Miniature Entry Life at Sea

At present I am aboard the Cunard liner Queen Victoria, sailing from San Francisco to Fort Lauderdale via the Panama Canal.

If youve been reading for a long time you know I love Cunard ships, past and present. I am supposed to be having (on doctors orders) a complete rest from work but of course you know I wasn’t going to climb aboard without any knitting.

So Ive taken to doing a little in the Winter Garden, in the mornings. As you would expect, its a surefire conversation starter. The passengers are in the main fairly elderly. I wouldnt be surprised if a few of them knew Queen Victoria personally. When she was a little girl. I couldnt be happier–this is my crowd. We tend to like the same music and the same movies.

I was clicking away a few mornings ago as we headed for Costa Rica and a flurry of tropical print hove into view. The person in the print stopped, then dropped into the next chair. She was English, ambiguously eighty-ish, artfully preserved.

"That," she said, pointing at my knitting, "is very impressive work. My father was a knitter, so I know."

Whereupon we started chatting.

She is doing the World Cruise, Southampton to Southampton. This is something like her forty-fourth Cunard voyage. (The brand breeds loyalty.)

"Of course my favorite is and forever shall be the QE2," she said. "Theyll never build another like her."

I nodded. I never sailed in her, mind you. I only saw her, once, back when I was on the Minerva II and she docked beside us in Malta. I remember that seeing C-U-N-A-R-D on the side of ship for the first time gave me chills.

"But may I say something? Im going to say something."

She leant toward me and through her dark round sunglasses I could feel her glare. "You young* people," she said firmly, "have absolutely no stamina and no idea how to have a good time. No. Idea."

I raised my eyebrows.

She pointed towards the windows above us, which belong to Hemispheres–the ships disco. "They will close that bar tonight at one oclock and you will all go to sleep. Ridiculous. Ridiculous! On the QE2 we never dreamt of bed before sunrise. A party every night. Until sunrise. We knew how to have a good time. You young people, I dont know whats wrong with you."

"Well," I said, "the seventies were different, weren’t they? All that cocaine would keep anybody awake."

This time her eyebrows went up. She leant even closer.

"Youd better believe it, kid," she whispered. "Youd better believe it."

 *Yes, on this ship Im young. Im quite possibly the youngest person aboard not scrubbing pots or being looked after by the Cunard nannies.

Note: The lady in the photograph is not the lady in the story. Shes another lady, with whom I danced rather madly one evening.

Available link for download

Menambah payment processor di profitclicking

Cara menambahkan Payment Processor di ProfitClicking.

Tidak diragukan lagi, bahwa Payment Processor adalah sebuah Bank Online yang wajib dimiliki oleh pebisnis online, karena dengan menggunakan payment processor Anda akan dengan mudah menerima uang dari bisnis online dan apapun bentuk bisnis Anda, wajib Anda ketahui bahwa Anda jangan salah menentukan jenis payment processor apa yang sangat cocok untuk Anda gunakan dalam berbisnis online yang akan Anda jalani sesuai dengan syarat-syarat dan ketentuan mutlak alias TOS dari situs bisnis online yang Anda ikuti, dalam hal ini saya sangat merekomendasikan kepada sobat netter untuk menggunakan payment processor Liberty Reserve untuk cara transaksi apapun di situs bisnis ProfitClicking , dalam hal ini bukan berarti jenis payment processor selain Liberty Reserve tidak baik untuk dijadikan alat transaksi di bisnis online khususnya di ProfitClicking , selain Liberty Reserve  ProfitClicking menggunakan payment processor seperti PayZa (dulunya AlertPay), Perfect Money, Solid Trust Pay, Ego Pay.  Kali ini saya akan mencoba memaparkan kepada sobat netter tentang bagaimana cara menambahkan link Payment processor di ProfitClicking menggunakan Liberty Reserve Karena dengan menggunakan payment processor/bank online Liberty Reserve Anda akan dengan mudah menerima uang dari bisnis di ProfitClicking, dengan menggunakan Liberty Reserve Anda bisa mentransfer pendapatan Anda ke rekening bank mana pun di negara tempat Anda tinggal sekarang. Jika Anda belum memiliki akun di Liberty Reserve silahkan Anda kunjungi halaman ini untuk cara mendaftarnya dan klik juga disini untuk cara mengisi dana-nya.

Jika ANDA belum memiliki akun di ProfitClicking  SILAHKAN DAFTAR DISINI

Berikut ini langkah-langkah untuk menambahkan link Payment Processor Liberty Reserve ke ProfitClicking untuk cara menambahkan link Payment Processor selain Liberty Reserve caranya sama saja.

