Running late with the deadline for your work? Then we are your reliable assistant in paper help.
Get ready to ask for our assistance when you need essays, research or course works, reports, case studies, etc. Our experts have seen it all and are ready to start working on your assignment right away. Go for it!
With over 6 years of experience in the custom writing service, our team of support agents, managers, editors and writers has got a lot of knowledge about everything that may be required by you. Heres what you get for sure when cooperating with us:
Everyone needs some paper help from time to time, because we are only human.
Our prices start at $10 per page for works completed from scratch and from only $6 per page you need to be edited and proofread.
What factors influence the cost of our paper writing services? There are 5 of them:
Youre a lucky client! Why? Because you never pay for everything. You have lots of freebies to go with every single assignment. They are:
Asking for our paper writing help, you dont only pay us. We also pay you! You can receive up to 15% bonuses back and even earn money with our referral program.
We understand that sometimes you may want your deeds to go unknown. That is why we guarantee your complete privacy and security with our paper help writing service. After registration, you receive a unique ID and that is the only thing along with your instructions visible to our experts. Only our support team will see all the details you provide to be able to contact you in case any questions arise and send you a happy birthday discount on your special day.
Our custom writing service is completely ethical and provides busy students with great resources for their assignments. In the modern world when we need to do a lot of things at the same time, its nice to know you can count on someone for back up. We are always here to create the needed sample or perfect your work through editing/proofreading or explain the solutions to any problems you may have. Find out how much more free time you can get with our writing help.
Write for me capstone medical wembley file beneficiary recontact report online Frank G. Zarb School of Business at Hofstra University, do my capstone project for med surge King's College, Financial District, Manhattan, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy la naranja mecanica libro analysis essay Cortland. New York University College of Arts & Science need someone to do my dissertation results on physical education cheap toshiba satellite c670 1dv review of literature 156th Street, West zip 10032. New York City College of Technology at MetroTech, Downtown Brooklyn research paper format for journals justin capstone design experience order Nassau Lincoln Center campus, Manhattan, City College, Harlem how to write a narrative personal essay E 56th Street zip 10022.
Write for me capstone medical wembley write for me arduino one wire keyboard fe based superconductor review of literature chief justice justices you have before you the condensed book of the intervener center for intellectual property policy and I would invite you to turn to tab one of the condensed book now you'll find an overview of the submissions that I'll present today I'd like to concentrate on point see the heart of sips submission which is that an invention must be as useful as an applicant says it is understood from the perspective of a skilled readers these headings correspond to the headings in our factum this submission begins at page three in paragraph 12 I'd like to ground this principle first and foremost in the statute and I'd like to explain it's consistent application over time discuss its relationship to other aspects of the utility doctrine and finally say a word about how and why this issue is arising more often in practice time permitting i'll deal with argument d the international considerations at the end point 1 the statute the word useful is embedded in the definition of an invention there are several parts to that definition particularly clear when you look at the language in the french version of section 2 there must be subject matter an art that possesses the characteristic of being useful claims construction is about the essential elements what the subject matter is utility is about what the subject matter does how it's useful and we explain the process for applying this test in paragraph 15 of our factum sips submits that the location of the word useful embedded in the definition of an invention indicates that Parliament intended utility to be assessed in relation to the subject matter that is claimed and described it's not enough to be useful for a purpose in the abstract it must be useful for the purpose described to use your language just as smoke diver in the four corners of the specification the claims and the description now this trigger is an ancillary question how do we know what the applicant has said the patent does now in the clearest case justice brown you'll see this in the claims themselves they will be claims for new uses or particular apparatus an apparatus for doing something sometimes it's in the claims itself that's claim 28 just a small table sometimes usefulness is not specified in the claim but has indicated somewhere else in the description that's like claiming so there's a compound that's the subject matter what's it useful for and the debate in this case essentially boils down to whether it must be useful to treat heartburn or useful to treat heartburn better than the appellants old drug or meat result sip of course takes no position on that question this approach of applying usefulness in reference to what the invention is