California Patent Attorney - California Patent Lawyer

California - The "America Invents Act" (the "Act") (S. 23 & H.R. 1249), formerly known as the Patent Reform Act of 2011, are two similar bills currently making their way through the Houses of Congress. This is the fourth consecutive session in which Congress has attempted to alter the U.S. patent system, and proposed changes include switching patent priority from "first to invent" to "first to file". The U.S. system has not undergone a serious change since the enactment of the American Inventors Protection Act in 1999.

The Act would provide a transition period of several years during which inter partes reexamination could still be requested but does not propose to alter ex parte reexamination. Therefore, according to the USPTO's announcement appearing in the Federal Register on April 25, 2011, it must "continue its efforts to improve the existing reexamination system." (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-25/html/2011-9805.htm).

In any event, David Kappos, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, reaffirmed the importance of reexamination recently in a press release: "We recognize that [it] is one of the most important functions of the USPTO, because these patents often have significant commercial value and are usually involved in concurrent litigation. [And] [b]y resolving these disputes more quickly, we can make patent reexamination a better mechanism for reviewing patent validity." (http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2011/11-28.jsp).

A public meeting will be held on June 1st at the USPTO in order to solicit public opinions on several changes under consideration concerning the streamlining of the procedures governing ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings. These changes have ostensibly been designed to achieve faster and more efficient resolution of the substantial new question of patentability (SNQ) for which reexamination has been ordered. The proposed changes fall into three categories: 1) changes which affect both ex parte and inter partes reexaminations, 2) changes which only affect ex parte reexamination and 3) changes affecting only inter partes reexamination.

In outline form, they are (see the relevant CFR for more detail at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-04-25/html/2011-9805.htm):

1) Proposed Changes to Both Ex Parte and Inter Partes Reexaminations:
A. Requester Must Separately Explain How Each SNQ Presented in the Request Is ``New'' Relative to Other Examinations of the Patent Claims.
B. Requester Must Explain How the References Apply to Every Limitation of Every Claim for Which Reexamination Is Requested.
C. Requester Must Explain How Multiple SNQs Raised in the Same Request Are Non-Cumulative of Each Other; Cumulative SNQs Will Be Deemed to Constitute a Single SNQ.
D. The Examiner May Select One or More Representative Rejections From Among a Group of Adopted Rejections.
E. Requester's Declaration and Other Evidence Will Be Mainly Limited to the Request.
F. Patent Owner's Amendments and Evidence Will Be Mainly Limited to the First Action Response.
G. Claim Amendments Will Not Be Entered Unless Accompanied by a Statement Explaining How the Proposed New Claim Language Renders the Claims Patentable in Light of an SNQ.
H. Petitions Practice Will Be Clearly Defined.

2) Proposed Changes Specific to Ex Parte Reexamination:
A. Make Permanent the Pilot That Allows the Patent Owner to Optionally Waive the Patent Owner's Statement.
B. Where the Patent Owner Does Not Waive the Statement, the Order Granting Reexamination Will Include a Provisional FAOM, Which May Be Made Final in the Next Action.

3) Proposed Changes Specific to Inter Partes Reexamination:
A. Third Party Requester May Dispute the Examiner's Designation That a Rejection is "Representative" of Other Rejections in the Group.
B. Final Office Action Closes Prosecution and Triggers Appeal Rights.
C. Third Party Requester's Appellant Brief is Limited To Appealing An Examiner's Decision That a Claim is Patentable; Additional Bases To Cancel A Rejected Claim Can Only Be Argued in a Respondent Brief Following Patent Owner's Appellant Brief.

The USPTO invites comments on the proposed changes as well as thirteen other specific questions posed at the end of the notice in the April 25th CFR. If you are interested, now is the time to weigh-in on the possible reinvention of the U.S. ex parte and inter partes reexamination process.

California - Annually, the San Diego Center for Algae Biotechnology (SD-CAB) holds a symposium featuring a distinguished panel of speakers from academia, government labs and private research centers as well as businesses and investors interested in using algae for commercial fuel production. This year's Algal Biofuels Symposium will be held Friday and Saturday, April 29-30th, in the Frederic de Hoffmann Auditorium of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California and is entitled: "Algal Biofuels - Advancing to Economic Viability."