1. Langkah awal tentunya Anda harus Login terlebih dahulu ke dashboard ProfitClicking Anda.


2. Setelah Anda berada di dashboardnya profitclicking lanjutkan dengan klik pada bagian menu link MY WALLET.


3. Setelah Anda klik MY WALLET Anda akan dibawa ke halaman kontrol untuk memanajemen proses transaksi Payment Processor Anda, Silahkan Anda klik Link Your Account bagian liberty Reserve untuk menambahkan rekening Liberty Reserve Anda ke ProfitClicking, sudah tentu sebelumnya Anda harus memiliki akun di Liberty Reserve. Jika Anda belum memiliki akun di Liberty Reserve sebaiknya Anda daftar terlebih dahulu DISINI GRATIS

4. Setelah Anda klik Link Your Account Anda akan dibawa kehalaman form isian informasi akun payment processor Anda, Silahkan Anda isikan No. Account rekening Liberty Reserve Anda , setelah itu klik SUBMIT untuk proses validasi akun payment processor Anda di ProfitClicking.



5. Proses akhir selanjutnya adalah tinggal Anda mem-verifikasinya melalui email Anda, setelah Anda memasukan no. akun rekening Liberty Reserve dan  SUBMIT , secara outomatis Anda akan mendapatkan email validasi untuk proses verifikasi penambahan link akun payment processor Anda.
Silahkan buka email Anda dan klik bagian link konfirmasi, seperti contoh gambar dibawah ini :


Setelah Anda klik link konfirmasi berarti Anda selesai menambahkan akun payment processor Anda di ProfitClicking :

SELAMAT MENCOBA "Go Freedom"

Jika ANDA belum memiliki akun di ProfitClicking  SILAHKAN DAFTAR DISINI

Available link for download

Modeling a Tree using L System

An L-system or Lindenmayer system is a parallel rewriting system, namely a variant of a formal grammar (a set of rules and symbols), most famously used to model the growth processes of plant development, but also able to model the morphology of a variety of organisms. [wikipedia]

When using this model, we have to define a set of grammar rules that will be used to describe the growth of the branches of a tree. The rules that we define will later be implemented as the growth of the tree in an iterative fashion. In this system, we define these following alphabets that will be used in the production rules:

f : create branch
l : create leaf
[ and ] : define a set of local area/branch. The definitions of the area are put inside the [ and ]
+ and - : rotate the branch right/left in x-axis
^ and v : rotate the branch up/down in y-axis
<> : twist the branch left/right in z-axis

By using the symbols above, we can begin to create a tree with our system. But before that, we also have to define several properties that are also important in generating the tree, which are:

• The number of production rules iterations, for determining the level of the branches,
• The angle, for determining branch curves, and
• The radius of the branches and the decreasing value of it, in an iterative way The length of the branches

The following are several examples of the production rules that are used using the system:

Tree A

Angle : 25
# Iterations: 6
Branch radius: 0.02
Branch radius reduction: 0.0015
Branch length (height): 0.15
Initial value : fffffA
Production rules : A = f[++Al][--Al]>>>A



Tree B

Angle : 30
# Iterations: 10
Branch radius: 0.01
Branch radius reduction: 0.001
Branch length (height): 0.16
Initial value : fA
Production rules : A = f[^Bl]>>[^Bl]>>A, B = f[-Bl]B


Tree C

Angle : 15
# Iterations: 13
Branch radius: 0.02
Branch radius reduction: 0.0015
Branch length (height): 0.15
Initial value : fA
Production rules : A = ^fB>>>B>>>>>B, B = [^^f>>>>>>A]

Available link for download

Maybe a trainer ride this morning

With sleep aid medication, like Ambien, its quite often that I wake up early. If I try to go back to sleep more often than not the remaining sleep is fitful. This half sleep leads to a groggy feeling so its better to just get up.

Today I get up and say, you know,self, I need a ride bad. The stresses of the times are putting me on the edge Gotta fuel up right to ride so start hitting some carbs. Its still pitch dark outside and didnt check the weather but assumed it would be at least rideable.

My wife comes down and in our conversation says that shes going to skip running because it is raining. Raining!. I check out the back and sure enough its raining.

Ate those carbs. Now what am I gonna do. Gotta burn it off somehow. Maybe its time to pull ye old trainer out. It has honestly been 6-8 months since Ive been on it. Maybe twice and both those workouts were bust. The trainer used to be a magnet for me drawing in the moth to the flame. But these days I have no desire, no drive to get on it.

The saving grace for me is the terrain here. Its hilly. So by virtue of the route I can hit many hills. No need for desire. The only way to get home is to get through the hills. A 1hr hilly ride 2x a week provides enough effort to keep me with a little fitness.

I hope the trainer still works. But betcha I make it no more than 10 mins!

Available link for download

Memories

Simon Johnson, a year ago, on a resolution authority:

Imagine what happens when these powers are passed. The U.S. Treasury and FDIC would immediately have the tools [they] need to walk into America’s largest financial institutions, such as Citibank or Bank of America, and liquidate them, or rewrite their contracts and capital structures. Such powers are clearly useful: if the banks are undercapitalized, and private money is not available, then the government could force creditors to swap claims into equity, thus instantly recapitalizing the banks while avoiding use of taxpayer funds. With such steps, the problem of moral hazard, where creditors to banks are bailed out by taxpayers, would at once be forgotten. Shareholders in banks would lose through dilution, some (unsecured?) creditors would lose with debt-equity swaps, while the nation would be better off having a well-capitalized banking system. The banks would remain private but now be controlled by (ex)creditors.

