<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: U.S. Patent Office Gains Access to Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/12/02/u-s-patent-office-gains-access-to-traditional-knowledge-digital-library-tkdl/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/12/02/u-s-patent-office-gains-access-to-traditional-knowledge-digital-library-tkdl/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=u-s-patent-office-gains-access-to-traditional-knowledge-digital-library-tkdl</link>
	<description>Freshly Brewed Bio/Pharma Chat. Served Up Daily.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:57:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Ballard</title>
		<link>http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/12/02/u-s-patent-office-gains-access-to-traditional-knowledge-digital-library-tkdl/comment-page-1/#comment-70385</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Ballard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 03:51:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patentbaristas.com/?p=2530#comment-70385</guid>
		<description>In response to my Freedom of Information Act request, the USPTO produced the Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding between the US and India controlling the USPTO&#039;s access to India&#039;s traditional knowledge database.  The documents are here: http://j.mp/6Zxqq8 .

I haven&#039;t thought it all the way through, but is anyone else concerned that patent applicants are forbidden from accessing the database that US Examiners will now be mining for prior art?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In response to my Freedom of Information Act request, the USPTO produced the Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding between the US and India controlling the USPTO&#8217;s access to India&#8217;s traditional knowledge database.  The documents are here: <a href="http://j.mp/6Zxqq8" rel="nofollow">http://j.mp/6Zxqq8</a> .</p>
<p>I haven&#8217;t thought it all the way through, but is anyone else concerned that patent applicants are forbidden from accessing the database that US Examiners will now be mining for prior art?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Editor</title>
		<link>http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/12/02/u-s-patent-office-gains-access-to-traditional-knowledge-digital-library-tkdl/comment-page-1/#comment-69716</link>
		<dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:06:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patentbaristas.com/?p=2530#comment-69716</guid>
		<description>Dan,

I agree with you, the word biopiracy has very negative connotations and it is misleading.  I will make a note in the text to try to clarify.

Editor</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dan,</p>
<p>I agree with you, the word biopiracy has very negative connotations and it is misleading.  I will make a note in the text to try to clarify.</p>
<p>Editor</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan Feigelson</title>
		<link>http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/12/02/u-s-patent-office-gains-access-to-traditional-knowledge-digital-library-tkdl/comment-page-1/#comment-69711</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan Feigelson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:53:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patentbaristas.com/?p=2530#comment-69711</guid>
		<description>I wish you&#039;d refrain from using the word &quot;biopiracy&quot;.  No matter what patents Grace received, it couldn&#039;t have prevented others from doing what they&#039;d been doing (allegedly) for thousands of years.  Conversely, &quot;traditional knowledge&quot; should not necessarily preclude a company that invests in identifying and isolating a particular active component from obtaining patent claims of appropriate scope and kind - particularly when, after so much time, no one else has isolated or characterized that active.  That term &quot;biopiracy&quot; sounds more like &quot;sour grapes&quot; to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wish you&#8217;d refrain from using the word &#8220;biopiracy&#8221;.  No matter what patents Grace received, it couldn&#8217;t have prevented others from doing what they&#8217;d been doing (allegedly) for thousands of years.  Conversely, &#8220;traditional knowledge&#8221; should not necessarily preclude a company that invests in identifying and isolating a particular active component from obtaining patent claims of appropriate scope and kind &#8211; particularly when, after so much time, no one else has isolated or characterized that active.  That term &#8220;biopiracy&#8221; sounds more like &#8220;sour grapes&#8221; to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stephen Albainy-Jenei</title>
		<link>http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/12/02/u-s-patent-office-gains-access-to-traditional-knowledge-digital-library-tkdl/comment-page-1/#comment-69684</link>
		<dc:creator>Stephen Albainy-Jenei</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 15:00:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patentbaristas.com/?p=2530#comment-69684</guid>
		<description>I think that, on its face, having access to the TKDL is a good thing that can help ensure that only valid patents are issued.

On the flip side, my fear is that such a directory will be used in a heavy-handed way to reject many deserving patents, particularly using the ubiquitous obvious rejection.  

In my mind, the critical issue is how the information is applied.

Ed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that, on its face, having access to the TKDL is a good thing that can help ensure that only valid patents are issued.</p>
<p>On the flip side, my fear is that such a directory will be used in a heavy-handed way to reject many deserving patents, particularly using the ubiquitous obvious rejection.  </p>
<p>In my mind, the critical issue is how the information is applied.</p>
<p>Ed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fred</title>
		<link>http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/12/02/u-s-patent-office-gains-access-to-traditional-knowledge-digital-library-tkdl/comment-page-1/#comment-69652</link>
		<dc:creator>Fred</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:33:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patentbaristas.com/?p=2530#comment-69652</guid>
		<description>FTA: &quot;The new database, developed jointly by India’s Council of Scientific &amp; Industrial Research (CSIR) and the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga &amp; Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH), includes over 200,000 traditional medicine formulations on Ayurveda, Unani and Siddha comprising 30 million pages.&quot;

Homeopathy? Homeopathy claims should be rejected under 35 USC 101 as lacking utility.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FTA: &#8220;The new database, developed jointly by India’s Council of Scientific &amp; Industrial Research (CSIR) and the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga &amp; Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH), includes over 200,000 traditional medicine formulations on Ayurveda, Unani and Siddha comprising 30 million pages.&#8221;</p>
<p>Homeopathy? Homeopathy claims should be rejected under 35 USC 101 as lacking utility.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Served from: www.patentbaristas.com @ 2012-02-13 01:53:42 -->
