Mike Fuller, Kerry Taylor, Ryan Melnick and Brenden Gingrich, were our panel of Life Science attorneys who presented a live webinar event on Thursday, February 21, 2013. The webinar titled Life Science Patent Prosecution in View of the Final AIA Rules, covered first-inventor-to-file procedures and changes to patent term calculations.
This document summarizes the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) interpretation and application of 35 U.S.C. §§102(a)(1) and (b), which relate to novelty conditions for patentability. Key points include: the USPTO interprets §102(a)(1) broadly with no geographic limitations; §102(b)(1) provides a 1-year grace period for inventor disclosures; and overcoming rejections under these provisions requires evidence like affidavits showing the disclosure was by the inventor.
The document announces an upcoming seminar on navigating the risks and rewards of the America Invents Act for start-ups and entrepreneurs. The seminar will be held on October 27th, 2011 from 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM PST at Hantel Technologies in Hayward, CA. It will feature speaker Brian Eller from NC State who will provide an overview of the immediate and long term impacts of the America Invents Act on innovation and technology development, with relevance for medical devices. Registration is requested on EventBrite.
Understanding Changes to 35 USC 102 or "First-(Inventor)-To-FileHovey Williams LLP
The document discusses changes to 35 USC § 102 brought about by the America Invents Act, moving the United States from a first-to-invent system to a first-inventor-to-file system. Key changes include expanding the categories of prior art to include any public disclosure or use anywhere in the world. A one-year grace period is provided for the inventor's own disclosures but is narrow in scope. The new law also eliminates interference proceedings and other provisions while introducing derivation proceedings. Significant ambiguities exist around how terms in the new statute will be interpreted due to imprecise language, leaving many issues to be resolved in coming years.
European & us patent law module3 2013 updatedIP Dome
This document provides an overview of patentability requirements in the US and Europe. It discusses the US patent regime, including patentability, novelty, non-obviousness, and specific cases related to anticipation. It also touches on plant patents, hybrids, and the differences between filing dates and priority dates. Overall, the document outlines key concepts regarding patent eligibility and examines the standards for obtaining a patent in different jurisdictions.
What's Your Strategy?
Prior Art.
Art Exceptions.
FITF "Scenarios".
Comparisons.
Transition Gap.
FITF Rules.
Scope of Patent Filing.
Prosecution Under First Inventor to File with Grace (FTFG).
Suggested FITF Strategies.
This document provides an overview of inventorship issues in U.S. patent law. It discusses that the applicant for a patent must be the inventor, and that U.S. law requires having the correct inventors listed. It covers topics like conception, joint inventorship, derivation, identifying inventors, correcting inventorship, and standing. The document is intended to help practitioners properly determine inventorship when prosecuting patent applications.
Intellectual Property Management Training Cum Writeshop on Technology Disclosure and Claim Drafting, Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic, and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCAARRD), Bulwagang Panday Karunungan, PCAARRD, Los Baños, Laguna (Philippines), 30 August 2012
This document summarizes the United States Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) interpretation and application of 35 U.S.C. §§102(a)(1) and (b), which relate to novelty conditions for patentability. Key points include: the USPTO interprets §102(a)(1) broadly with no geographic limitations; §102(b)(1) provides a 1-year grace period for inventor disclosures; and overcoming rejections under these provisions requires evidence like affidavits showing the disclosure was by the inventor.
The document announces an upcoming seminar on navigating the risks and rewards of the America Invents Act for start-ups and entrepreneurs. The seminar will be held on October 27th, 2011 from 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM PST at Hantel Technologies in Hayward, CA. It will feature speaker Brian Eller from NC State who will provide an overview of the immediate and long term impacts of the America Invents Act on innovation and technology development, with relevance for medical devices. Registration is requested on EventBrite.
Understanding Changes to 35 USC 102 or "First-(Inventor)-To-FileHovey Williams LLP
The document discusses changes to 35 USC § 102 brought about by the America Invents Act, moving the United States from a first-to-invent system to a first-inventor-to-file system. Key changes include expanding the categories of prior art to include any public disclosure or use anywhere in the world. A one-year grace period is provided for the inventor's own disclosures but is narrow in scope. The new law also eliminates interference proceedings and other provisions while introducing derivation proceedings. Significant ambiguities exist around how terms in the new statute will be interpreted due to imprecise language, leaving many issues to be resolved in coming years.
