SEARCH · PubMed Health
Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The author calls attention to a documentation source neglected by French historians of pharmacy: invention patents. He shows how to take advantage of these documents, provides an example of their interest and analyzes globally the corpus of legally-approved patents by pharmacists from 1836 to 1852.
Persistent problems in meeting the intent of Public Law 94-142 (and its reauthorization legislation) are caused by the failure of federal and state leaders to collaborate beyond the boundaries of current policies to develop new approaches to meeting the learning needs of students with disabilities. Much of the hindrance derives from problems with current referral-to-placement procedures. This article proposes a way to escape from the quagmire of laws, regulations, and policies that make special education costly rather than free and that inhibit teachers from developing appropriate educational strategies.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Relying on a quantitative analysis of the patenting and assignment behavior of inventors, we highlight the evolution of institutions that encouraged trade in technology and a growing division of labor between those who invented new technologies and those who exploited them commercially over the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries. At the heart of this change in the organization of inventive activity was a set of familiar developments which had significant consequences for the supply and demand of inventions. On the supply side, the growing complexity and capital intensity of technology raised the amount of human and physical capital required for effective invention, making it increasingly desirable for individuals involved in this activity to specialize. On the demand side, the growing competitiveness of product markets induced firms to purchase or otherwise obtain the rights to technologies developed by others. These increasing incentives to differentiate the task of invention from that of commercializing new technologies depended for their realization upon the development of markets and other types of organizational supports for trade in technology. The evidence suggests that the necessary institutions evolved first in those regions of the country where early patenting activity had already been concentrated. A self-reinforcing process whereby high rates of inventive activity encouraged the evolution of a market for technology, which in turn encouraged greater specialization and productivity at invention as individuals found it increasingly feasible to sell and license their discoveries, appears to have been operating. This market trade in technological information was an important contributor to the achievement of a high level of specialization at invention well before the rise of large-scale research laboratories in the twentieth century.
The Patents Act 1990 (Cth) requires a complete specification to describe the invention. This description is central to the policy objective that the statutory rights under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) are exchanged for disclosure of the invention, including how to make the invention. In addressing these requirements for "micro-organisms", the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) adopted the Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Micro-organisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure (Budapest Treaty) recognising that the "invented" organism itself may be necessary to make and use the invention, and that a formal description may be of limited value or practicability. The scope of the Budapest Treaty does not, however, extend to a significant class of living organisms outside the class defined by the term "micro-organism". This article reviews the application of the description requirements for living organism inventions under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) and concludes that some form of public availability or deposit requirements are necessary for invented living organisms that are outside the scope of the Budapest Treaty's "micro-organisms".
This paper focuses on mechanical inventiveness, the conception and development of new devices which require use of mechanical principles. In Phase 1 of the three-phase investigation, we studied 34 inventors who received between three and 82 agricultural and industrial patents. These inventors formed the original criterion group of mechanical inventors. Phase 2 of the investigation was the development of an inventiveness measure. From the criterion group of adult mechanical inventors, the Iowa Inventiveness Inventory (III) was developed to measure attitudes and characteristics of inventors. Subjects for Phase 3 of the study were 90 young inventors (40 males, 50 females), students (grades five to eight) who won local and regional invention contests and reached the state convention of Invent Iowa. In Phase 3, Invent Iowa state finalists in grades five to eight (n = 90) were administered the III and the Mechanical Reasoning test of the Differential Aptitude Tests. Characteristics of the young inventors, as delineated by these assessments, are provided.
Patent law is intended to provide protection for new and inventive achievements in technology. Technical progress is considered to be the purpose and aim of patent law. The main objective of patent law is to protect patentable results according to the latest state of science and research. It is most important to encourage the inventor to completely publish his knowledge. As a reward for this the inventor is granted a right of exclusion which is limited in time: the patent. It is not the purpose of patent law to enrich mere theory but to create industrially applicable knowledge for the public. This contribution deals with important problems to be considered by inventors in the patenting of inventions in the field of biology and chemistry. Such questions are related particularly to the accessibility of inventions and discoveries to patent protection, the various kinds (categories) of patents, the requirement of novelty, complete disclosure of the invention, patentability of DNA sequences and proteins, as well as inventive step.
