Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Inventors”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 235 records · Page 13Linked to original sources
PubMed1998

[Laënnec, re-inventor of the stethoscope?].

According to our common medical culture, some facts are simply unquestionable, for instance Laënnec invented the stethoscope. But was he the first one? On a recent trip to Egypt we visited the temple of Kom Ombo, built prior to the roman period and renowned as a medical care center. Today, the tourist is fascinated by the magnificent hieroglyphics on the well-preserved walls testifying to significant advances in various fields of medicine including ophthalmology and gynecology. We were particularly interested by the basreliefs presenting vivid drawings of some of the first medical instruments. We easily identified curettes, scissors, a balance, forceps for dental extraction, and a surgical saw, but were captivated by two other instruments. The first one looked a lot like what Laënnec invented around 1820. The second one was amazingly similar to the instrument we use everyday, with a distal opening and flexible tubes (woven papyrus?) leading to proximal ear pieces. Our Egyptian guide was formal: the stethoscope was invented in Egypt. The scientific impact of our observations leaves something to be desired, but did make us think about the huge gap between the advancement of medical knowledge in ancient Egypt and Laënnec's (re)-invention. Exposed to a similar gap in history, what would our documents stored on CD and video tapes have to say to future touring doctors?

Egypt↗
PubMed1993

Mechanical inventiveness: a three-phase study.

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.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1992

International distribution of dental materials publications and patents.

International patterns of research and development in the field of restorative dental materials were examined with data on publications (1981-85) and patents (1979-88). It was found that United States-based authors produced approximately one-half of all dental materials journal articles published worldwide, while US inventors had nearly the same share of the US dental materials patents. During the periods studied, the share of US patents in dental materials awarded to US inventors declined, while the share of US patents awarded to Japanese inventors rose. The role of the United States in research (as measured by journal articles) remained stable. Nations differed in the degree to which their researchers specialized in particular research areas. US-based authors and inventors were relatively over-represented in prosthetic materials and under-represented in dental cements, an area in which the British and the Japanese concentrated more of their activity. There was some, but not complete, agreement in the patterns of national specialization as indexed by patent and publication data. When dental materials data were compared with data for broader fields of science and technology, important differences were found. For publications, US-based authors displayed greater dominance in dental materials than in the fields of dentistry, chemistry, and materials science. US-based inventors' share of US dental materials patents was smaller than their share of all US patents. These analyses demonstrated that it was possible to use indicators derived from publication and patent data files to conduct insightful studies of a discrete specialty of science and technology.

Databases, Bibliographic↗
PubMed2001

Australian medical patents granted in the United States in 1984-1999.

OBJECTIVE: To describe all medical patents granted in the United States to Australian-resident inventors between 1984 and 1999. DATA SOURCES: All patent data originated from the US Patent and Trademark Office. Data for 1984-1994 were compiled by CHI Research Inc, and data for 1995-1999 were obtained from the Community of Science website. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of medical patents granted in the US to Australian-resident inventors; assignees (owners) of these medical patents; proportion of these medical patents related to biotechnology. RESULTS: From 1984 to 1999, 7835 utility patents were granted in the US to Australian-resident inventors. Of these, 1308 patents (17%) were identified as medical patents; 489 (37%) of these were biotechnology patents. Medical patents account for an increasing proportion of all US patents granted to Australian inventors, increasing from 10% in 1984 to 25% in 1999. Biotechnology accounted for an increasing proportion of medical patents, rising from 10% to 55% between 1984 and 1999. More than half the medical patents are owned by commercial interests, and 33% by only 14 organisations, six of which are universities and their affiliated institutions. CONCLUSION: Only a few organisations account for most of the patenting of medical technology. The inventors and their organisations listed on medical patents could be canvassed when developing government policy and targeted for support in commercialising their medical technology.

Australia↗
PubMed1987

New product ideas: from the mind to the market.