European & us patent law module3 2013 updatedIP Dome
This document provides an overview of patentability requirements in the US and Europe. It discusses the US patent regime, including patentability, novelty, non-obviousness, and specific cases related to anticipation. It also touches on plant patents, hybrids, and the differences between filing dates and priority dates. Overall, the document outlines key concepts regarding patent eligibility and examines the standards for obtaining a patent in different jurisdictions.
What's Your Strategy?
Prior Art.
Art Exceptions.
FITF "Scenarios".
Comparisons.
Transition Gap.
FITF Rules.
Scope of Patent Filing.
Prosecution Under First Inventor to File with Grace (FTFG).
Suggested FITF Strategies.
This document provides an overview of inventorship issues in U.S. patent law. It discusses that the applicant for a patent must be the inventor, and that U.S. law requires having the correct inventors listed. It covers topics like conception, joint inventorship, derivation, identifying inventors, correcting inventorship, and standing. The document is intended to help practitioners properly determine inventorship when prosecuting patent applications.
Intellectual Property Management Training Cum Writeshop on Technology Disclosure and Claim Drafting, Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic, and Natural Resources Research and Development (PCAARRD), Bulwagang Panday Karunungan, PCAARRD, Los Baños, Laguna (Philippines), 30 August 2012
I’m so confused — what is prior art now? Marc Hubbard
How did the America Invents Act (AIA) change the definition of prior art when it switched the U.S. patent system from first-to-invent to first-to-file.
America Invents Act 2011 Dec 15 2011 Slidesemanzo7672
The America Invents Act of 2011 introduced major changes to the U.S. patent system, transitioning from a "first to invent" to a "first inventor to file" system. Key provisions include establishing a grace period of one year for public disclosures by the inventor, defining prior art under Section 102 based on the effective filing date, and exceptions for commonly owned or jointly developed inventions. These changes aim to harmonize U.S. patent law with international standards.
The document provides an update on US patent reform and the America Invents Act. Key points include:
- The bills passed the Senate and House with different provisions around fee diversion and USPTO budget authority.
- The Act moves the US to a first-to-file system with a one-year grace period and introduces several new post-issuance proceedings.
- It compares the changes between old and new §102 standards for novelty and prior art. The new §102(a) combines elements of the old §102(a)-(e) and the new §102(b) creates grace period exceptions.
- Best practices for applicants under the first-to-publish system include promptly filing a provision
The document summarizes key changes to patent law under the America Invents Act, including changing from a first-to-invent system to a first-inventor-to-file system. It discusses provisions around prior art exceptions, derivation proceedings, issues around the scope of prior art and inventor disclosures, and recommendations like filing early and considering pre-filing public disclosures.
The document summarizes key provisions of 35 USC § 102 regarding patent novelty. Section 102 establishes that an invention is not novel if it was known, used, patented, described in a publication, in public use or on sale over one year before filing, abandoned, patented abroad over one year before US filing, or invented by another earlier. The summary focuses on subsections (a)-(g) and what prior art or inventor activities would bar patentability under each.
U.S. Patent Reform 2011: America Invents ActMintz Levin
The document summarizes key changes to patent law and procedures introduced by the America Invents Act of 2011. It discusses revisions to standards for prior art and moving to a first-to-file system. The grace period for public disclosures is now limited to those by the inventor or derived from the inventor. Procedures for post-issuance review like inter partes review and post-grant review were established. Litigation changes include the best mode requirement and new rules for venue and joinder.
Demystifying the concept of Common Ownership and how it can be leveraged to disqualify prior art that might otherwise cause a rejection during prosecution.
Dr. Ashley Sloat, President and Director of Patent Strategy at Aurora leads this discussion, digging into Common Ownership exceptions, joint research exceptions, and terminal disclaimer practice.
Podcast: https://patentlystrategic.buzzsprout.com/1734511/10647883-common-ownership-whose-prior-art-is-it-anyway
Blog post: https://www.aurorapatents.com/blog/new-podcast-common-ownership
The document discusses changes to patent law brought about by the America Invents Act (AIA) and the transition to a first-inventor-to-file (FITF) system. Key changes include a one year grace period for inventors' own prior disclosures; exceptions for joint inventors and assignees of the same invention; new procedures for challenging patents; and a shift to treating unpublished patent applications as prior art. The document compares the new law to the previous first-to-invent system and discusses open questions around the patentability of secret prior art and prior user rights during challenges to a patent's validity.