Day one of the symposium includes science speakers from the commercial side of algae biofuels research and development. Presentations on research from the newly established Consortium for Algal Biofuels Commercialization (CAB-Comm) will be held on the second day. The goal is to bring together academic and commercial sector scientists at the forefront of algal biofuels research to talk about the current state of algal molecular genetics, biochemistry, synthetic genomics and related technologies - all with an eye toward commercialization.

The mission of SD-CAB is to support the development of innovative, sustainable and commercially viable algae-based renewable energy sources, green chemical and biological products, water conservation and CO2 abatement in the San Diego area. Algae produce a variety of interesting molecules and fuel precursors, including triglycerides and fatty acids that can be converted to biodiesel, as well as isoprenoids and lipids that can be converted to traditional diesel fuel and gasoline. Algae can also be used to produce hydrogen or biomass, which can then be digested into natural gas.

The US consumes 140 billion gallons of liquid fuel every year. Algae are capable of producing 3,000 gallons of liquid fuel per acre per year. Algae grows well in seawater with minimal nutrient inputs and some strains can grow in desert ponds utilizing high-saline water from otherwise unusable aquifers. Competition between algae and traditional row-crop agriculture for arable land, fresh water and application of petroleum-based fertilizers could therefore be avoided. Many species of algae can even grow in wastewater from treatment plants, cleaning the water all the while.

Biofuel produced by algae approaches carbon neutrality. Since the photosynthetic organisms first remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, the overall carbon footprint is minimal. Algae production creates green-collar jobs, too. (See: http://www.cleantechsandiego.org./why-san-diego-leads/advanced-biofuels.html). The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 2010 report on the Economic Impact of Algal Biofuel Research estimates a current payroll of approximately $28.8 million, and rising, in the San Diego region alone. (See: http://algae.ucsd.edu/_files/EconomicImpactSummary2010.pdf).

The points made above provide intellectual property lawyers, venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and green collar workers alike with reason to hope for cleaner fuels produced more-sustainably sometime in the near future.

California - In In re BP Lubricants USA Inc., the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held that a false marking claim must satisfy the particularity standard of Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), which requires that complaints alleging fraud or mistake "state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake." A complaint containing only "conclusory allegations that a defendant is a 'sophisticated company' and 'knew or should have known' that the patent expired" was ruled to be insufficient to meet that standard. Granting in part Petitioner BP Lubricants USA, Inc.'s request for mandamus, the Court ordered the district court to dismiss relator's complaint with leave to amend.
Petitioner BP distributed products using a bottle design for which they had received a design patent. BP was alleged to have continued to mark its bottles with the patent numbers, even after its expiration in 2005, despite being a "sophisticated company" that had "experience applying for, obtaining, and litigating patents," for the purpose of deceiving the public.

The purpose of the Rule 9(b) standard is to weed out frivolous claims. To survive dismissal, a plaintiff must show "some objective indication to reasonably infer that the defendant was aware that the patent expired." If this awareness is established, the combination of actual misrepresentation and awareness of the falsity of the representation would be enough to infer the required "intent to deceive" element of the crime.

The Court found that relator's argument that BP was a "sophisticated company" that "should have known" of the patent's expiration was not enough to reasonably infer that BP had actual awareness. In addition, the mere fact that the mark on the bottles was false and misrepresentative was insufficient to show the Petitioner's possessed intent to deceive, the relationship between factual falsity and state of mind not being strong enough.

Addressing the relator's concerns that the anonymous nature of false marking meant that specific individuals could not always be named to show deceptive intent, the Court stated that there were other types of evidence from which deceptive intent can be reasonable inferred. For example, evidence that Petitioner had sued third parties for infringement after the expiration of the patent or had revised its markings after patent expiration would in the Court's eyes be sufficient.

Lastly, the Court addressed its earlier ruling in Pequignot v. Solo Cup, 608 F.3d 1356, which held that "the combination of a false statement and knowledge that the statement was false creates a rebuttable presumption of intent to deceive the public." While the Pequignot presumption can be an important factor in meeting the Rule 9(b) pleading standard, the Court ruled that by itself it is not enough.

This case marks the first time the Federal Circuit has ruled conclusively on whether false marking is subject to the pleading standards of Rule 9(b). In determining that the heightened standard of Rule 9(b) is necessary, courts will now have an easier time dismissing false marking cases deemed to be frivolous.

