A post from our student blogger Megan

Every year the MSPL students get the distinct honor of working with Notre Dame research scientists and professors who have developed a novel method or tangible item that is in need of patent protection.  The students work hand-in-hand with these Notre Dame faculty inventors to formulate a patent application on the inventor’s idea.  The process is a ten month learning experience and involves understanding the inventor’s concept and then writing a claim set and ultimately developing a complete patent application with respect to the invention.  This process, while it appears quite succinct, requires lots of interaction and devotion of time to interviews with incredibly talented inventors.

The class that involves this thesis project is called “Capstone.”  The class itself meets one to two times per week, but it is the work that goes on outside the classroom that truly shapes the Capstone experience.  In general, my Capstone thesis project is a novel combination of washing, staining, and imaging a sample of tumor tissue all in one tiny device, resulting in a three-dimensional view of the tumor and its entire environment.  “So what?”  You ask. Well, this isn’t any regular biochemistry lab function; in fact, this is a genius collaboration with far-reaching diagnostic effects fabricated by three separate labs here on Notre Dame’s campus.

You see, up until now, in order to determine whether a patient had breast cancer or not, a fine needle biopsy was taken from the patient and then sliced into hundreds of small two-dimensional pieces.  These slices were each painstakingly mounted on separate slides, stained, and imaged under a microscope.  If you wanted an idea of what the entire tissue environment—and not just a sliver of the area—looked like, an extra step was added to this already complex method:  examiners would feed the microscope images into a computer program and attempt to piece the pictures back together to get some sort of image of the tumor and its surrounding area.  My capstone invention is groundbreaking because it proposes to keep the tissue surrounding the tumor completely intact.  This is important because it will lead to more accurate and informed cancer diagnoses.  Currently, pathologists make cancer treatment recommendations based on very small, two-dimensional biopsy samples, or the pieced-together computer generated methods.

To arrive at this understanding I have had the opportunity to get to know four inventors, invade each of their labs, and meet with them countless hours to discuss their invention.  Perhaps the most surprising thing about conversing with each one of them is their level of enthusiasm for what they have created.  You might be under the misconception that scientists and engineers are a little boring.  My four inventors are just the opposite.  Their faces each light up with excitement when they get the chance to explain why this invention is so important.  And just as they beam with passion over what they’ve discovered, they just as quickly bubble over with delight when they get to show you how they came up with the idea.

Because of my inventors’ fervor for discovery, my days are full of interest and purpose.  Take some time today to thank the scientists, engineers, researchers, educators, and anyone else you know who has worked tirelessly and thanklessly on new ideas that ultimately heal our society or just plain make our quality of life better.  They deserve some praise—so insist on it—even though they probably won’t want to take the credit.

A post from our student blogger Catie

As we have discussed before, patents grant their inventors exclusionary rights to the particular idea at hand. Think for a minute about all of the inventions in the world. Have you ever had a light bulb moment where you think of an idea and then joke around with your friends about how you should patent it? Have you ever considered that another person somewhere in the world may have had the same idea? With these thoughts in mind, consider how crazy the patenting process can be when multiple inventors are trying to patent the same invention! This happens quite often, particularly in the fields of science and technology where inventors are racing to find a viable method for treating cancer or to create the next big breakthrough in computerized widgets, respectively. Sometimes it really does come down to a race between inventors to see who is granted the patent!

There can only be one patent per invention, so you may be wondering at this point: who gets the patent? All countries follow a First-to-File (FTF) system to delegate who gets those rights. This means that whoever is first to file a patent application for the invention gains the exclusionary protection of this idea. This system has not been around very long in the USPTO; as a matter of fact, we were the last country in the world to adopt this system! The First-to-File system was enacted in the United States in March of 2013, along with tons of other new rules that were introduced as part of the America Invents Act (AIA). Basically, all that you need to know about AIA is that it enacted many new ‘rules’ that were basically just updated forms of patent rules and regulations that were already in place. Therefore, after March 2013, the first inventor to file a patent application of a particular invention with the USPTO was exclusively given the right to the grant of a patent in the US, regardless of whether or not that inventor was the first to actually invent it. Also, keep in mind that this does not guarantee that the invention will definitely be granted a patent or that it will be commercially successful. First-to-File simply grants the inventor the right to claim the invention with the potential to be patented!