The document discusses patentability requirements in the US, including utility, novelty, and non-obviousness. It provides details on the types of subject matter that can be patented, conditions for novelty like anticipation and statutory bars, and considerations for non-obviousness. It also discusses the European patent regime and takes questions.
The America Invents Act Turns Traditional Patent Practices into a Thing of th...Armstrong Teasdale
CLE Presentation: Jeannie Boettler, Intellectual Property Partner at Armstrong Teasdale
The America Invents Act is the first significant statutory change to the U.S. patent system in more than 50 years. This seminar will examine how this act fundamentally changes patent practices from "first to invent" to a "first inventor to file" system. The session will provide tips and strategies for the procurement, prosecution and enforcement of patents under the AIA.
The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on this presentation. All rights are reserved and content may not be reproduced, disseminated or transferred, in any form or by means, except with the prior written consent of Armstrong Teasdale.
Partner Ben Anger discusses the latest developments and advanced strategies for PTAB practice, specifically focused on the petitioner side. Ben covers issues related to selecting the prior art, anticipation versus single-reference obviousness, motivation to combine, post-institution practice, and more.
Partners Susan Natland and Jessica Sganga discussed potential trademark and copyright issues in the emerging metaverse, including the surge in popularity of NFTs (non-fungible tokens) and how they may affect intellectual property protections. Get up-to-speed on the “hot” cases in this evolving area and get practical tips on how best to protect your intellectual property from infringement in this virtual space.
Speakers: Susan Natland, Jessica Sganga
Knobbe partners Jeff Van Hoosear (OC) Jason Jardine (SD) and associate Julia Hanson (SD) recently gave a presentation at San Diego Fashion week on intellectual property for designers and artists. The presentation explored what IP is, why it is important to designers, top 5 misconceptions, how to get a copyright, how to get a trademark and how to get a design patent.
Partner Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on responding to IP threats and assertions. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
This document discusses strategic considerations for intellectual property risk mitigation and responding to patent infringement threats and assertions. It provides an overview of types of patent infringement, including literal infringement which occurs when each element of a patented claim is identical in an allegedly infringing device or process. It also discusses doctrine of equivalents, contributory infringement, and induced infringement. The document outlines appropriate and limited defenses to patent infringement and notes statutes related to willfulness and enhanced damages. Factors courts consider for determining willfulness are also provided.
Partner Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on open-source software and third-party vendors. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partner Jason Gersting, Ph.D. moderated a panel of his peers in a discussion about learning how to identify the waves in current written description and enablement law and tips for smoothly riding them to expand, enhance and protect life sciences intellectual property rights. Panelists included Knobbe Martens partners Jessica Achtsam, Eric Furman, Ph.D., and Dan Altman.
Partner Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on open-source software and third-party vendors. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
More Related Content
Similar to Life Science Patent Prosecution in View of the Final AIA Rules
I’m so confused — what is prior art now? Marc Hubbard
How did the America Invents Act (AIA) change the definition of prior art when it switched the U.S. patent system from first-to-invent to first-to-file.
America Invents Act 2011 Dec 15 2011 Slidesemanzo7672
The America Invents Act of 2011 introduced major changes to the U.S. patent system, transitioning from a "first to invent" to a "first inventor to file" system. Key provisions include establishing a grace period of one year for public disclosures by the inventor, defining prior art under Section 102 based on the effective filing date, and exceptions for commonly owned or jointly developed inventions. These changes aim to harmonize U.S. patent law with international standards.
The document provides an update on US patent reform and the America Invents Act. Key points include:
- The bills passed the Senate and House with different provisions around fee diversion and USPTO budget authority.
- The Act moves the US to a first-to-file system with a one-year grace period and introduces several new post-issuance proceedings.
- It compares the changes between old and new §102 standards for novelty and prior art. The new §102(a) combines elements of the old §102(a)-(e) and the new §102(b) creates grace period exceptions.
- Best practices for applicants under the first-to-publish system include promptly filing a provision
The document summarizes key changes to patent law under the America Invents Act, including changing from a first-to-invent system to a first-inventor-to-file system. It discusses provisions around prior art exceptions, derivation proceedings, issues around the scope of prior art and inventor disclosures, and recommendations like filing early and considering pre-filing public disclosures.
