 ? Patent Pending ?

Post Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:34 pm

- hmorgan
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20130166517



Abstract:

A system and a method for locating application-specific data that has been previously deleted and located in an address of the data storage device marked as being available for storing new data. The method includes accessing unidentified data from at least one data storage device; examining the unidentified data to detect at least one application-specific data pattern associated with at least one application; for each detected application-specific data pattern, executing an application-specific validation process to determine whether the unidentified data includes valid data associated with a corresponding application; and if it is determined that the unidentified data includes valid data associated with the corresponding application, then recovering the valid data.


I would say there is a lot of prior art that falls in this description.  

joachimm
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: IEF 5.7 ? Patent Pending ?

Post Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 5:57 pm

- joachimm

I would say there is a lot of prior art that falls in this description.


Yes, I would say the same, but I would like someone native English speaking (with some knowledge of patent jargon) to "translate" this sentence (last one in the patent application) :
While the above description provides examples of one or more apparatus, systems and methods, it will be appreciated that other apparatus, systems and methods may be within the scope of the present description as interpreted by one of skill in the art.

in a simpler English.

I simply cannot understand what it means in layman's terms. Shocked Question



jaclaz
_________________
- In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. - 

jaclaz
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: IEF 5.7 ? Patent Pending ?

Post Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:12 pm

Alas can't help you much there Google translate does not have an option for "legalese" to "English" Wink  

joachimm
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: IEF 5.7 ? Patent Pending ?

Post Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 9:02 pm

I think my description of data carving could be much simpler
_________________
Michael Cotgrove
www.cnwrecovery.com
www.goprorecovery.co.uk 

mscotgrove
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: IEF 5.7 ? Patent Pending ?

Post Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:16 am

- mscotgrove
I think my description of data carving could be much simpler


Well, the patent specialized firms/attorneys/whomever have to produce something in exchange for the money they get for writing the application. don't they?

For once in my life I need not to create a brand new carpenter's comparison Shocked :
inventors.about.com/od...cation.htm
For example, when describing your invention you write "part A is nailed to part B", somebody else may be able to patent a very similar invention by claiming, "part A is glued to part B." It would be safer to use the word attached or attached by a variety of fasteners.


If I read attached by a variety of fasteners I would imagine something that is not only nailed and glued but at least also bolted together. Confused

Back to my earlier question, the sentence I posted seems to me like negating the originality or uniqueness of the process/procedure, which is really puzzling me, but that's the US patenting system, so I guess that anything is possible.

jaclaz
_________________
- In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. - 

jaclaz
Senior Member
 
 
  

Re: IEF 5.7 ? Patent Pending ?

Post Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:59 pm

- jaclaz

Yes, I would say the same, but I would like someone native English speaking (with some knowledge of patent jargon) to "translate" this sentence (last one in the patent application) :
While the above description provides examples of one or more apparatus, systems and methods, it will be appreciated that other apparatus, systems and methods may be within the scope of the present description as interpreted by one of skill in the art.

in a simpler English.

I simply cannot understand what it means in layman's terms. Shocked Question



jaclaz


In plain English, what this is sentence is intended to say is that the inventive CONCEPT is broader than the specific EXAMPLES of apparatus and/or methods (referred to as "embodiments of the invention") disclosed in the patent as means to practice the inventive concept.

What is covered by a given patent is defined by the claims -- the often-awkward, run-on "sentences" at the end of the patent. Usually -- but sometimes not, depending on how crowded the particular field of technology is -- the claims will be broader than the specific disclosed embodiments and will cover other ways of achieving the same goal. For example, if the description portion of the patent shows a device with a screw holding parts A and B together, the claim may refer to parts A and B as being held together by a fastener. So even though the fastener in the disclosed embodiment is a screw, the claims -- and hence the patent -- would also cover situations where the fastener is a nail, a staple, solder, etc. (There are limitations on this principle, e.g., if the applicant makes statements during the examination process that limit the interpretation of the claim language, but in general it holds true.)

As for original post, the patentability of software/methods is currently in a state of great flux in the U.S. and elsewhere, so people will need to wait and see what happens in the future. . . .  

KenF
Newbie
 
 
  

Re: IEF 5.7 ? Patent Pending ?

Post Posted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:09 pm

Thanks, Ken. Smile

- KenF

As for original post, the patentability of software/methods is currently in a state of great flux in the U.S. and elsewhere, so people will need to wait and see what happens in the future. . . .


Sure, in Europe, besides the current "generic" non patentability of software:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...Convention
the method/description would not be patentable IMHO because. as mscotgrove hinted, the patent seems about "data carving", which is not really "news".

Given your "translation", would this mean that once the patent is issued, noone can use anymore data carving techniques without using the program?
(or has to pay a fee for making use of the patent?)

jaclaz
_________________
- In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. - 

jaclaz
Senior Member
 
 

Page 3 of 4
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next