If you have an idea for a new product, consider the following steps. Carefully research your product idea before looking for a company or research office to market it. You will save yourself a considerable amount of time and effort if you find that the same or a similar device is already on the market. Check to see if you signed a patent policy when you were hired. Some employers claim rights to discoveries made on the job. Obtain legal advice. A lawyer can provide information about nondisclosure agreements, patents, and other forms of protection for the inventor. Most major cities have a lawyer referral service offered through the bar association. They will answer some questions and will provide names of lawyers who specialize in that area of law. Before submitting your product idea to a company for evaluation, evaluate the company. Make sure they are a reputable medical supply company. Find out such things as how they plan to research your idea, and what your share as the inventor will be. Take notes when surveying professionals from other hospitals about your idea. The information gathered can be used when writing your product proposal. Submitting a list of hospitals experiencing problems that your device could solve is a good selling point. Keep records of all phone conversations and copies of all written correspondence between the inventor and the company or research office. Always try to get commitments in writing, and keep the lines of communication open. Major cities offer different sources that the inventor can turn to for help. Check around. Do not be afraid to ask questions. If you have carefully researched your product idea and really believe it will improve patient care, go for it! It might be a long hard road, and despite all your efforts, the device may never make it to the market. But if it does, seeing your device used to enhance patient care makes it all worthwhile.

Drainage↗
PubMed2000

Intellectual property. Coauthorship and coinventorship.

Although the accepted criteria used for inclusion as author or inventor are similar, the average number of authors in scientific articles is significantly higher than the number of inventors on the corresponding patents. This finding can be attributed to an artificial inflation of coauthors, to the exclusion of coinventors, or--more probably--to a mix of both causes. This article argues that the discrepancy between the numbers of coauthors and inventors can have significant legal consequences, as the exclusion of an inventor can render a U.S. patent invalid or seriously harm its value. A proposal aiming to avoid such consequences and taking into account legal as well as authorship credit considerations is described.

Authorship↗
PubMed1997

Patenting inventions in the field of biology and chemistry: German and European patent law and case law.

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.

Amino Acid Sequence↗
PubMed2005

Patents and ethics: is it possible to be balanced?

In this presentation, principles of ethics are confronted with the desire of the inventor to make a profit. To this end the presentation is focused on patent protection. Patents should guarantee the return of an inventor's investment and profit and, on the other side, ensure availability--by patent disclosure--of the invention for the society when the patent terminates. Recent patent applications made by inventors are infringing this principle and societies are paying an unexpected price for these practices. Patent claims are too broad and disclosures too poor. Extreme examples will be discussed.

Biotechnology↗
PubMed1999

Patent guide for miniaturists.

Inventors who are mystified by the concepts of "nonobviousness" and "enablement" may be surprised to find that the two concepts have a simple explanation in information theory. Viewing an invention as a low-probability, high-information event helps explain why an invention that appears inventive (nonobvious) to an inventor may appear obvious to a patent examiner, and suggests some strategies for overcoming the examiner's bias. Viewing enablement as a means of increasing the probability that a claimed invention can be practiced successfully helps in understanding how to support a broad claim effectively by virtual or "paper" patenting. The notion of entropy, or mean information content, as applied to inventions, may guide inventors in their search for new inventions.