Tissue engineering is a young and interdisciplinary scientific discipline but it offers exciting opportunities to improve the quality of health care for hundreds of thousands of patients. Lured by its potential, several start-up companies, pharmaceutical corporations, and medical device enterprises alike are investing heavily in this sector. Invention is a key driver of competition in this sector. In this study, we aim to explain the variation in inventive output across the different firms in the sector. Our major premise is that firms that forge alliances will be able to tap into the expertise of their partners and thus improve their chances of inventive output. We further argue that alliances that enable technology acquisition or learning will enhance the inventive output of firms more than other kinds of alliances. We measure the inventive output of a company by the number of patents filed. On the basis of a preliminary analysis of seven companies, we find support for the hypotheses. We also argue that, to achieve commercial success, firms need to manage time to market (through alliances or otherwise), have a global outlook, nurture their financial resources, and attain critical mass through mergers.
The universities are encouraged by the government nowadays to stimulate innovations and also to provide the proper machinery for assisting the protection and commercialisation of innovations. A better understanding of the innovation process may help to create an atmosphere suitable for inventions at the university. Examples can be taken from successful innovations previously made at the university. During the 1960's I made a series of inventions, which ultimately led to the development of the diagnostic test kit industry. The first, which I made as an undergraduate, was a simple and reliable test kit for diagnosis of pregnancy. This was followed by the solid phase radioimmunoassay and a solid phase assay for vitamin B12; next, the dual specific non-competitive sandwich assay and the in-vitro test for diagnosis of allergy, called RAST (Radioallergosorbent test). Organon in Holland with the pregnancy test kit, and Pharmacia in Sweden with test kits for radioimmunoassay, became pioneers among the diagnostic test kit industries. Pharmacia Diagnostics later became one of the leading diagnostic test kit companies in the world and has continued to be so in the field of allergy diagnosis. Each one of these inventions started with a few unique observations leading to a technical development. The pregnancy test as well as the allergy test emerged from the development of assay methods with unique qualities with the subsequent search for appropriate applications. The foreseeing of a commercial value on a future market was a very important step. This was followed by the search for a suitable industry interested to exploit the invention with its new business opportunity i.e. apply for a patent, produce and market the products, which in my case consisted of the necessary reagents and equipments for particular diagnostic tests. Finally, an agreement had to be settled between the entrepreneur and the inventors. This report describes these inventions and particularly discusses some crucial steps of the innovation processes.
One of the requirements for patentability of an invention is that the invention involves an inventive step or in other words, is not obvious. In recent years, the obviousness of inventions in biotechnology has had to be judicially considered as a consequence of new methodologies being applied in biotechnology. This paper addresses how a research worker might go about assessing whether his or her invention is obvious in the light of developments in this area of patent law.
Recently there have been some important developments with respect to the patentability of inventions in the field of structural genomics. The leaders of the European Patent Office (EPO), Japan Patent Office (JPO) and the United States Patent Office (USPTO) came together for a trilateral meeting to conduct a comparative study on protein 3-dimensional (3-D) structure related claims in an effort to come to a mutual understanding about the examination of such inventions. The three patent offices were presented with eight different cases: 1) 3-D structural data of a protein per se; 2) computer-readable storage medium encoded with structural data of a protein; 3) protein defined by its tertiary structure; 4) crystals of known proteins; 5) binding pockets and protein domains; 6) and 7) are both directed to in silico screening methods directed to a specific protein; and 8) pharmacophores. The preliminary conclusions reached at the trilateral meeting provide clarity regarding the types of inventions that may be patentable given a specific set of scientific facts in a patent application. Therefore, the guidance provided by this study will help inventors, attorneys and other patent practitioners who file for patent protection on structural genomics-based inventions both here and abroad comply with the patentability requirements of each office.