described to be is well established in the case law but what is new is the articulation of a two-tiered standard justice abella you've picked up on this the Federal Court of Appeal statements statements about the two-tiered standard of utility has led to some confusion in some uncertainty sips submission would easily resolve this by clarifying that there are not two standards of utility there's one standard involving distinct questions this is our third submission at the top of page two so courts can separate what an invention does from how much an invention does the scintilla discussion goes to the question of quantum how much an invention does the promise doctrine is about what the invention does or must do now there's a separate question as well which is whether what the subject matter does was demonstrated or soundly predicted at the time of filing neither the quantum question the suit illa issue nor the sound prediction issue are squarely at issue in the facts of this case what this is really about is whether the invention must do what the specification says it must do now it is however concerns about other parties submission and the misunderstanding or misapprehend shin that sometimes a scintilla is enough justice abella you asked whether this Court had ever considered that or endorsed that standard it has not the court has used the phrase in patent law in the context of a scintilla of inventiveness and obvious problem but never around utility my submissions on this point our brief in light of the appellant acknowledgement in Paris 28 and 31 of its reply factum that at least what's required is a meaningful and practical utility not just a scintilla and that makes sense because the scintilla standard would be useless pardon the expression Parliament could not intended a mere scintilla of utility for anything to be enough but you say in your factum you acknowledge in your factum that this Court has said that there's no obligation to describe an inventions utility where does that fit into the mix of how you decide what a skilled reader would say the invention does there is no obligation to describe the usefulness of an invention but if for the purposes of section 27 3 an applicant does indicate how the invention is intended to be used a skilled reader can't artificially separate those statements in determining what the invention what the subject matter is useful for the skilled reader do when there's no indication of utility guild reader will look at the claims in light of the specification as a whole and common general knowledge and understand what it is about this invention that what it is about this use that this invention that makes it useful the skilled reader will use their common general knowledge in light of the specification so what is it claims several different usefulness and one of them is proven good question there are two different ways in which this can happen one is where this two different uses and that's a difficult question that's not before this court the other is where one use is say more than another a better treatment for heartburn as opposed to a treatment for heartburn and a cure for cancer so there are different situations there we're dealing here with only so we're dealing with a pump or we're dealing with correctly correct so in the situation where an applicant says that the subject matter is useful for a particular purpose it must be useful for that particular purpose you help me on a search but Nick todavia on that subject you say I think it utility is not enough it must have the utility indicated but when I look at the definition of an invention it can be any new and useful awesome and when I go to 27 3 it is used as contemplated by the investor so let's say that the youth as contemplated by the inventor I'm sorry can be doing this or two but the youth as contemplated by the indenter is not met but there is another utility is it possible to say that it still meets the definition of an invention because it says any new and useful not necessarily the use contemplated by the inventor no not in 5th submission it's any subject matter that presents the characteristic of being new and useful so that any refers to the subject matter not any use that sip submissions to understand why this arises in practice I'd like to explain that it's not patent law that's changed nor for that matter rates of invalidity but patent practices since the turn of the century and if i may just have a moment to finish this this thought we're increasingly seeing challenges to second and third generation patents new uses for known compounds selections promising a substantial advantage that a species has over a previously patented genus attempts to evergreen patent protection as blockbuster drugs roll off patents and it's in those kinds of cases that applicants do say something specific in particular about usefulness thank you I think it's one more just one more question one of the things that I'm still struggling with is the relationship between novelty non-obviousness and utility having found something to be non obvious and novel what role is there for utility isn't there some kind of utility implicitly built into those other two aspects they're fundamentally related and that goes to point B of our submissions how these principles and doctrines are deeply intertwined but meeting two of those criteria saying we have something new and saying it's inventive it's not obvious does not fulfill the criteria of also being useful their cumulative criteria Thank You justices reply and justice movie / you would asked about petition that best nursing capstone projects for money Midtown Manhattan campus.