The document summarizes key provisions of 35 USC § 102 regarding patent novelty. Section 102 establishes that an invention is not novel if it was known, used, patented, described in a publication, in public use or on sale over one year before filing, abandoned, patented abroad over one year before US filing, or invented by another earlier. The summary focuses on subsections (a)-(g) and what prior art or inventor activities would bar patentability under each.
U.S. Patent Reform 2011: America Invents ActMintz Levin
The document summarizes key changes to patent law and procedures introduced by the America Invents Act of 2011. It discusses revisions to standards for prior art and moving to a first-to-file system. The grace period for public disclosures is now limited to those by the inventor or derived from the inventor. Procedures for post-issuance review like inter partes review and post-grant review were established. Litigation changes include the best mode requirement and new rules for venue and joinder.
Demystifying the concept of Common Ownership and how it can be leveraged to disqualify prior art that might otherwise cause a rejection during prosecution.
Dr. Ashley Sloat, President and Director of Patent Strategy at Aurora leads this discussion, digging into Common Ownership exceptions, joint research exceptions, and terminal disclaimer practice.
Podcast: https://patentlystrategic.buzzsprout.com/1734511/10647883-common-ownership-whose-prior-art-is-it-anyway
Blog post: https://www.aurorapatents.com/blog/new-podcast-common-ownership
The document discusses changes to patent law brought about by the America Invents Act (AIA) and the transition to a first-inventor-to-file (FITF) system. Key changes include a one year grace period for inventors' own prior disclosures; exceptions for joint inventors and assignees of the same invention; new procedures for challenging patents; and a shift to treating unpublished patent applications as prior art. The document compares the new law to the previous first-to-invent system and discusses open questions around the patentability of secret prior art and prior user rights during challenges to a patent's validity.
The document discusses patentability requirements in the US, including utility, novelty, and non-obviousness. It provides details on the types of subject matter that can be patented, conditions for novelty like anticipation and statutory bars, and considerations for non-obviousness. It also discusses the European patent regime and takes questions.
The America Invents Act Turns Traditional Patent Practices into a Thing of th...Armstrong Teasdale
CLE Presentation: Jeannie Boettler, Intellectual Property Partner at Armstrong Teasdale
The America Invents Act is the first significant statutory change to the U.S. patent system in more than 50 years. This seminar will examine how this act fundamentally changes patent practices from "first to invent" to a "first inventor to file" system. The session will provide tips and strategies for the procurement, prosecution and enforcement of patents under the AIA.
The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on this presentation. All rights are reserved and content may not be reproduced, disseminated or transferred, in any form or by means, except with the prior written consent of Armstrong Teasdale.
Similar to Life Science Patent Prosecution in View of the Final AIA Rules (13)
Partner Ben Anger discusses the latest developments and advanced strategies for PTAB practice, specifically focused on the petitioner side. Ben covers issues related to selecting the prior art, anticipation versus single-reference obviousness, motivation to combine, post-institution practice, and more.
Partners Susan Natland and Jessica Sganga discussed potential trademark and copyright issues in the emerging metaverse, including the surge in popularity of NFTs (non-fungible tokens) and how they may affect intellectual property protections. Get up-to-speed on the “hot” cases in this evolving area and get practical tips on how best to protect your intellectual property from infringement in this virtual space.
Speakers: Susan Natland, Jessica Sganga
Knobbe partners Jeff Van Hoosear (OC) Jason Jardine (SD) and associate Julia Hanson (SD) recently gave a presentation at San Diego Fashion week on intellectual property for designers and artists. The presentation explored what IP is, why it is important to designers, top 5 misconceptions, how to get a copyright, how to get a trademark and how to get a design patent.
Partner Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on responding to IP threats and assertions. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
This document discusses strategic considerations for intellectual property risk mitigation and responding to patent infringement threats and assertions. It provides an overview of types of patent infringement, including literal infringement which occurs when each element of a patented claim is identical in an allegedly infringing device or process. It also discusses doctrine of equivalents, contributory infringement, and induced infringement. The document outlines appropriate and limited defenses to patent infringement and notes statutes related to willfulness and enhanced damages. Factors courts consider for determining willfulness are also provided.
Partner Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on open-source software and third-party vendors. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partner Jason Gersting, Ph.D. moderated a panel of his peers in a discussion about learning how to identify the waves in current written description and enablement law and tips for smoothly riding them to expand, enhance and protect life sciences intellectual property rights. Panelists included Knobbe Martens partners Jessica Achtsam, Eric Furman, Ph.D., and Dan Altman.
