Economy not Race stimulus check from government
The entire world runs on my creativity while my rights are ignored federal government corruption
Alleges Fraud by the U.S. Government Regarding Internet
This case behind so called FREE AND OPEN INTERNET Circuit Appeals Court For Federal Circuit , Appeal
PORTIONS OF THAT 2013 OPINION SHOWN HERE...
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE DOROTHY M. HARTMAN
______________________
2013-1070
(Serial No. 11/003,123)
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
______________________
Decided: March 8, 2013
______________________
DOROTHY M. HARTMAN, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pro se.
RAYMOND T. CHEN, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor,
United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria, Virginia, for appellee. With him on the brief were
NATHAN K. KELLEY, Deputy Solicitor, BENJAMIN T.
HICKMAN, Associate Solicitor and SYDNEY O. JOHNSON,
JR., Associate Solicitor.
______________________
Before NEWMAN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Dorothy M. Hartman filed Patent Application No U.S.11003123 ,
The examiner rejected all thirty-five claims in a June2011 final action, concluding that each claim was indefinite under paragraph 2 of section 112. The examinerobserved that the claims “fail[] to define the invention inthe manner required by” the statute, “are narrative inform and replete with indefinite and functional or operational language,” and are not limited to a single sentenceper claim. Supp’l App. 1966.Hartman appealed to the Board, which affirmed theexaminer’s indefiniteness rejection. The Board found thatHartman had failed to address the substance of theexaminer’s rejection in her brief on appeal, and thereforehad not “contest[ed]” the rejection sufficiently to allow theBoard to review it. See Ex Parte Hartman, No. 2012-8681,at *5-6 (B.P.A.I. July 25, 2012).DISCUSSIONHartman makes no effort to distinguish between the4 IN RE DOROTHY HARTMANclaims in her briefs on appeal, or to address individuallythe grounds on which the examiner rejected each of theclaims. Nonetheless, we have reviewed each of the thirtyfive claims, and we conclude that each one is indefinite.The majority of the claims are denominated as method claims.2 Many of these method claims (specifically,claims 26, 30, 33, 35, 37, 39, 43, 44, 48, 51, 52, and 57) fail
corruption
Learn More
to recite any specific steps, instead merely stating the
existence of a “novel business method” (or an “innovative
business method”) and describing the benefits that flow
from its use. Supp’l App. 1818-28. Hartman’s failure to
recite any required steps renders these claims indefinite,
since it leaves the claims without any meaningful limitations. The remaining method claims (claims 27, 28, 29, 31,
32, 34, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, and
60) fare no better. These claims recite what appear to be
individual steps of a method, in various permutations.
The specification discloses that these steps are similar to
those taken by users of prior-art online databases. Because Hartman has not “clearly distinguish[ed] what is
claimed from what went before in the art and clearly
circumscribe[d] what is foreclosed from future enterprise,”
see Union Carbon Co., 317 U.S. at 236, the examiner
properly rejected these claims as indefinite.
We have considered Hartman’s other arguments, in-
2 The few claims that defy classification as method
claims appear to consist of nothing more than descriptions
of benefits allegedly flowing from Hartman’s invention.
These claims recite “a revolutionary way of doing business
wherein the term cyberspace is used interchangeably as a
‘marketplace,’ ‘warehouse,’ [and] ‘clearinghouse,’” claim
36; “teaching the concept of the infinity of cyberspace as a
tool to improve commerce and to grow the economy,”
claim 38; and “aiding small businesses and entrepreneurs
[by] mak[ing] startups easier and more affordable,” claim
55. See Supp’l App. 1821, 1826
HARTMAN FOUGHT FOR OVER 30 YEARS ALLEGES NO TRIALS OR UNJUST
CFC , Case no. 20-832C . APPEAL Case 21-1535 in Appeals Ct. Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE DOROTHY M. HARTMAN
______________________
2013-1070
(Serial No. 11/003,123)
______________________
Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark
Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
______________________
Decided: March 8, 2013
______________________
DOROTHY M. HARTMAN, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
pro se.
RAYMOND T. CHEN, Solicitor, Office of the Solicitor,
United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Alexandria,
Virginia, for appellee. With him on the brief were
NATHAN K. KELLEY, Deputy Solicitor, BENJAMIN T.