Simon Johnson, a week ago, on a resolution authority:

But this notion of a resolution authority that can handle massive banks is a complete unicorn – a mythical beast with magical powers that does not really exist. A US resolution authority does nothing to help handle the failure of international banks – there is no cross-border resolution authority, nor will there be one anytime soon. If a Citi or a JP Morgan or a Goldman were to fail, our government would be in exactly the same awkward position as it was in during September-October 2008.

The point, yet again, is that Simon Johnson has absolutely no clue what hes talking about. He is the Ben Stein of financial reform.

Available link for download

Messy!

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Two rainy days in a row meant we never got a chance to leave the apartment for two days. I cant wait to take her outside tomorrow. Honoka has so many new words she can say now everyday. Lately she likes to say "Sugoi ne" (Impressive, isnt it) about everything especially when she can accomplish something. She also says "Matte yo!" (Wait for me!) very often.

Available link for download

Mengenal Jalanan Di Jakarta

Tiponimi Jakarta yuk...
Tiponimi merupakan ilmu yang mempelajari asal nama suatu tempat, dari mana datangnya sebuah nama.

Cawang
Berasal dari nama letnan melayu bernama Enci Awang yang bermukim di kawasan ini bersama pasukannya. Awang merupakan panggilan akrab dari Anwar. Lama kelamaan, Enci Awang lebih akrab dipanggil Cawang.

Menteng
Berasal dari nama buah menteng yang banyak terdapat di daerah tersebut.

Lebak Bulus
Lebak berarti lembah dan bulus berarti kura - kura yang hidup di darat dan air tawar. Dahulu kala di kali grogol dan kali pesanggrahan yang mengalir melewati daerah ini ada banyak kura - kura.

Kampung Melayu
Pada abad ke 17, kawasan ini dijadikan tempat pemukiman orang - orang Melayu yang berasal dari Semenanjung Malaka,sekarang disebut Malaysia.

Senayan
Kawasan ini dalamt peta terbitan Topographisch Batavia 1902, ditulis Wangsanajan atau Wangsanayan setelah ejaanya disempurnakan. Wangsanayan berarti tanah tempat tinggal atau tanak milik seseorang bernama Wangsanaya. Kata Wangsanaya akhirnya menjadi Senayan.

Petojo
Pada tahun 1663, orang - orang Bugis diberi hak pakai kawasan ini. Mereka lantas menyebut daerah ini dengan nama pemimpinnya Aru Petuju.

Glodok
Berasal dari kata Grojok yang merupakan penyebutan dari bunyi air mancur yang jatuh ke dasarnya. Pada zaman dulu di daerah ini terdapat waduk tempat menampung air dari kali Ciliwung yang dikucurkan dari pancuran kayu. Orang - orang Tionghoa tidak bisa meyebut kata Grojok dengan benar, akhirnya disebutlah Glodok. Versi lain menyebut bahwa nama Glodok berasal dari jembatan Glodok yang melintasi Kali Besar ( Ciliwung ), disebut Glodok karena di ujung jembatan terdapat tangga - tangga tempat mandi dan mencuci. Dalam bahasa sunda, tangga - tangga itu disebut Glodok.

Gondangdia
Ada 3 versi asal usul nama Gondangdia :
1. Berasal dari pohon Gondang, yaitu sejenis pohon beringin yang tumbuh di tanah basah dan berair. Kemungkinan ada di kawasan ini.
2. Berasal dari binatang air sejenis keong gondang berarti keong besar, yang banyak terdapat keong besar di kawasan tersebut.
3. Dari nama seorang kakek yang terkenal dan disegani masyarakat di daerah ini. Sering dipanggil Kyai Kondang. Akhirnya nama tempatn tersebut dihubung - hubungkan sama sang kakek dan disebut Gondangdia ( Kondangdia yang berarti dia yang terkenal ).

KaretTengsin
Merupakan nama kampung yang ada disekitar tanah abang. Karet tengsin berasal dari nama orang Cina yang kaya raya dan baik hati bernama Tang Ten Sien, Dia dikenal orang karena kedermawanannya. Kebetulan di daerah itu juga ada pohon karet jadilah Karet Tengsin.

Kemayoran
Asal dari pangkat mayor yang dipegang Isaac De Saint Martin. Lelaki asal Perancis yang membangkitkan dirinya untuk berperang bersama VOC.

Kebayoran
Berasal dari kata kebayuran yang berarti tempat penimbunan kayu bayur. Kayu bayur dikenal sangat baik digunakan untuk dijadikan bangunan karena tahan rayap.

Krukut
1. Dari sindiran yang diberikan untuk orang yang sangant hemat alias pelit alias krokot. Sindiran ini diberikan orang Betawi pada orang Arab yang tinggal di kawasan tersebut.
2. Krukut berasal dari kata Belanda, kherkof yang berarti kuburan. Dulu kawasan ini jadi kuburan orang - orang Betawi.

Pancoran
Asal kata dari pancuran. Tahun 1970 ditempat tersebut ada waduk atau tempat penampungan air dari kali Ciliwung. Di waduk ini ada 2 pancuran yang mengucurkan air dari ketinggian sekitar 10 kaki.