Journal Article↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Scientific journals and their authors' financial interests: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The credibility of modern science is grounded on the perception of the objectivity of its scientists, but that credibility can be undermined by financial conflicts of interest. The US Public Health Service and the National Science Foundation issued regulations effective October 1, 1995, regarding the disclosure of financial interests in the submission of grant proposals. Several scientific journals have also established pertinent policies for authors and editors. The objectives of this study were: (1) to select a set of published articles and observe the degree to which a sample of authors hold a financial interest in areas related to their research that are reportable under current standards, and (2) to examine the hypothesis that significant numbers of authors of articles in life science and biomedical journals have verifiable financial interests that might be important for journal editors and readers to know. This paper measures the frequency of selected financial interests held among lead authors of certain types of scientific publications and assesses disclosure practices of authors and journals. METHOD: These objectives were applied to a pilot study of Massachusetts academic scientists who were cited as first or last author in at least one article published in 1992 in 14 leading journals of cell or molecular biology and medicine. We created a database of every original article published in 1992 by 14 leading life science and biomedical journals, supplemented by data sets consisting of (1) Massachusetts biotechnology firms, including their officers and scientific advisory boards, and (2) scientists listed as inventors on patents or patent applications registered with the World Intellectual Property Organization. RESULTS: We examined 1,105 university authors (first and last cited) from Massachusetts institutions whose 789 articles, published in 1992, appeared in 14 scientific and medical journals. Authors are said to 'possess a financial interest' if they are listed as inventors in a patent or patent application closely related to their published work; serve on a scientific advisory board of a biotechnology company; or are officers, directors, or major shareholders (beneficial owner of 10% or more of stock issued) in a firm that has commercial interests related to their research. Applying the criteria to the reference population of journals and Massachusetts academic authors, we measured the following frequencies for lead authors: 0.20 for serving on a scientific advisory board; 0.07 for being an officer, director, or major shareholder in a biotechnology firm, and 0.22 for being listed as an inventor in a related patent or patent application. The joint frequency of articles in the journals reviewed with a lead author that meets one of the three conditions is 0.34. CONCLUSIONS: One of every three articles in our sample has at least one Massachusetts-based author with a financial interest, and 15% of the authors in our sample have a financial interest relevant to one of their publications. For the year 1992, the rate of published voluntary disclosures of financial interest (as defined in our study) is virtually zero, but relatively few scientific and biomedical journals at that time required any such disclosure to journal editors and reviewers. Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of mandatory disclosure requirements by some journals.

Authorship↗
PubMed2005

The quest for market exclusivity in biotechnology: navigating the patent minefield.

A patent is a legal device that grants an inventor market exclusivity over a new invention or medication. Market exclusivity can mean tremendous economic rewards for the patent holder because it provides the inventor with a monopoly over the invention for the 20-year patent term. Obtaining a patent and retaining market exclusivity can be a treacherous process, especially in the arena of biotechnology patents. Scientific, legal, and practical considerations must be carefully weighed to best protect an inventor's rights. This article explores some common patenting pitfalls as well as emerging issues that are specific to the area of biotechnology patenting.

Biotechnology↗
PubMed2004

Using the written description requirement to limit broad patent scope, allow competition, and encourage innovation in biotechnology.

The biotechnology research and development process is extremely expensive and companies must attract investors to this high-risk industry to pay for these costs. Biotechnology companies rely on their ability to exclude others from exploiting the benefits of their research through patent protection to attract these investors. Consequently, they seek strong patent protection for their inventions by claiming a broad scope of patent protection for their inventions. Biotechnology is an industry where the scope of protection should be limited. Science-based technologies exploit the perceived technological opportunities from recent scientific developments, concentrating the attention of many inventors on the same areas. This poses several unique problems. First, only the first of several inventors will receive a patent to the invention. Second, due to publicly available, basic techniques, the actual contribution made by the inventor may be relatively small. Finally, there is a significant risk that permitting an overbroad patent scope may permit original patentees to control a variety of improvements and a number of applications. Additionally, a broad scope of protection for an invention tends to cause underutilization of many potential inventions or improvements. By limiting the scope of protection, one allows competitors to utilize these potential inventions or improvements and encourages the advancement of the technology. Traditionally, courts have used the scope of the disclosure to limit a patent with an overly broad scope of protection. The Federal Circuit is correctly applying the written description requirement as part of the disclosure to limit broad claim scope in biotechnology patents. The written description requirement is separate from the enablement requirement and applies to all claims. By requiring a written description to allow a PHOSITA to determine the structural characteristics of the claimed invention, the Federal Circuit is able limit biotechnology patents with overly broad patent scope. Recognizing that particular technologies will become more established as biotechnology matures giving rise to different issues in setting the appropriate level of patent scope, the court allowed the written description requirement to mature in tandem with advances in biotechnology to meet these new developments.

Biotechnology↗
PubMed1991

A case for sharing.