California - What is the tie that binds the following eleven threads? 1) Energy generation (wind, hydro, solar, geothermal, biofuels), 2) energy storage (batteries, fuel cells), 3) energy infrastructure, 4) energy efficiency, 5) transportation, 6) water & wastewater (conservation, treatment), 7) air & environment (clean-up, monitoring, offsets and trading), 8) materials (chemical, bio, nano), 9) manufacturing/industrial (smart production), 10) agriculture (natural pesticides, land management, aquaculture) and 11) recycling & waste management.

The answer is that substantial portions of each fall under the "clean tech" umbrella. Clean tech, then, spans many diverse industry segments. However, this diversity is unified by a clear set of overarching goals: 1) provide superior performance at lower costs, while 2) greatly reducing or eliminating negative ecological impact, at the same time as 3) improving the productive and responsible use of natural resources. (See http://cleantech.com/about/cleantechdefinition.cfm).

Fortunately Eric L. Lane, a patent attorney in San Diego, has done an excellent job of synthesizing the legal implications of this growing area of IP and presenting it to us in the form of a highly literate and pleasantly readable book. The book is entitled "Clean Tech Intellectual Property: Eco-marks, Green Patents, and Green Innovation" and is published by the Oxford University Press (2011). (http://www.amazon.com/Clean-Tech-Intellectual-Property-Innovation/dp/product-description/0199737096).

Mr. Lane's book presents clean tech IP as an important area of law and policy seeking to foster innovation in order to improve the environment and curb global warming. In it, he treats green intellectual property as a discrete field set apart from the general realm of intellectual property law, and offers 260 pages of arguments and evidence beckoning us to join him in his belief that it is worthy of study, practice and expertise in its own right.

Section one of the book presents strategies for drafting and prosecuting clean tech patent applications, building green patent portfolios and clean tech transfer and licensing. Section two covers clean tech and the courts. Topics include "Green Patent Litigation Past, Present, and Future" as well as non-practicing patentees (NPP's) in the clean tech world. Green branding, greenwashing and eco-mark enforcement are covered in section three. Section four, the final section, is devoted to green patent policies and initiatives and concludes with the debate over IP rights in low-income developing countries. All sections include analyses of relevant cases and lessons learned.

In the end, "Clean Tech Intellectual Property: Eco-marks, Green Patents, and Green Innovation" is the first comprehensive review of intellectual property and clean technology. It relies upon industry trends, legal developments and case studies to analyze the dynamic interplay between clean technologies and intellectual property regimes: 1) how IP law affects clean tech growth and 2) how green business models shape IP practice. If Mr. Lane is correct, as we and the fellowship of kindred minds suspect he is, then this first book will not be the last. Clean tech really is here to stay...and grow.

California - Google's empire, built on advertising revenue tied to keyword searching, has recently taken a turn toward image-driven search capability with the addition of two patents.

The first, "User Interface for Presenting Search Results for Multiple Regions of a Visual Query," describes how an overall visual query, such as a photograph, screen shot, or video frame is first submitted to a computing system, which then breaks it up into discrete pieces, possibly according to type. Each piece is then sent to a specific search system implementing a distinct visual query search process. A plurality of results is generated and an interactive results document is created and sent back. This document has one or more visual identifier for each piece of the overall picture with a selectable link to a particular result for that piece. The visual identifier may be a box or a translucent label which could be color-coded by type.

Even more provocative, though, is the second patent, "Facial Recognition With Social Network Aiding," which describes a computer-implemented method of processing facial image queries using social media data pertaining to the requester in order to obtain results. This is accomplished by identifying one or more individuals associated with potential image matches and measuring social connectivity between that image and the requester. These social metrics may be obtained from communication applications, social networking applications, calendar applications and other collaborative applications. Next, an ordered list of persons is generated by ranking the visual similarity between the queried image and potential image matches. Finally, results from the list are sent to the requester.

Google has a couple of ideas for protecting the privacy of Facebook users and the like. First, Google contemplates allowing facial recognition capabilities only to the person positively identified in a picture. A second possibility is based upon obtaining permission. Once a person has been positively identified, a request might be sent to that person asking to allow their image to be returned in future searches conducted by people within their social network.

The ideal of mining social network data to improve facial recognition has been explored by others, too, including researchers at Harvard, who published a paper on the topic in 2008 concluding the technology had promise. (Autotagging Facebook: Social Network Context Improves Photo Annotation).