Pasar baru
Disebut pasar baru karena pasar yang terakhir jadi setelah lingkungan di sekitar nya dibuka oleh Gubernur Jenderal Daendels.

Pasar rumput
Dahulu kala terdapat banyak pedagang rumput pribumi yang mangkal di kawasan tersebut. Mereka dilarang masuk ke pemukiman elit menteng. Di menteng itu terdapat masyarakat menteng yang memelihara kuda untuk transportasi.

Pluit
Berasal dari kata Belanda, fluitschip, yang berarti kapal layar panjang yang ramping. Alkisah tahun 1660, diletakkan sebuat fluitschip tak terpakai bernama Hett Witte Paert yang sudah tidak layak pakai. Kapal ini dijadikan kubu pertahanan untuk membantu benteng Vijhoek.

Pondok Gede
Terdapat sebuah bangunan besar yang disebut Landhuis. Bangunan ini digunakan sebagai tempat tinggal sekaligus usaha pertanian dan peternakan. Landhuis adalah satu - satunya bangunan yang ada disitu dan sering disebut orang pribumi sebagai pondok gede.

Ragunan
Alkisah ada tuan tanah pertama di kawasan ini yang bernama Hendrik Luzaasz Cardeel. Ia pergi ke Banten karena ingin memeluk islam dan berbakti pada kesultanan Banten. Dia lantas berganti nama menjadi Kiai Aria Wiraguna. Wiraguna dimintai bantuan oleh Sultan Haji yang saat itu tengah melakukan perebutan tahta dengan ayahnya, Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa. Wiraguna berhasil memenangkan pertarungan itu sehingga dianugrahi gelar pangeran Wiraguna yang kemudian menjadi asal usul nama Ragunan.













sumber inspirasi disini | picture taken from here and design by cempluk

Available link for download

Mayo v Prometheus Analysis and Implications of an Important Supreme Court Decision

When I first read the Supreme Courts decision in Prometheus, I must admit I was somewhat taken aback. To my mind, the Federal Circuit had already drawn a reasonable and relatively well-defined line between patent eligible molecular diagnostic methods that entail a physical step of analyzing for the presence of molecular marker and/or treating a patient (Prometheus) and patent ineligible diagnostic methods that could potentially be infringed by the mere analysis of genetic information (Myriad). Prior to yesterday, I had been hopeful that a majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court would agree and that the Federals Circuits decision in Prometheus would be affirmed.

Instead, as most of my readers are no doubt already aware, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit’ decision, declaring all of Prometheus’ claims at issue in the case patent ineligible. With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, the Supreme Courts decision does not strike me as surprising at all. In his dissent from the Courts decision in 2006 to dismiss LabCorp v. Metabolite, Justice Breyer set forth in great detail his concern that "too much patent protection,” for methods of molecular diagnosis can, in his words, "impede rather than ‘promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,’ [i.e.,] the constitutional objective of patent and copyright protection.” In his view, patents broadly claiming this sort of innovation "can discourage research by impeding the free exchange of information, for example by forcing researchers to avoid the use of potentially patented ideas, by leading them to conduct costly and time-consuming searches of existing or pending patents, by requiring complex licensing arrangements [].”

Justice Breyers LabCorp dissent held up the patent eligibility doctrine as an important tool for avoiding the "danger of overprotection." He described claims of the type at issue in LabCorp as merely a "natural law" cast by a clever patent attorney "in the abstract patent language of a process’.” He went on to conclude that a process "embodying" a natural phenomenon is not rendered patent eligible by the recitation of steps of physically analyzing for the presence of molecular markers or using the resulting information in the treatment of the patient. With respect to the particular claim under review in LabCorp, he stated that:

“One might, of course, reduce the ‘process’ to a series of steps, e.g., Step 1: gather data; Step 2: read a number; Step 3: compare the number with the norm; Step 4: act accordingly. But one can reduce any process to a series of steps. The question is what those steps embody.”

Thus, Justice Breyers opinion in Prometheus represents nothing more than fruition of seeds he sowed in his LabCorp dissent. But why did all the other Justices join him in a unanimous decision? Im not sure the reason, but it seems to be the case that the Supreme Court decides patent decisions unanimously, perhaps because many of the Justices do not find patent cases particularly compelling, although Justice Breyer clearly does. In Prometheus the Supreme Court handed Justice Breyer the pen, and he decided the case in precisely the manner he set forth six years ago in his LabCorp dissent.

This blog article analyzes certain aspects of the Prometheus decision, and considers potential implications for the patentability of molecular diagnostics, personalized medicine and biotechnology in general.

The Court’s expansive definition of "natural phenomena"
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that certain fundamental principles, including "natural phenomena," are ineligible for patent protection. At the same time, it has stressed that a useful application of a natural phenomenon can be patent eligible. To my mind, however, the Court has never clearly articulated a useful definition of "natural phenomenon," nor adequately explained how to discern the boundary between a method claim that impermissibly embodies a natural phenomenon, as opposed to a patent eligible claim reciting the specific application of a natural phenomenon. Prometheus has not remedied the situtation.