Before the US utilized the First-to-File system, we had what was called the First-to-Invent (FTI) system. This system granted the protection of an invention to the inventor who could produce proof that he or she was the first person to conceive the idea and reduce it to practice. This demonstrates the importance of the inventor to keep a detailed lab notebook of ideas and the dates on which they occurred or were discussed. It is fairly easy to see how the First-to-Invent system could potentially be much messier than the First-to-File system. Providing legitimate proof that someone was the first person to conceive an idea and produce the invention can be very difficult and runs the risk of being based on arguments of personal accounts or biased evidence. If we are dealing with an invention that is pending a race between inventors to obtain a patent, then this whole situation can turn into a “who’s on first” argument in litigation of “who invented first”. The First-to-File system foregoes the arguments and confusion that must be delegated by the USPTO of who invented first and simply grants those rights to whomever was first to file their patent application. I think we can all agree that this was a smart move by the USPTO!

A post from our student blogger Roberto

The past few weeks of classes have taught us a ton of information about drafting patents.  We have drafted a picture claim for a patent, which describes an invention in all of its gory detail, and a broad claim, which describes an invention in as wide of terms as possible, in our patent application drafting class.  Writing claims has not been easy for me.  In many ways, it is similar to writing proofs of mathematical theorems and to say proofs were my least favorite of my mathematical career would be an understatement.  However, after all the practice I think I am starting to get the hang of writing claims and I am starting to really appreciate them for the art form they are.  Thankfully, we’ve had some practice writing them and will certainly have many more opportunities to build our skills in writing them.  In our other classes we have searched national and worldwide patent databases and we have learned many of the laws and regulations involved with patent work.

In our Capstone projects we have all met many times with our inventors and are beginning to understand the technologies we are tasked with protecting.  The next step for us is to game plan and figure out how we will craft a patent to protect it.  As a kid I used to love board games like Risk and Monopoly.  One of the reasons I loved those games, aside from the fact that I usually beat my siblings, was that it always took a certain amount of strategic planning to completely annihilate your opponent.  So far that is how I have approached my Capstone project.

After every meeting with my inventor I try to condense my notes into my battle plan and attack strategy.  I have quickly learned that this entire process is extremely fluid and dynamic and I constantly find myself revising my plan and realizing things I never saw before.  I am so thankful to have this opportunity in the MSPL because I know it will pay dividends many times over in the real world.

After a late night of studying I took this picture of the beautiful Basilica of the Sacred Heart nestled in the heart of campus.  Oddly enough when I was walking around that night I had no intention of taking any pictures but when I saw this awesome sight I couldn’t help but take a quick photo.   It got me thinking about how far we’ve come these past few weeks in the MSPL and of our journey ahead.  As the leaves change and the winds chill we will be busy preparing for the moment when those bells toll for the last time as we leave this campus and head out into the great unknown.

A post from our student blogger Catie

One year ago as a senior, one of the biggest mysteries to me was how the difficulty of graduate school compares to undergrad. As I was offered interviews to graduate school programs, I had the opportunity to speak with veteran grad students who could only tell me that “Grad school is harder than undergrad, but in a different way”. Although that statement is incredibly vague, I’ve come to learn in the last month and a half that this is very true, so let me try to shed some light on the weekly life of an MSPL student!

The fall semester schedule consists of four patent law courses, two technical electives, and at least one capstone project that is unique to each MSPL student. Each of the four patent law classes meets once a week for about two hours and focuses on one particular aspect of what a patent agent does (i.e. writing claims, performing patent searches, drafting a patent application, and learning the rules that govern patent law). There is moderate reading required for preparation of each class, but most time consumed for these courses is dominated by the (usually) weekly homework assignments. This program is wonderful because instead of just learning about the practices of patent law, we are thrown into it so that we learn by doing! The patent law homework assignments may take some quality time to complete, but it’s essentially practicing for our future career.

Any MSPL student who holds a degree below a Ph.D. must also take two technical electives of their choice from their previous field of focus. My degree is a Bachelor’s in Biology-Genetics, so I am taking two graduate-level biology courses: Advanced Cell Biology and Molecular Biology. These are your typical Monday/Wednesday/Friday or Tuesday/Thursday classes. Although these courses are electives, it must be kept in mind that we’re still talking about Notre Dame graduate-level science courses; so it’s no joke! Homework and reading for the electives probably require the same (if not a little more) time commitment as the patent law homework. I personally think that one of the most challenging aspects of the MSPL program is balancing your time between patent law work and then changing gears to return to the mindset of analyzing scientific literature and their concepts. Nonetheless, these courses supplement the technical knowledge necessary to comprehend your potential clients’ inventions! Also, no worries: all ND professors that I have encountered so far are incredibly friendly and helpful, and they genuinely want to help you however possible if you begin to struggle.