HICKMAN, Associate Solicitor and SYDNEY O. JOHNSON,
Presiding Judges in United States Circuit Ct. of Appeals
Opinion based on Briefs by Appellant Hartman and Appellees
Decided March 8 , 2013
Before NEWMAN, DYK, and PROST, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Motion for Extraordinary Relief
Complainant moves for Extraordinary Relief to ask the Court to remove Mandate . Extraordinary circumstances exist in this case . The Complainant continued her Pro Se Status having been hampered by a blacklisting of her name to prevent attorney representation by a State Agency acting under color of law but continued her fight for justice to the filing of a Writ of Mandamus that was not denied by the Supreme Court until
From Rules of the Court :
(b) When Issued. The court’s mandate must issue 7 days after the time to file a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after entry of an order denying a timely petition for panel rehearing, petition for rehearing en banc, or motion for stay of mandate, whichever is later. The court may shorten or extend the time by order.
(c) Effective Date. The mandate is effective when issued. ………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
(4) Issuance of Mandate. The court of appeals must issue the mandate immediately on receiving a copy of a Supreme Court order denying the petition, unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
See the following filings :
No. 12-10884
Title:
Dorothy M. Hartman, Petitioner
v.
Patent and Trademark Office
Docketed:
June 20, 2013
Lower Ct:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case Nos.:
(2013-1070)
Decision Date:
March 8, 2013
Rehearing Denied:
May 7, 2013
~~~Date~~~
~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 14 2013
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 22, 2013)
Jun 27 2013
Waiver of right of respondent Patent and Trademark Office to respond filed.
Jul 3 2013
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.
Jul 8 2013
Supplemental brief filed by petitioner Dorothy M. Hartman. (Distributed)
Aug 27 2013
Second supplemental brief of petitioner Dorothy M. Hartman filed. (Distributed)
Oct 7 2013
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 28, 2013, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Oct 23 2013
Petitioner complied with order of October 7, 2013.
Oct 31 2013
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 15, 2013.
Nov 18 2013
Petition DENIED.
No. 13-10188
Title:
In Re Dorothy M. Hartman, Petitioner
v.
Docketed:
May 21, 2014
Linked with 14A7
~~~Date~~~
~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 13 2014
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 20, 2014)
May 28 2014
Waiver of right of respondent to respond filed.
Jun 4 2014
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 19, 2014.
Jun 10 2014
Supplemental brief of petitioner filed. (Distributed)
Jun 23 2014
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 14, 2014, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Jun 25 2014
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
Jun 25 2014
Application (14A7) for an extension of time within which to comply with the order of June 23, 2014, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jul 2 2014
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.
Jul 3 2014
Application (14A7) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until November 14, 2014.
Oct 6 2014
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
Nov 12 2014
Petitioner complied with order of June 23, 2014.
Nov 20 2014
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2014.
Dec 8 2014
Petition DENIED.
Dec 30 2014
Petition for Rehearing filed.
Jan 28 2015
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 20, 2015.
Feb 23 2015
Rehearing DENIED.
No. 13-10188
Title:
In Re Dorothy M. Hartman, Petitioner
v.
Docketed:
May 21, 2014
Linked with 14A7
~~~Date~~~
~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 13 2014
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 20, 2014)
May 28 2014
Waiver of right of respondent to respond filed.
Jun 4 2014
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 19, 2014.
Jun 10 2014
Supplemental brief of petitioner filed. (Distributed)
Jun 23 2014
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until July 14, 2014, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Jun 25 2014
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner.
Jun 25 2014
Application (14A7) for an extension of time within which to comply with the order of June 23, 2014, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jul 2 2014
Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.
Jul 3 2014
Application (14A7) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until November 14, 2014.
Oct 6 2014
Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.
Nov 12 2014
Petitioner complied with order of June 23, 2014.
Nov 20 2014
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 5, 2014.
Dec 8 2014
Petition DENIED.
Dec 30 2014
Petition for Rehearing filed.
Jan 28 2015
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 20, 2015.
Feb 23 2015
Rehearing DENIED.
MORE ABOUT THIS STORY AT WWW.TELECOM1990.COM
I am a human being and not a thing to be used and exploited ....
What has happened is that a small number of millionaires and billionaires who were given the opportunity to profit from what was at the time a new invention , have increased the number of oligarchs , and increased the wealth gap between the haves and have nots for a one-sided society that is in danger of collapsing . Hartman alleges that her invention would always have been better off had she been involved in it . It was invented for use by the population but in a way that would have increased fair trade and fostered competition.
Whereas the United States Patent and Trademark Office in one of many flaws and mistakes regarding the patent application makes the comment to her that it was concerned about a monopoly . However nowhere seems to those types of concerns today as agencies that count less than the fingers on one hand are allow to form mega-monopolies .
Obviously the concerns about my ownership of my own intellectual property more based on notions , prejudices , superstitions . Thus the politics rather than law were established to support the privileged , “the special” , and “the entitled” , and intellectual property law went right out of the window so that Hartman’s brilliant ideas for how to have a successful internet were immediately put into operation while she was attacked , robbed of her life’s work , and smeared out of existence as a good science teacher and a talented inventor . It was not enough that they stole my intellectual property , but then to destroy my reputation and tear up my life !