More than three years ago, when the Federal Circuit first took up the Prometheus appeal, I submitted an amicus brief on behalf of myself and a few other law professors arguing that the correlation between drug metabolite level and optimal drug dosage at the heart of Prometheus’ claims does not constitute a "natural" phenomenon. Unlike the LabCorp claim, which relates to a correlation between vitamin B and homocysteine that occurs naturally in human body, the Prometheus claims involve a correlation between a non-naturally occurring drug metabolite and the optimal dosage of the drug. The drug metabolite does not occur naturally, but is created as a byproduct when the human body breaks down the precursor drug. Hence the correlation between metabolite level and optimal dosage does not occur naturally, but only as the result of human intervention, i.e., the synthesis of the drug and administration of the drug to a patient. In my view, the correlation at the heart of the Prometheus claims is not a natural phenomenon, and hence it is erroneous to conclude that the claim is patent ineligible for claiming a natural phenomenon.

In its initial decision, the district court that decided Prometheus acknowledged that the drugs and their metabolites (breakdown products) do not occur absent human intervention, but nonetheless characterized the correlation between the breakdown products and optimal drug dosage as an unpatentable “work of nature” because the drugs “are converted naturally by enzymes within the patient’s body to form an agent that is therapeutically active, [and thus] the correlation results from a natural body process.” In essence, the district court concluded that the mere involvement of a natural process in the interaction between a man-made drug and the human body renders the interaction a “natural phenomenon.”
In my amicus brief, I pointed out what I saw as the flaw in the district courts logic:

“Surely the lower court’s expansive definition of “natural phenomena” cannot be correct, for virtually every patented invention is based on some discovery involving the interaction of human ingenuity with the natural environment and natural processes. For example, an airplane operates by interacting with the air in a particular manner that results in flight. The air and its properties are natural phenomena, but surely that does not render the interaction of an airplane with the air a natural phenomenon. More to the point, what biological or pharmaceutical invention is not based on an interaction with natural biological processes? In particular, drugs operate by means of chemical interactions with naturally occurring proteins and other biomolecules in the body, according to the fundamentals laws of chemistry and biology. Simply interacting with natural processes does not render a man-made biological phenomenon a natural phenomenon, but that would seem to be the result if the rationale of the lower court were applied generally to other scenarios beyond the facts of this case.”

On appeal, the Federal Circuit assumed that the correlations between drug metabolite level and optimal dosage are natural phenomena, without seeming to appreciate the implications of this broad definition of "natural phenomena." Justice Breyer took the same tack, concluding that:

“While it takes a human action (the administration of a thiopurine drug) to trigger a manifestation of this relation in a particular person, the relation itself exists in principle apart from any human action. The relation is a consequence of the ways in which thiopurine compounds are metabolized by the body—entirely natural processes.”

Under this broad interpretation of natural phenomena, it is hard to imagine any invention in biotechnology or the life sciences that is not based on the discovery of a natural phenomenon. All inventions in this realm of technology are the consequence of the way in which physical matter interacts with natural processes. PCR, recombinant DNA and monoclonal antibodies are some of the most important inventions of biotechnology, but all are based on harnessing natural biological and chemical processes, and hence seem to be "natural phenomena" under the Courts broad interpretation of the term.

What constitutes a patentable "application" of a biological natural phenomenon?
Of course, Justice Breyer acknowledged that a claim limited to a patentable "application" of a natural phenomenon remains patent eligible, but his decision does not seem to provide any coherent guidance with respect to what constitutes a patentable application of the phenomenon, as opposed to a patent ineligible claim that merely "describes" the phenomenon. Consider the rationales he set forth to justify his conclusion that the claimed steps of "administering" drug to a patient and "determining" the level of drug metabolite in a patients body were insufficient.

With respect to the “administering” step, he found that the step:

"simply refers to the relevant audience, namely doctors who treat patients with certain diseases with thiopurine drugs. That audience is a pre-existing audience; doctors used thiopurine drugs to treat patients suffering from autoimmune disorders long before anyone asserted these claims. In any event, the “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.’ [cite to Bilski].”

Consider the implications if a lower court were to apply the same reasoning to a drug method of treatment claim. Method of treatment claims are extremely important for the pharmaceutical industry, and typically recite a method of treating a particular ailment by administering a drug to a patient. Applying the rationale of Justice Breyer, it would seem that doctors constitute a "pre-existing audience” for method of treatment claims, no less so than with respect to the molecular diagnostic claims at issue in Prometheus. I dont see how one could make a principled distinction between the two scenarios, although, as discussed below, I suspect lower courts will find a way, rather than eliminate this important class of patents.

Regarding the step of determining the level of relevant metabolites in the blood, Justice Breyer concluded that determining the level of drug metabolites in the body is "well-understood, routine and conventional." But again, think of the implications if this rationale were to be extended to method of treatment claims. In general, I think it can be safely said that the administration of a known drug to a patient is "well understood, routine and conventional." But until now it has been generally understood and accepted that someone who discovers a new, nonobvious and useful method of using a known drug to treat a disease can patent her invention as a method of treatment. Justice Breyer does not provide any guidance as to how one would distinguish between "well understood and routine" administration of a known drug in the context of a method of treatment claim and administration of the drug as it appears in Prometheus’ claims.