Okay, so those are the de facto courses during the week! Other responsibilities for the week that may not be regularly scheduled consist of the capstone project and Lunch-and-Learns. Each MSPL student has an individual capstone project wherein they are working one-on-one with an inventor here on Notre Dame’s campus to draft a patent application for that inventor’s idea. This is our first real-life experience in performing patent law work. Also, any MSPL student who holds a Ph.D. (and subsequently does not need to take electives) will take on two capstone projects. Capstone projects span the entire school year, and they will occupy variable amounts of time outside of class. Most of the capstone-related work is integrated into the patent law courses, but it is the student’s responsibility to schedule meetings with the inventor(s) to discuss the related invention(s) outside of class. For my capstone project, I occasionally meet with my inventor to discuss the invention and solidify my understanding of the technology behind it, as well as attend the weekly lab meetings held by my inventor. It’s a really exciting experience, and I am personally grateful to have the opportunity to do guided patent application drafting before I graduate and do it on my own in the work force!

Finally, we have Lunch-and-Learns, which occur on football Fridays (the Fridays of ND home football games). On these days, a guest speaker from a law firm or another patent law-related corporation visits campus to speak to us about patent law careers. They generally give a presentation that provides an overview of what they do, and we are offered the chance to informally have discussions with them while eating pizza! It’s a fun experience while also providing the MSPL students a great networking opportunity with potential employers!

To round out this post, I want to put it out there that I do actually have free time as an MSPL student! Although, due to the class schedule and the weekly deadlines for homework submission online, I am consistently busy with homework. There is no point in time where I will ever say ‘I have nothing to do right now’, because there will always be something. Like all students are told: it’s all about time management. I may be perpetually working towards due dates, but that doesn’t mean that I am perpetually swamped with work. The MSPL’ers go to football games, occasionally get together at Fiddler’s Hearth on Monday evenings, and leave town on the weekends if they want. Graduate school is hard work, but we still have time to relax and take care of ourselves, too! Like always, if you have any other questions about the life of an MSPL student, feel free to ask!

 

A post from our student blogger Megan

You probably haven’t thought about how many patents there are floating around out there but in all honesty, there is virtually a whole sea of them.  Patents and published patent applications are considered “prior art,” or all the information that is already available to the public that may impact the uniqueness of a prospective patent.  Prior art plays a large role in whether someone is entitled to a patent and it must be thoroughly vetted before a patent can ever be granted.  There is, however, a lot of it to wade through.  The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted a total of 302,948 patents last year—an all-time high.  But the United States government has been awarding patents since 1790 when Samuel Hopkins received the first grant on potash, a component used to make fertilizer.  Currently, the USPTO is issuing patents in the 8,000,000 range.  However, the USPTO did not start counting patents until July 13, 1836.  This means that there are 9,957 more patents that need to be accounted for that were issued before the USPTO started keeping records.

United States patents are only a portion of the patents that exist worldwide, though.  Espacenet, a website generated by the European Patent Office (EPO), boasts that you can research their databases for over 80,000,000 patent document records kept since 1836.  Additionally, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), offers Patentscope, an even more comprehensive search database that covers patent documents from ninety countries.  Granted, these documents are mostly patent applications, and you must note that patents have expiration dates, so you can bet that the majority of the patents you encounter on these databases are likely out of date.  But all of these documents represent ideas that someone thought important enough to request legal patent protection.  Furthermore, they are important to anyone who seeks patent protection due to the laws that prospective applicants must abide by.

Title 35 of the United States Code Section 102(a) states that, among other things, a person may not be entitled to a patent if the invention was “patented [or] described in a printed publication…” This means that if your inventive concept has already been “anticipated,” or previously patented or published in a patent application anywhere in the world, you cannot receive patent protection on that particular invention.  Now, there are exceptions to this rule, but the main focus is to find all of these previously issued patents or publications that may preempt your patent so you can adequately inspect them first.  This process is called patent searching.  While a patent search is not required to file a patent application, it is highly recommended.