BACKGROUND: G. Cardano, physician, mathematician, and astrologer in Pavia, Italy, in 1550 described how sound may be perceived through the skull. A few years later H. Capivacci, also a physician in Padua, realized that this phenomenon might be used as a diagnostic tool for differentiating between hearing disorders located either in the middle ear or in the acoustic nerve. The German physician G. C. Schelhammer in 1684 was the first to use a common cutlery fork in further developing the experiments initiated by Cardano and Capivacci. For a long time to come, however, there was no demand for this in practical otology. THE INVENTION OF THE TUNING FORK: The tuning fork was invented in 1711 by John Shore, trumpeter and lutenist to H. Purcell and G.F. Händel in London. A picture of Händel's own tuning fork, probably the oldest tuning fork in existence, is presented here for the first time. There are a number of anecdotes connected with the inventor of the tuning fork, using plays on words involving the name Shore, and mixing up pitch-pipe and pitchfork. Some of these are related here. The tuning fork as a musical instrument soon became a success throughout Europe. THE PHYSICS OF THE TUNING FORK: The German physicist E. F. F. Chladni in Wittenberg around 1800 was the first to systematically investigate the mode of vibration of the tuning fork with its nodal points. Besides this, he and others tried to construct a complete musical instrument based on sets of tuning forks, which, however, were not widely accepted. J. H. Scheibler in Germany in 1834 presented a set of 54 tuning forks covering the range from 220 Hz to 440 Hz, at intervals of 4 Hz. J. Lissajous in Paris constructed a very elaborate tuning fork with a resonance box, which was intended to represent the international standard of the musical note A with 435 vibrations per second, but this remained controversial. K. R. Koenig, a German physicist living in Paris, invented a tuning fork which was kept in continuous vibration by a clockwork. H. Helmholtz, physiologist in Heidelberg, in 1863 used sets of electromagnetically powered tuning forks for his famous experiments on the sensations of tone. Until the invention of the electronic valve, tuning forks remained indispensible instruments for producing defined sinusoidal vibrations. The history of this development is presented in detail. The diagnostic use of the tuning fork in otology will be described in a separate article.
In genetic diagnostics, the emergence of a so-called "patent thicket" is imminent. Such an overlapping set of patent rights may have restrictive effects on further research and development of diagnostic tests, and the provision of clinical diagnostic services. Currently, two models that may facilitate access to and use of patented genetic inventions are attracting much debate in various national and international fora: patent pools and clearing houses. In this article, we explore the concept of clearing houses. Several types of clearing houses are identified. First, we describe and discuss two types that would provide access to information on the patented inventions: the information clearing house and the technology exchange clearing house. Second, three types of clearing houses are analysed that not only offer access to information but also provide an instrument to facilitate the use of the patented inventions: the open access clearing house, the standardized licences clearing house and the royalty collection clearing house. A royalty collection clearing house for genetic diagnostic testing would be the most comprehensive as it would serve several functions: identifying patents and patent claims essential to diagnostic testing, matching licensees with licensors, developing and supplying standardized licences, collecting royalties, monitoring whether users respect licensing conditions, and providing dispute resolution services such as mediation and arbitration. In this way, it might function as an effective model for users to facilitate access to and use of the patented inventions. However, it remains to be seen whether patent holders with a strong patent portfolio will be convinced by the advantages of the royalty collection clearing house and be willing to participate.
The legal bases for acknowledgement of plasmids (vectors) as inventions, in particular within the classes of the "substance" and "microbial strain" are discussed. There is a definite similarity in a number of features between phages recognized as inventions and plasmids. Therefore, in principle their acknowledgement as inventions may be considered possible, since it raises no new problems as those occurring in legal protection of microbial strains. At the same time there is no pressing need in acknowledgement of plasmids (vectors) as inventions and their legal protection should be rather of the prestige character.