Replies to post #153279 on World Surveillance Group Inc (fka WSGI)

[coastiretired]

Nope. You can wordsmith my summarizations, but all those posts are accurate with the exception of the one where I erroneously referred to the USTPO which I responded to and corrected on my own.

[coastiretired]

Wordsmithing it is then. I'd like to agree with you. . .but then we'd both be wrong.

"My research shows that while WSGI/Eastcor applied for a patent, they received a response back that the ARGUS was not patentable and the intellectual property claimed in their application belonged to others."

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=102373630

You cant apply for a patent through the PCT. PCT issues no patents anywhere in the world. So, you are wrong.

I didn't even mention PCT in the post. WSGI did apply for a patent with the USPTO and they received an unfavorable response back from their PCT application specifically concerning the ability to patent the ARGUS.

"Until then, their opinion is the only one that matters."

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=102376448

wrong

A response taken out of context to Flyby in a thread where he implied that Indy's opinion would carry more weight than the International Search Authority.

"I also know that the Written Opinion of the International Search Authority is the primary document referred to when a patent granting authority such as the US Patent Office is determining the grant of a patent."

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=102380826

wrong

While there is no obligation to refer to the document, most national patent authorities rely on the international search report in determining a patent grant. At a minimum, it is used as a reference to shorten a prior art search that they may conduct on their own.

" WSGI had two months after receiving the International Search Results to amend their claims. They didn't respond. The patent application has been, in effect, abandoned."

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=102381269

wrong

The key words being "in effect" meaning failing to respond to an unfavorable report ends with the same result as being abandoned. WSGI had two months to add comments or file amendments in response to the unfavorable report. WSGI chose not to respond. Here's a paper that provides some good info for those interested. www.kaganbinder.com/docs/WO%20ISA%20Practice%20Guide.pdf


"WSGI made their claims to USPTO who completed an international search and reported their results. The results were not favorable to WSGI as virtually every claim was found to lack novelty or an inventive step over the intellectual rights of Kroplin and others."

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=103191651

wrong

The error of using USPTO instead of PCT in this post has already been self-identified and corrected by me in a response to the post. But, thanks for bringing it to my attention after the fact.

And nowhere in any of these posts is there any statement made by me that any WSGI patent has officially been denied as claimed by you.
My point is that, counter to the claims of others, WSGI has not obtained any patent grants for the ARGUS and their current applications have little to no chance of being granted.