Critics point to darker possibilities, though. Dictators and governments are already identifying people based upon photos posted in social media connected to their real names. After the Iranian protests were over in 2009, the government is known to have gone through Flickr, collected photos of protesters then published them on government websites.

Nonetheless, Google continues to develop such technology amid its broader overall effort to add visual and social networking capabilities to its search technology.

California - Capacitive touch-screens, such as those found on the Apple iPod, as well as many tablet PCs and smartphones, detect inputs through distortions in the screen's electrostatic field. These distortions can be caused by the touch of a finger, thanks to the human body's conductive properties. On the other hand, nonconductive materials such as fabric are unable to interact with the screen.

Since actions such as cleaning the screen with a cloth or keeping the device in a pocket will not activate the screen, this also means that a user will not be able to use their iPod or smartphone touchscreen while wearing gloves, a dilemma in times of cold weather. In its new patent for a "High Tactility Glove System," Apple seeks to solve this problem by creating a system where a user can operate the touchscreen while keeping their gloves on and hands warm.

The patented glove consists of two layers, a thin inner liner and a thicker outer shell. The inner liner is made of an electrically conductive material, simulating the electrical properties of human skin. The thicker and more insulated outer shell contains apertures at the fingertips. Normally, these are kept closed, which can be done with an elastic ring surrounding the aperture or by having the aperture covered by a removable cap. However, when a user wearing the gloves wishes to use an electronic device, they can peel back the outer shell so that the inner liner protrudes through, where it is able to contact and interface with the device. After performing the desired operations, the liner is then withdrawn back into the shell.

The patent also claims an embodiment of the invention where the outer shell also contains a conductive portion electrically coupled to the inner liner, allowing the surface of the outer shell to interact with a touchscreen. However, the apertures still exist in this embodiment should the user wish to perform actions requiring more precision than would be practical with the bulkier outer shell.

California - 35 U.S.C. § 284 provides that upon finding infringement of a valid patent, damages shall not be "less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court." Often, during litigation, the "reasonable royalty" rate is arrived at through imagining a hypothetical negotiation has taken place between the parties at the time infringement began. (Wang Labs. Inc. v. Toshiba Corp., 993 F.2d 858, 869-70 (Fed.Cir.1993)).

The 25% rule is a tool that has been used to approximate the reasonable royalty rate that the manufacturer of a patented product would presumably be willing to offer to pay to the patentee during a hypothetical negotiation. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has tolerated its use where its acceptability has not been disputed. Lower courts have invariably admitted evidence based on the 25% rule, due either to its widespread acceptance or because its admissibility was not contested.

Critics of the rule point out three main flaws. First, the relationship between the patent and the accused product is ignored. Consequently, the particular importance of the patent to the profits of the product, the availability of close alternatives, and other potentially important factors likely to be taken into account in real negotiations are not. Second, the relationship between the parties is ignored. For example, degree of risk cannot be explicitly apportioned between the licensor and licensee of a particular technology. Third, the rule is arbitrary and does not relate necessarily to the results of a negotiation hypothesized to have taken place before the infringement. Recently, Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (2011 WL 9738) gave the Federal Circuit a chance to revisit damages.

Uniloc alleged that Microsoft's "Product Activation" authentication feature found in Word XP, Word 2003, and Windows XP programs infringed its '216 patent covering an anti-pirating software registration and licensing system utilizing a particular algorithm and the jury agreed. They awarded Uniloc $388 million in damages for patent infringement, relying upon Uniloc's expert, Dr. Gemini, who testified that damages should be $564,946,803 based upon a hypothetical negotiation between the parties (and the Georgia-Pacific factors).

Dr. Gemini applied the 25 percent "rule of thumb" to the $10 estimated value of each infringing Product Activation key on Microsoft licensed software, yielding a value of $2.50 per key. He then multiplied this number by the number of new Office and Windows product licenses (225,978,721) sold, which resulted in the $565 million value. He then "checked" his valuation by calculating that against the $19 billion total market value of Microsoft product sales, his $565 million represented only a 2.9% royalty rate. He even presented a pie chart to the jury displaying information to this effect, noting that 2.9% was reasonable.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit, faced for the first time with a chance to rule squarely on the rule, seized the opportunity:

"This court now holds as a matter of Federal Circuit law that the 25 percent rule of thumb is a fundamentally flawed tool for determining a baseline royalty rate in a hypothetical negotiation. Evidence relying on the 25 percent rule of thumb is thus inadmissible under Daubert and the Federal Rules of Evidence, because it fails to tie a reasonable royalty base to the facts of the case at issue."