Justice Breyer acknowledges the possibility that a combination of conventional steps might lead to a patent eligible invention, but concluded that in this case the claims "add nothing to the laws of nature that is not already present when the steps are considered separately." In particular, he concludes that "anyone who wants to make use of these laws must first administer a thiopurine drug and measure the resulting metabolite concentrations, and so the combination amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to doctors to apply the applicable laws when treating their patients.”

But once again, what would be the implications for method of treatment claims? According to Justice Breyers interpretation of the term "natural phenomenon," the ability of Drug X to treat Disease Y seems clearly to fall within the realm of "natural phenomena." After all, the drug interacts with the body according to "entirely natural processes." But anyone who wants to make use of this "natural phenomenon" would of course need to administer Drug X to a patient requiring treatment, so how could the claim amount to anything more than, in the words of Justice Breyer, "an instruction to doctors to apply the applicable [natural phenomenon] when treating their patients”?

No clear demarcation between Diehr and Flook/Prometheus
Justice Breyer asserts that the Courts decision in Prometheus is reinforced by a “detailed consideration” of earlier Supreme Court precedent, particularly Diehr and Flook. But his opinion provides no convincing rationale as to why the process steps recited in the Diehr claims were sufficient to establish patent eligibility, but not so in the case of Flook or Prometheus.

Justice Breyer suggests that the Supreme Court upheld the patent eligibility of the Diehr claims because they include steps of “installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly determining the temperature of the mold, constantly re- calculating the appropriate cure time through the use of the formula and a digital computer, and automatically opening the press at the proper time.” According to Justice Breyer, the Diehr decision

"nowhere suggested that all these steps, or at least the combination of those steps, were in context obvious, already in use, or purely conventional. And so the patentees did not seek to pre-empt the use of [the] equation, but sought only to foreclose from others the use of that equation in conjunction with all of the other steps in their claimed process. These other steps apparently added to the formula something that in terms of patent law’s objectives had significance—they transformed the process into an inventive application of the formula.”

Note that Justice Breyer never identifies which step or steps in the Diehr process transformed the patent ineligible equation into a patent eligible process, beyond the conclusory statement that one or more of the steps "apparently added . . . something that in terms of patent laws objectives had significance." Will the lower courts, not to mention patent examiners, actually be required to assess the significance to the overall objectives of patent law of the individual steps in any method claim that applies a natural phenomenon? It seems unworkable, precisely the sort of vague standard that the Federal Circuit sought to address by means of the machine or transformation test when it initially decided Bilski.

Patent eligibility as a doctrine to address obvious and/or overbroad patent claims
I am of the opinion (and I believe this opinion is shared by at least some judges on the Federal Circuit) that patent eligibility should not function as a primary doctrinal gatekeeper of patentability, but that instead the more conventional doctrines of nonobviousness, enablement and written description are better doctrinal tools for addressing the concerns that have been expressed with respect to claims of the type at issue in Prometheus, LabCorp and Myriad. However, Justice Breyer is adamant that patent eligibility performs an important function distinct from the requirements of 102, 103 and 112, and constitutes a fundamental and dynamic doctrine for addressing the problem of "too much patent protection,"

Nonetheless, it is clear from reading Prometheus that he views patent eligibility as inseparable from questions of obviousness and overbreadth, concerns more conventionally (and appropriate) addressed under Sections 103 and 112. For example, he repeatedly faults the Prometheus claims for including steps that are "well known, routine and conventional,” and indicates that the Diehr claims were patent eligible because they included a combination of steps that were not "in context obvious, already in use or purely conventional.” In other words, the patent eligibility of the Diehr claims seems to be inextricably linked with novelty and nonobviousness, at least in the mind of Justice Breyer.

In a similar manner, the Prometheus opinion states that patent eligibility is the appropriate mechanism for guarding against patent claims that "foreclose more future invention than the underlying discovery could reasonably justify." It goes on to complain about the breadth of the Prometheus claims, pointing out, for example that the "’determining’ step is set forth in highly general language covering all processes that make use of the correlations after measuring metabolites, including later discovered processes that measure metabolite levels in new ways.” Again, these are concerns more conventionally and appropriately addressed using the enablement requirement of section 112, not the blunt instrument of patent eligibility.

The US government, in fact, argued that the requirements of Sections 102, 103 and 112 are the more appropriate vehicles for addressing the concerns expressed with the Prometheus claims. However, Justice Breyer rejected this argument, asserting that to follow the governments advice in this regard would be to render the doctrine of patent eligibility a "dead letter." He also voiced concern that shifting the patentability inquiry entirely to Sections 102, 103 and 112 would "risk creating significantly greater legal uncertainty, while assuming that those sections can do work that they are not equipped to do."

I would disagree with both of these assertions. The doctrines of novelty, nonobviousness and enablement are all more firmly established and predictable than the recently reinvigorated patent eligibility doctrine. Shifting the focus from these better established doctrines to section 101 and patent eligibility increases rather diminishes legal certainty.