Partner Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on open-source software and third-party vendors. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partner Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on data privacy. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios .
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partner Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on data privacy. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe
Partners Mauricio Uribe and Vlad Lozan gave an informative presentation on design patent law in the United States. The partners provided best practices for filing and prosecuting design patents in the U.S. and techniques and strategies for including multiple design embodiments in design patent applications. They also discussed how to identify and protect visual elements in computer-related technologies and how to integrate design patents into a holistic intellectual property strategy.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe, Vlad Lozan
Partners Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion on trade secrets. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic and strategic implications for various scenarios .
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe
Partners Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion on trade secrets. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe
Partners Mauricio Uribe and Paul Stellman continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic planning for capturing and protecting intellectual property. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of the topic, diving into the best intellectual property portfolios and cost deferrable strategies to maximize intellectual property spend.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe and Paul Stellmann
Partners Mauricio Uribe and Vlad Teplitskiy gave an informative presentation on strategic considerations for claim drafting electrical and telecommunications Inventions. The partners provided illustrative claim drafting examples and best practices for defining claim scope, as well as claim drafting strategies for avoiding or minimizing unintentional functional claiming.
Speakers: Mauricio Uribe, Vlad Teplitskiy
Partners Maria Stout and Paul Stellman kicked off a two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic planning for capturing and protecting intellectual property. The presentation served as an introduction to the topic and provided more general information.
Speakers: Maria Stout and Paul Stellmann
Partners Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe continued the two-part, comprehensive discussion of strategic considerations regarding employment and vendor agreements. The presentation focused on a more detailed exploration of managing employment and vendor agreements, follow-on agreements, and sample language and practical examples.
Speakers: Melanie Seelig and Mauricio Uribe
The webinar covered strategic considerations for key terms in employee and vendor agreements regarding intellectual property and restrictive covenants. It discussed defining the scope of work and assignments of ownership for intellectual property created. Restrictive covenants like non-compete clauses, non-solicitation, anti-poaching, and confidentiality were also covered. The presentation addressed terms regarding the duration of the agreements and obligations after termination.
This document discusses advanced claiming strategies for artificial intelligence and machine learning inventions. It provides an overview of machine learning and the minimal requirements for an algorithm to be considered machine learning. It also discusses best practices for drafting patent claims for machine learning inventions, including providing detailed descriptions of the technical underpinnings of the AI technology and step-by-step algorithms. The document gives examples of potential patentable subject matter for machine learning inventions, such as collecting or forming a data set, modifications to algorithms, and using machine learning processed data. It provides sample patent claims related to training a neural network, predicting device failures using state and configuration data, and characterizing user inputs using machine learning.
More from Knobbe Martens - Intellectual Property Law (20)
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
إضغ بين إيديكم من أقوى الملازم التي صممتها
ملزمة تشريح الجهاز الهيكلي (نظري 3)
💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀💀
تتميز هذهِ الملزمة بعِدة مُميزات :
1- مُترجمة ترجمة تُناسب جميع المستويات
2- تحتوي على 78 رسم توضيحي لكل كلمة موجودة بالملزمة (لكل كلمة !!!!)
#فهم_ماكو_درخ
3- دقة الكتابة والصور عالية جداً جداً جداً
4- هُنالك بعض المعلومات تم توضيحها بشكل تفصيلي جداً (تُعتبر لدى الطالب أو الطالبة بإنها معلومات مُبهمة ومع ذلك تم توضيح هذهِ المعلومات المُبهمة بشكل تفصيلي جداً
5- الملزمة تشرح نفسها ب نفسها بس تكلك تعال اقراني
6- تحتوي الملزمة في اول سلايد على خارطة تتضمن جميع تفرُعات معلومات الجهاز الهيكلي المذكورة في هذهِ الملزمة
واخيراً هذهِ الملزمة حلالٌ عليكم وإتمنى منكم إن تدعولي بالخير والصحة والعافية فقط
كل التوفيق زملائي وزميلاتي ، زميلكم محمد الذهبي 💊💊
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
How Barcodes Can Be Leveraged Within Odoo 17Celine George
In this presentation, we will explore how barcodes can be leveraged within Odoo 17 to streamline our manufacturing processes. We will cover the configuration steps, how to utilize barcodes in different manufacturing scenarios, and the overall benefits of implementing this technology.