Using her ideas of how to create a successful internet by marrying commerce with technology , the government perhaps through Department of Defense being at the reins although it was not the inventor of these ideas nor were its pioneers Kahn and Cerf – the ideas were added in through a Tier 3 Network engineered by Merit Networks in Michigan melding Hartman’s ideas into the previous networks that had been the backbone of the prior telecom networks . These changes based on Hartman’s creativity are what produced the Digital Revolution that is now practically over the entire globe and continuing to evolve" I have continuously been denied a trial on this while the ones responsible for the theft and their families have grown rich .I want and deserve Justice ." I am appealing this Injustice that has lasted for 30 years with dishonesty and misinformation . stimulus check from government
African Descendants have been inventing 1000's of years
What Is Not Known about Big Telecom
The Tragic Truth behind Telecommunications
The Inventor's Story in Black and White
We take for granted now the use of our smartphones , ipads , P.C.'s and other Telecom gadgets but the true background and history of how Telecom launched in the 1990's is yet to be told. An African American woman alleges that she has been persecuted and her entire work career and life has been sacrificed to the power grab and greed surrounding Telecom without Justice .
The above image is a computer generated map by Peer 1 showing millions of internet websites .
Hartman alleges that her abstract thoughts shown below and reflected in the steps of the Accessing Accessibility Process Patent Application #11003123 whose steps she shared in Proposals to the Federal Government explain how Cyberspace is used to allow millions and billions of users online at once . " I am a science teacher, not a technician or code writer , but they would not have been able to build the modern day Internet and worldwide web without my ideas. Stay tuned to this blog to find out more about Hartman's contributions and why she alleges that none of it social media , online shopping , virtual meetings , and the "online experience" would not have been possible . since her ideas were used in the beginning to produce the new Internet , and she is a woman of color , her participation was dismissed and she alleges her life destroyed to prevent payment to her for the invention .
The Inventor's Story in Black and White
The Tragic Truth behind Telecommunications
The Inventor's Story in Black and White
The Inventor of Online communications which we all now enjoy , Dorothy M. Hartman who alleges that she has been victimized by several unjust trials in an effort to protect her property both real estate and intellectual property after being defamed and denied legal representation based on lies . She alleges cruel and inhumane treatment while being robbed of credit and compensation. They have no right without due process of law .
It started [ see below ] here in the Ct. of Common Pleas in Philadelphia where she sued the condominium association where she purchased a condo on the famous South Street in Philadelphia . From that case where she asked that the association fix a leak in the bedroom which apparently was there but had been covered up at inspection and purchase-
Dorothy Hartman vs. Milstein and the Greenwich Walk Homeowners Association. Well , all Hell broke loose . During deposition , it was discovered that her home based business was Talk Shoppe Inc., the proprietary information regarding the proposed search engine and the fact that she admitted that " I had something to do with developing the Internet'" . The subpoena for the Housing Inspector was squashed so that he did not have to come to court and thus began what has amounted to 30 years of lies , fraud , and misinformation ." Once they found my vulnerability that I was reclusive , chronically ill and incapacitated- the Jackals unloaded on me and have not had the decency to fix the situation . I want a just and fair trial ."
The Tragic Truth behind Telecommunications
The Tragic Truth behind Telecommunications
The Tragic Truth behind Telecommunications
The Inventor of the successful internet that enables us to be online is an African American woman who in her own life has been subjected to crimes by the government she alleges .
Cases where Due Process was violated or case kept from court or Appeal
Case No. 1447 Hartman vs. Milstein and Greenwich Walk Homeowners Association rt al Case No. 2-13-cv-01909 where her house was taken as civil asset seizure while treated as criminal with fraudulent records made up by crooked judges. No appeals . She had never skipped a mortgage payment until same lynch mob in the courts had a convicted felon come in and trash home and rob renters living there . She had had to rent an apartment to have peace from harassment . Read this Blog to find out more and why she is going to a higher court because of inhumane treatment by a powerful and greed obsessed government that got its hand on her intellectual property and refused to let go .
Early Contributions by the Inventor to the Field of Telecom
Find Out More
Patent Application #11003123, Accessing Accessibility
Patent Application #11003123, Accessing Accessibility
This image shows the Prototype - first Search Engine , ficticious name application for Talk Shoppe Inc. , Entity number 1554833 filed with the Department of State March 5 , 1990 . Hartman alleges that this and other writings to the SBIR predates anything that the government did regarding commercializing or privatizing the NSFNET in 1990-1991.