Id. at 19. Thus, under the Daubert standard for expert testimony and FRE 702, general theories are permissible only if the expert sufficiently ties the theory to the specific facts of the case at hand.

The court went on to review numerous cases, from Kumho Tire and Joiner to ResQNet and Wordtech and held that their meaning was clear: "[T]here must be a basis in fact to associate the royalty rates used in prior licenses to the particular hypothetical negotiation at issue in the case. The 25% rule of thumb as an abstract and largely theoretical construct fails to satisfy this fundamental requirement."

At trial, Microsoft argued that Uniloc's use of the entire market value rule was not proper since the Product Activation key did not create the basis for customer demand or substantially create the value of the component parts, and Dr. Gemini's testimony tainted the jury's damages deliberations. The district court agreed and granted a new trial on damages. The "$19 billion cat was never put back into the bag" and the jury may have "used the $19 billion figure to 'check' its significant award of $388,000,000." Uniloc II, 640 F.Supp.2d at 185. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a conditional new trial on damages for Uniloc's violation of the entire market value rule.

The Federal Circuit did not propose improved methods of calculating damages but seems intent on continuing to modify awards.

California - The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has recently awarded the Geron Corporation the TA-65 patent, which will bring the world's first telomerase activator to market. Telomerase Activation Sciences (T.A. Sciences), a subsidiary of the Geron Corp. owns sole rights under this patent for cosmetic and nutraceutical applications.

The Telomerase Activation technology targets immune cells in the human body, and has been shown to slow cell death and increase quality of life. Results from a study performed by T.A. Sciences show that participants who took the TA-65 for a 12-month period demonstrated a substantial increase in their immunological function. This improvement was due to a reduced amount of short telomeres in immune cells. Telomeres are at the end of every chromosomes, acting like bookends and protecting chromosomes from fusing into rings and binding with other DNA. The placebo-controlled study results also showed improvements in vision, skin appearance and male libido, with no reported side effects.

"This foundational patent is a validation of the millions of dollars and more than 8 years of effort invested to bring TA-65, the world's first telomerase activator, to market," stated T.A. Sciences Chairman, Noel Thomas Patton. He added that the issuance of the breakthrough patent will amplify Geron's proprietary rights to its already strong resume of anti-aging inventions and will make it much more difficult for infringers to copy them.

T.A. Sciences has been selling the supplement for almost four years. Results from the TA-65 study can be found on the company's website: www.tasciences.com.

California - For those contemplating soon taking the Examination for Registration to Practice in Patent Matters before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), be advised that the USPTO is updating the content of the exam in April. According to information released by the USPTO on February 11th, the current exam will cease to be administered after April 4th and it's replacement is scheduled to become operational on April 12th. There will be a blackout period between these dates during which the exam will not be administered at all. And, with David Kappos as Director of the Patent Office, and the revitalization efforts therein, these dates are probably firm.

Generally, the update in the content of the exam will be accompanied by an update in the source material for the questions. Source material will be updated to include sources beyond the MPEP itself in an effort to more-closely conform exam content to current practice. These reference materials will be available on the computer monitor during the examination and are centered around A) the revised MPEP, B) developments in the obviousness inquiry after KSR v. Teleflex, C) determining subject matter eligibility for process claims in view of Bilski v. Kappos, and D) supplementary guidelines for determining compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112.

For more information, the updated reference materials are listed below (PDF files):
1. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), Edition 8, Revision 8.

2. Examination Guidelines Update: Developments in the Obviousness Inquiry After KSR v. Teleflex.

3. New Interim Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examination Instructions, August 2009.

4. Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos.

5. Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos, July 2010.

6. Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications.

However, the overall format of the exam will remain the same, consisting of 100 multiple-choice questions. So, while the adventurous types wait for the new exam to arrive just before Tax Day, the rest had better get back to studying.

California - As part of President Obama's plan to double domestic exports over the next five years, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is creating regional offices across the country in an effort to reduce the backlog of pending patent applications. The speedier process will enable businesses to bring their products to market sooner thus boosting our economy.

The first regional office will be in Detroit and is slated to open in late spring or early summer of this year. The increased number of examining experts is expected to reduce the average wait time for approval of a patent application from three years to one. Additional offices will be opened if Detroit proves to be successful.