And I dont think there is any justification for thinking that the other doctrines of patentability are not flexible enough to address all of the concerns that have been express with respect to the Prometheus claims, and similar claims such as those at issue in the Myriad case. In fact, in Prometheus and Myriad the courts have never addressed the issue of whether the claims satisfy these other requirements of patentability, so how can one conclude that nonobviousness and enablement are not equipped to deal with any asserted problems with the claims? Ariad v. Eli Lilly provides an example of this - Eli Lilly initially sought to invalidate the Ariad claims using the doctrine of patent eligibility, but ultimately prevailed using the more established Section 112 doctrine of written description.

The machine or transformation test
The Federal Circuit relied heavily on the Bilski machine or transformation test in upholding the patent eligibility of the Prometheus claims. In particular, the court found that administering a drug to a patient is a method of treatment and always transformative (because it transforms the patients body). The court also found that the step of determining metabolite levels in the patient is inherently transformative, because it necessarily relies on laboratory processes that entail physical transformations of matter.

Justice Breyer, however, rejected the Federal Circuits machine or transformation analysis. He found the "administering" step irrelevant because it "simply helps pick out the group of individuals that are likely interested in applying the law of nature." I have a hard time getting my head around that one, it makes no sense to me to analyze the patent eligibility of a claim in terms of the intended audience for specific method steps recited in the claim. But in any event, if the administering step is irrelevant because it simply targets doctors as the relevant audience for the claim, the same rationale would seem to apply to any method of treatment claim that involves administering a drug to the patient.

He went on to find the "determining" step irrelevant because "science [might] develop a totally different system for determining metabolite levels that [does not inherently involve a] transformation.” I guess in principle one cannot exclude the possibility that a method might be developed for determining metabolite levels that does not involve any transformation, but Im fairly certain that even if the claim had explicitly recited that the determining step must involves a physical transformation Justice Breyer would have still declared the claim to be patent ineligible.

Ever since the Supreme Court decided Bilski, Federal Circuit judges have continued to rely heavily on the machine or transformation test, pointing out that the Supreme Court had identified it as an "important and useful clue" to determining patent eligibility. But in Prometheus Justice Breyer points out that while it might be a useful clue, the machine or transformation test does not trump the fundamental test for patent eligibility, i.e., whether the claim impermissibly embodies a natural phenomenon.

Implications for diagnostics, personalized medicine pharmaceutical method of treatment claims
Prometheus and some amici argued that were the court to declare the Prometheus claims patent ineligible, it would have a chilling effect on future innovation in medical diagnostics. However, Justice Breyer swept aside this concern, stating that it was irrelevant to the question of patent eligibility of the claims, and suggesting that it was for Congress to intervene if it turns out that it is necessary to “more finely tailor” the rules of patent eligibility in order to protect innovations in diagnostics.

On its face, Prometheus appears to severely limit the ability of some innovators in diagnostics and personalized medicine to obtain effective patent protection. Indeed, if implemented literally, the standard of patent eligibility set forth in Prometheus would seem to deny patent protection to much of biotechnology, including drug method of treatment claims. However, I think in practice the lower courts will attempt to limit the impact of the decision, and find ways to maintain patent eligibility for drug methods of treatment, and at least to some extent for diagnostics and personalized medicine. It might require clever claim drafting in the area diagnostics and personalized medicine, and Prometheus clearly creates much uncertainty in this increasingly important sector of healthcare.

At one point in his opinion Justice Breyer states that "unlike, say, a typical patent on a new drug or a new way of using an existing drug, the patent claims do not confine their reach to particular applications of those laws.” Im guessing that this sentence was intended to assuage fears that the decision had negative implications for the patenting of pharmaceuticals. Unfortunately, I dont see anything in the Prometheus decision that provides a basis for making a principled distinction between drug method of treatment claims and the Prometheus claims. Nonetheles, I think that the pharmaceutical industry will latch onto this sentence and successfully argue that claims of this type remained patent eligible.

In particular, I predict that if a court were faced with a patent eligibility challenge to a drug method of treatment claim, it would take advantage of the ambiguities in the Supreme Courts precedent in this area to find the claim patent eligible. The court would most likely perform some hand waving, and ultimately conclude that the method of treatment claims at issue in the case are more closely analogous to the Diehr claims than to the claims in Prometheus, and declare the claim patent eligible. I dont think the Federal Circuit or Supreme Court would want to overturn such decision, because I think the importance of these sort of claims for the pharmaceutical industry is widely understood and accepted.