" I lived my entire life going to school, teaching school and taking care of my family , or inventing things to help people . I never deserved to be treated like this and will take my case to a higher court as Telecommunications and Ecommerce get richer because they are able to sell their expensive phones , computers , ads and other gadgets to billions of people online ." But I am the inventor whose ideas put those billions of people online because I invented an internet capable of having billions of people online . They deny me justice while they deny me payment for my invention and get richer They cannot take that away from me and I will fight this evil with all of my strength", alleges Hartman.
Patent Application #11003123, Accessing Accessibility
Patent Application #11003123, Accessing Accessibility
Patent Application #11003123, Accessing Accessibility
Hartman filed a patent application for a process that showed how to improve the field of Telecommunications . She had introduced her writings to the government in 1990 through the Small Business Innovation Research Program or SBIR . Hartman alleges that the government used ideas submitted to them through the innovation research program to steal and give opportunities to others -Whites and Jews to succeed in Telecommunications while subjecting her to defamation , bankruptcy and other crimes imposed against her. Subscribe to this Blog to learn more as she fights for Justice . Because my invention , the Accessing Accessibility Process was wealth producing the powers that be - crooked judges , dishonest state officers , National Science Foundation , United States Patent and Trademark Offices as well as politicians signing off on it took my property rights by lawless politics using defamation , fraud, and misinformation .
Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia
Patent Application #11003123, Accessing Accessibility
Inventor submitted written proposals to government in 1990.....
She won that case , but not another one since as the "lynching cartel of judges " , she alleges" had it in for me". No damages for the fraud and the judge did not even order Mr. Milstein and the others to fix the leaky roof which led to other problems. Although the question was put to the jury and they answered "yes" that the roof was defective when she purchased it but the suit for fraud was declared a non- suit . She had endured racial epithets and insults and other damages to her condominium before filing suit after 4 years . But there was no doubt that retaliation for her filing suit against Milstein and the Greenwich Walk Homeowners Association and knowledge that she was the owner of the TALK SHOPPE INC, prototype were instrumental in setting up both civil and criminal conspiracy to take her property . This attack occured some time after she had submitted proposals about ideas on how to improve telecom to the SBIR and the Dept. of Commerce in Pennsylvania. It was not long before the falsified public records began to surface .Case No.1447 , Spring Term 1998The other cases were directed toward taking her home and all kinds of rules and due process broken . No Appeals ever granted from that day to this one.
Inventor submitted written proposals to government in 1990.....
See the unfair court cases to take my home which was done not only for greed but retaliation ,,,,
Inventor submitted written proposals to government in 1990.....
Inventor alleges that she was forced to file a patent application after government took written proposals submitted in 1990 - not shown here because they are still pending as a part of review by the United States Court of Federal Claims , Case No.
1:20-CV- 000832 , Dorothy M. Hartman vs. The United States .She received notice today , 11/17/2020 that the Judge wrote an 8 page Opinion based on the inventor's complaint alone as the case was not allowed to go to trial. She had to spend $3,000 just to file it as internet agents and agencies that have free rein to her computer including documents and images that they freely made available to themselves and others in the internet community and courts who watched the case with interest .
Being online and a successful internet are contributions by this inventor who is being censured ,
See the unfair court cases to take my home which was done not only for greed but retaliation ,,,,
See the unfair court cases to take my home which was done not only for greed but retaliation ,,,,
Having contributed her intellectual property near age 50 , the inventor is now in her 70's still struggling to recover from the overwhelming damages done to her by the U.S. government in stealing intellectual property which now brings trillions of dollars into the American economy .They get richer now that Online Protocol ( her ideas ) is now being used all over the world because of the Pandemic . What they are committing against me are crimes against humanity and covering it up without actual trials . My ideas launched Telecom - not theirs and no amount of censuring from my own invention and from social media or other media will change the facts .
See the unfair court cases to take my home which was done not only for greed but retaliation ,,,,
See the unfair court cases to take my home which was done not only for greed but retaliation ,,,,
See the unfair court cases to take my home which was done not only for greed but retaliation ,,,,
I feel very much as the survivors of Tulsa's Black Wall Street might have felt as working class and middle class blacks were attacked and massacred some feel out of jealousy and resentment that they were doing well as I was when attacked and my property and assets taken from me while they cover up their atrocities with crooked trials and denied appeals .based on lies and falsified records.
There were other so called race riots that were actually massacres of blacks doing well and their assets either burned or stolen .
Stay in Touch
Stay in Touch
Stay in Touch
Stay in touch to find out more , subcribe and join me in my fight for justice .