The USPTO employs more than 6,000 patent examiners at its sole office in Alexandria, VA. The examiners consist of scientists and engineers and are trained on the basic legal precedents of issuing patents. With a turnover rate of one examiner leaving for every two that are hired, the USPTO has had the highest employee attrition rate of any government agency. This has led to the backlog and delayed examination and approval processes.

The goal of the USPTO is to match a particular patent application with an examiner who is an expert in that particular field, thus increasing efficiency and quality in the examination process. This plan for increased efficiency will be put to test in the Detroit office, where automotive-related applications will be appropriately matched with the large pool of highly trained engineers and scientists with experience in the automotive industry.

Another benefit of the regional offices will be the personalization of face-to-face meetings of examiners and the inventors and their patent attorneys. This helps them gain a better understanding of the patent at issue and will reduce travel costs for the inventor who wishes to meet with their examiner. Another benefit of the regional offices will be the expanded congressional support and increased likelihood of remaining fully funded.

Even though the 3 year to 1 year goal sounds a little ambitious, the USPTO appears to be headed in the right direction.

California - The latest Apple patent appears to be the complement to a closely related patent filed back in 2006.

The technology contained in these patents have the potential to overcome the three principal limitations currently affecting today's commercial 3D televisions. The first is headgear. Bulky glasses are seen as a major impediment to the widespread adoption of those 3D TV's dependent on their use.

TV's which do not require headgear, however, are called "autostereoscopic" and basically come in two flavors, each with their own pluses and minuses. The first category includes parallax barrier and lenticular lens devices featuring screens containing precision-machined barriers or numerous rows of tiny lenses capable of redirecting images to one or more stereoscopic "sweet spots" within a viewing area. While this technology does accommodate multiple viewers, the sweet spots are typically small and tightly fixed in space.

Other displays utilize eye tracking in order to enlarge the stereoscopic sweet spot. However, multiple viewers are not supported by this technology, limiting the display to a single viewer. Consequently, it is not widely favored for consumer products despite the existence of a few laptop computers and other personal electronic devices for sale.

Undaunted, Apple seems intent on leapfrogging ahead with a glasses-free, whole-room, multi-viewer TV system. The first patent claims a 3D display system which utilizes a projection screen possessing an angularly-responsive reflective surface. This allows for coordinated modulation of 3D images to define a programmable mirror with a programmable deflection angle.

The claims of the second patent cover a system which not only tracks the eyes of the observer but then projects independent 3D pseudo-holographic sub-images to the left and right eyes of the viewer, thereby mimicking a hologram.

The system includes a projector, 3D imager, sensor and responsive screen which work together to allow multiple people to view 3D images from almost anywhere in a room. All without glasses!

So, although no timetable has been set for affordable, hassle-free 3D TV's, consumers can expect ever-better products in the marketplace, so that soon we may all have our 3D experiences not only in the theater, but also from the comfort of home.

California - For many years Apple and other cell phone manufacturers have wrestled with where to put the antenna in cell phones. Ideally, it should be exposed for the sake of good reception, yet protected to avoid breakage. If it is buried too deep inside an iPhone, all it will be good for is a spirited round of "Angry Birds" - see Apple's "Antennagate" for more details.

Apple's newest solution, in the form of several related patents, is to put the antenna behind its vaunted logo. Older variations on this theme already exist in some iMacs and iPads. See: Step 23 for a picture of Apple's antenna-behind-the-logo on a deconstructed iPad. This is (probably) not to be confused with Dell's 2003 "Logo Antenna" patent in which case the logo is the antenna.

The first patent is entitled "Dielectric Window Antennas for Electronic Equipment" and describes a dielectric logo structure in the conductive housing wall that functions as a dielectric antenna window for the logo antenna, along with a resonating element mounted behind the logo, all of which allows radio signals to pass freely. The second patent is entitled "Antennas for Wireless Electronic Devices" and describes a parallel plate waveguide antenna mounted inside a conductive housing behind a dielectric member.

These patents mean Apple can place its antenna inside of its ubiquitous aluminum housing, behind its equally ubiquitous logo, without fear of interference because the logo acts as a window for the antenna to receive and transmit signals. Also, these patents point the way toward future Apple products bearing the capacity of communication in the 3G, 4G, and cellular phone bands at 850 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 1900 MHz and the 2100 MHz data bands. But for now, Apple seems to know where to put the antenna: just look to the Apple.