Available link for download

Media Studio FULL v14 22 107 Unlocked

Media Studio FULL v14.22.107
Requirements: Android Varies with device

Edit audio and video with this remarkable, next-level mobile app: Media Studio.
A versatile, easy-to-use tool for filmmakers or musicians, this app is loaded with expert options to get the look and sound you want.
Encode bitrate of up to 30,000 kbps to preserve HD quality, render natively, Split, Trim, Rotate and Flip, Extract Video, Extract Audio, Add Text, Blur Area, Negate and more. Advanced settings and conversion to various formats make import and export simple. Carry a full editing suite around with you and work on your video or music wherever you are.
Options like green screen editing, reverse video, create video from images, add text on video, color balance and many more are free to try.
Note:
o Only single effect will be applied on a video in free version. To apply more than one effect at a time, please upgrade to pro version.
o Currently supported input formats in Single audio editing (For live preview) are MP3, M4A, WAV and AMR. To edit other audio formats with Single editing options, convert the audios using Convert option to any of the above supported formats (Convert also supports AAC audio, but its not supported for live preview.
Media Studio uses libraries from the FFmpeg project under the LGPLv2.1
The app is supported on all ARMv5, ARMv6, ARMv7, Intel-X86 and MIPS processors, it will show an incompatible message on rest.
Tested on:-
LG P690 - android 2.3.4
Micromax A50 - android 2.3.6
HTC Incredible S - android 4.0.4
Motorola xoom - android 4.0.4
Samsung nexus S - android 4.1.2
Samsung galaxy nexus - android 4.2.2
Samsung Galaxy S5 - android 5.1.1
Sony Xperia Z1 - android 5.1.1
Google Nexus 5 - android 4.4
Whats New
14.22.107
-Fixed issue with InApp purchase.
-Fixed issue with missing effect at bottom in special effect.
-Added invert option in Blur Area.

Google Play

*Full version features are Unlocked / All effects are Unlocked!!
Download Media Studio FULL v14.22.107 Apk or Apk

Available link for download

Minimalistic Clock Wallpaper

Minimalistic Clock Wallpaper

Display a minimalistic analogue clock as your background wallpaper. Simple foreground colors on a black background with slow updates; your battery will love this wallpaper.
Instructions:
1. Select Wallpapers from Settings or Menu
2. Select Live Wallpapers
3. Select Minimalistic Clock Wallpaper
4. Select Settings
5. Pick your favorite color and other options
6. Select Save
7. Select Apply

Source : appsapk[dot]com

Available link for download

Mission Counter Strike v1 3 Mod Apk Mod Money

App Name: Mission Counter Strike
Version: 1.3
Requirements: 4.0 and up
Updated: January 4, 2017
File Size: 69MB
Description
Mission Counter Strike be a best commando as you have been called to show your sniper shooting skills, being an elite sniper use assault guns with unlimited bullets to...
Click Here to Download Mission Counter Strike v1.3 Mod Apk (Mod Money)

Available link for download

MIA Field Trip

Videos (prior to visit)

1. We will bring cameras to document our trip to the Minneapolis Institute of Art. 
2. Think about what you have learned about photography to take some interesting photos while we are there: experiment with camera angles, distance, focus and depth of field. 
3. Find one work from the permanent collection to photograph and use as inspiration for an artwork that you will create digitally. Take photos of the whole thing, and some details.
4. Create a work of art using Illustrator that is inspired by the work. Maybe it has the same colors, or similar design elements, or the same subject. It shouldnt be a copy of the work, but just take some things from it and use them in a new way.
   
   
   
   
   

Available link for download

Mickey Mouse Party

Jennifer tells us more about her party….

I wrapped a few empty boxes and Styrofoam in some fun striped wrapping paper and filled some pots with styrofoam and paper shred making cute centerpieces using the printables from Amanda’s Parties to Go that I had leftover from a previous party.

Other décor items included a colorful banner I printed and tied scrap ribbon to and some Mickey Mouse inspired letters of our last name I made after being inspired by one of Amanda’s Parties to Gos customers. They are a fun DIY project using 3-D cardboard letters from JoAnns, some spray paint, various scrapbook paper & embellishments and the printables.

There was little time to custom bake treats, let alone order any. I am so grateful to two amazing businesses who saved the day! Bella’s Bakery & Bowtique (cake pops and Oreos) and Sweets from Heaven, Outlets at Orange (candy kabobs) sent custom treats to coordinate with our theme.

Candy bars were wrapped with darling “Oh Toodles” wrappers from Amanda’s Parties To Go’s collection.  Mini candy bars and Hershey Kisses were “dressed up” in fun labels and wrappers and displayed in serving dishes I already own.  From my party stash, I pulled out some leftover red popcorn boxes and gave them a Mickey update with some scraps of scrapbook paper and an oval paper punch.

Our tabletop was easy to throw together. Mickey plates were made by gluing smaller black plates from The Dollar Tree to larger black plates.  Each place setting included a napkin with a cute coordinating wrap, plus a drink wrapped in a cute Mickey themed beverage wrapper with a fun yellow striped straw and Mickey Mouse topper.

We used homemade cupcakes for our centerpiece embellished with some colorful printable cupcake toppers attached to sucker sticks and bright polka dot cupcake wrappers I had in my stash.  Polka dot balloons helped to tie everything together.  A friend of mine (thank you Kate!) found these darling Mickey Mouse cups at Target last fall.  They made the perfect holder for the Mickey cake pops.  Aren’t they adorable?

Because there were already so many sweet treats, we kept party favors simple.  Each guest received a little bag of Mickey Mouse labeled Hershey Kisses to take home and some bubbles to play with in the backyard. The birthday boy was in heaven!

Available link for download