Beyond Degrees - Empowering the Workforce in the Context of Skills-First.pptxEduSkills OECD
Iván Bornacelly, Policy Analyst at the OECD Centre for Skills, OECD, presents at the webinar 'Tackling job market gaps with a skills-first approach' on 12 June 2024
Temple of Asclepius in Thrace. Excavation resultsKrassimira Luka
The temple and the sanctuary around were dedicated to Asklepios Zmidrenus. This name has been known since 1875 when an inscription dedicated to him was discovered in Rome. The inscription is dated in 227 AD and was left by soldiers originating from the city of Philippopolis (modern Plovdiv).
Chapter wise All Notes of First year Basic Civil Engineering.pptxDenish Jangid
Chapter wise All Notes of First year Basic Civil Engineering
Syllabus
Chapter-1
Introduction to objective, scope and outcome the subject
Chapter 2
Introduction: Scope and Specialization of Civil Engineering, Role of civil Engineer in Society, Impact of infrastructural development on economy of country.
Chapter 3
Surveying: Object Principles & Types of Surveying; Site Plans, Plans & Maps; Scales & Unit of different Measurements.
Linear Measurements: Instruments used. Linear Measurement by Tape, Ranging out Survey Lines and overcoming Obstructions; Measurements on sloping ground; Tape corrections, conventional symbols. Angular Measurements: Instruments used; Introduction to Compass Surveying, Bearings and Longitude & Latitude of a Line, Introduction to total station.
Levelling: Instrument used Object of levelling, Methods of levelling in brief, and Contour maps.
Chapter 4
Buildings: Selection of site for Buildings, Layout of Building Plan, Types of buildings, Plinth area, carpet area, floor space index, Introduction to building byelaws, concept of sun light & ventilation. Components of Buildings & their functions, Basic concept of R.C.C., Introduction to types of foundation
Chapter 5
Transportation: Introduction to Transportation Engineering; Traffic and Road Safety: Types and Characteristics of Various Modes of Transportation; Various Road Traffic Signs, Causes of Accidents and Road Safety Measures.
Chapter 6
Environmental Engineering: Environmental Pollution, Environmental Acts and Regulations, Functional Concepts of Ecology, Basics of Species, Biodiversity, Ecosystem, Hydrological Cycle; Chemical Cycles: Carbon, Nitrogen & Phosphorus; Energy Flow in Ecosystems.
Water Pollution: Water Quality standards, Introduction to Treatment & Disposal of Waste Water. Reuse and Saving of Water, Rain Water Harvesting. Solid Waste Management: Classification of Solid Waste, Collection, Transportation and Disposal of Solid. Recycling of Solid Waste: Energy Recovery, Sanitary Landfill, On-Site Sanitation. Air & Noise Pollution: Primary and Secondary air pollutants, Harmful effects of Air Pollution, Control of Air Pollution. . Noise Pollution Harmful Effects of noise pollution, control of noise pollution, Global warming & Climate Change, Ozone depletion, Greenhouse effect
Text Books:
1. Palancharmy, Basic Civil Engineering, McGraw Hill publishers.
2. Satheesh Gopi, Basic Civil Engineering, Pearson Publishers.
3. Ketki Rangwala Dalal, Essentials of Civil Engineering, Charotar Publishing House.
4. BCP, Surveying volume 1
This document provides an overview of wound healing, its functions, stages, mechanisms, factors affecting it, and complications.
A wound is a break in the integrity of the skin or tissues, which may be associated with disruption of the structure and function.
Healing is the body’s response to injury in an attempt to restore normal structure and functions.
Healing can occur in two ways: Regeneration and Repair
There are 4 phases of wound healing: hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling. This document also describes the mechanism of wound healing. Factors that affect healing include infection, uncontrolled diabetes, poor nutrition, age, anemia, the presence of foreign bodies, etc.
Complications of wound healing like infection, hyperpigmentation of scar, contractures, and keloid formation.
Life Science Patent Prosecution in View of the Final AIA Rules
1. Patent Prosecution in view of the Final
AIA Rules February 21, 2013
Mike Fuller, Kerry Taylor, Ryan Melnick, and Brenden Gingrich
Orange County San Diego San Francisco Silicon Valley Los Angeles Riverside Seattle Washington DC
knobbe.com