Unlike in other branches of science and technology, computer programs and algorithms are generally not fully disclosed. This leads to duplication of effort, and prevents building new knowledge rapidly on existing knowledge. To remedy this, effective patents on computer programs and algorithms should be granted. The community of authors and inventors, along with expert advice from patent attorneys, have to arrive at effective and equitable definitions of obviousness and novelty, so that the boundaries of protection on one side, and free progress on the other, can be defined. The same reasons exist for patenting and disclosing computer software knowledge as for chemistry, electrical and mechanical inventions. Patenting has protected inventors and assured progress for many decades successfully in these fields.

Documentation↗
PubMed1996

[Priority conflict concerning the discovery of lumbar anesthesia between August Bier and August Hildebrandt].

The history of anaesthesiology like that of other medical branches has not been free of quarrels concerning priority. International disputes between the surgeon August Bier from Kiel and his former colleague August Hildebrandt concerning the question of who was the actual inventor of spinal anesthesia have almost fallen into oblivion. While Hildebrandt and numerous other colleagues frequently stated that the New York neurologist James Leonhardt Corning was the inventor of spinal anesthesia, Bier insisted on having described and developed this method first and without any knowledge of Corning's experiments. Corning's use of the term "spinal anesthesia" in his publications probably caused the error that he was the first to describe and apply this new widespread technique. Only recently, American scientists emphasized the fact that this is not true. There will, unfortunately, not be an answer to the Question why Hildebrandt started this quarrel about priority. His reason might have been hurt feelings as he had not been mentioned as co-author in Bier's epoch-making survey.

Anesthesia, Spinal↗
PubMed2001

THOMAS MCMAHON: A Dedication in Memoriam.

Thomas A. McMahon (1943-1999) was a pioneer in the field of biomechanics. He made primary contributions to our understanding of terrestrial locomotion, allometry and scaling, cardiac assist devices, orthopedic biomechanics, and a number of other areas. His work was frequently characterized by the use of simple mathematical models to explain seemingly complex phenomena. He also validated these models through creative experimentation. McMahon was a successful inventor and also published three well-received novels. He was raised in Lexington, Massachussetts, attended Cornell University as an undergraduate, and earned a PhD at MIT. From 1970 until his death, he was a member of the faculty of Harvard University, where he taught biomedical engineering. He is fondly remembered as a warm and gentle colleague and an exemplary mentor to his students.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2000

[Textual research on history of glasses].

Early glasses is nothing but a single piece of glass without a frame. The latter originating from the "Reading stone" was a long one. It was both aided and retarded by social condition style, quality of available materials and technology. It is reasonable to make a few conclusions about the invention along the line suggested by Rosen; most likely, the inventor was a lay person of Pisa who wished to keep the manufacturing processes a secret in order to make a profit, the date of the invention is most likely around 1270 - 1280. The inventor was by two missionaries of St. Catherine's Friar dirdano da Rivolta and Alessando Spina. Lastly, the author advocates the use of CR-39, based on the following reasons: a high resin plastic, fragile resistance, high refractive index, light weight, and resistance to fogging.

Eyeglasses↗
PubMed1991

Patents for critical pharmaceuticals: the AZT case.

Patents and other statutory types of market protections are used in the United States to promote scientific research and innovation. This incentive is especially important in research intensive fields such as the pharmaceutical industry. Unfortunately, these same protections often result in higher monopoly pricing once a successful product is brought to market. Usually this consequence is viewed as the necessary evil of an incentive system that encourages costly research and development by promising large rewards to the successful inventor. However, in the case of the AIDS drug Zidovudine (AZT), the high prices charged by the pharmaceutical company owning the drug have led to public outcry and a re-examination of government incentive systems. This Note traces the evolution of these incentive programs--the patent system, and, to a lesser extent, the orphan drug program--and details the conflicting interests involved in their development. It then demonstrates how the AZT problem brings the interest of providing inventors with incentives for risky innovative efforts into a sharp collision with the ultimate goal of such systems: ensuring that the public has access to the resulting products at a reasonable price. Finally, the Note describes how Congress and the courts have attempted to resolve these problems in the past, and how they might best try to solve the AZT problem in the near future.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