For the past six weeks, students in the MSPL program at the University of Notre Dame have been studying prior art exploration methods in their patent searching class.  The sheer number of patents and patent documents seem like a daunting prospect when you are up against a massive sea of prior art awash in the World Wide Web.  There are specific steps to strategically search for relevant patents and publications, though.  The first step to any search is to develop search terms.  Think about the invention and narrow down words that truly describe what it constitutes.  From there, draft a “building block” strategy of synonymous terms.  For example, if the new invention involves a method of three-dimensional cancer diagnosis, your original search terms may include those three words.  Build on these words by choosing synonyms that match these meanings for a more expansive search.  Cancer could be substituted with the word “tumor,” “three-dimensional” could also mean “multidimensional,” and “diagnosis” could be replaced with the word “analysis.”

The next step is to run an actual search on the terms you have developed.  There are a multitude of electronic databases that searchers use to dig up relevant documents.  Besides Espacenet and Patentscope, there are domestic databases that aid in searches as well.  The USPTO website is dedicated to searches for United States patents and applications.  Moreover, Google Patents is a quick, free search engine geared towards the general public.  One can google a patent number, title, or general concept and pull hundreds of patents in seconds from this database.  Once the searcher finds relevant patents and published documents relating to the new inventive concept it is his or her duty to examine these and decipher whether they would prevent the inventor from receiving a patent.

This is a general overview of patent searching—patent searching is not quick or easy, though.  There are professional searchers that have made a career out of searching for prior art patents.  The reward is in crafting a search the edges close to the new technology that you are searching, but is still different enough in scope that the new concept remains novel.  So while the amount of prior patents and documents may be vast, there is no need to fear diving into the prior art pool:  formulate a search strategy and jump in.

A post from our student blogger Catie

Before a patent agent can begin drafting a patent application, it is important to determine if the idea is patentable in the first place! The first step in this process is to ask “What constitutes an invention as patentable?” “Is this idea worthwhile in terms of going forward with filing a patent application?” These are pivotally important points to consider, and they should be thoroughly investigated before any application drafting occurs. This is very necessary because it is in the best interest of everyone involved to only draft a patent application of an invention that is indeed patentable. If not, tens of thousands of dollars and countless hours of work are at stake of being lost, because a patent application of an unsuitable invention will be rejected. Not to mention, it would make for a heartbroken inventor and a frustrated patent agent!

There are three main characteristics that determine whether or not an idea is patentable:

Is the invention new? An inventor’s idea must be novel in order to be eligible for a patent. This means that the process, machine, composition of matter, or manufacture to be patented must be the first of its kind and cannot be of content that is already patented, published, or available on the market. For this reason, patent searching is a huge part of what a patent agent’s job entails. The patent agent, with some help and guidance from the inventor, must perform a thorough search of existing literature to determine if the inventor’s idea is original enough to be patented.

Is the invention useful? This may be shocking, but yes, a patentable invention must have a useful result or method to reach a result! It may be the easiest of the three characteristics, as most inventors purely aim to create an invention that benefits consumers, laborers, and the general public. However, it is important to know that one cannot patent natural phenomena, sheer discoveries of nature, or abstract ideas. The invention must have a physical, executable method or use. The literature search that the patent agent performs to determine novelty of the invention may also be helpful for finding supporting information to demonstrate why the new invention may be effective or may resolve a problem posed by previous inventions.

Is the invention non-obvious? This may be the most difficult of the three characteristics, as it is fairly ambiguous and subjective. The term PHOSITA, or ‘Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art’, is used to explain this characteristic. If a PHOSITA from the field pertaining to the invention would be able to say that the invention in question is an obvious step up or adjustment to what is already known and existing in the field, then it should be deemed obvious and will not be granted a patent. Really, the key is that as long as the invention can be proved to contain a legitimately new result, it should be considered patentable.

A post from our student blogger Roberto

After the first few weeks of class I have learned so many interesting things.  I have done patent searches in the patent application information retrieval and Google Patent databases, learned parts of the United States Code, examined the manual of patent examining procedure and worked intensely on my capstone project.  Our classes in the MSPL guide us step by step through the entire patent process with each class focused on one particular aspect.  This semester we have a class on patent searching, application drafting, and patent law and prosecution.  This past week we were put directly in the shoes of an everyday patent agent.  We were given an invention disclosure and a few related patents and asked to construct a search report and comment on the patentability of the disclosed invention.  This is just one example of the many real world situations we are put through in the MSPL.

We have also had our first “lunch and learns” for the school year.  These special events are guest lectures where renowned patent professionals come in and share their experiences and knowledge with students.  It has been really helpful to have people come in and tell their story and explain their career paths to us especially as we begin to understand this field and where it may take us.

The most excited thing to happen around campus since my last post was our 31-0 rout of Michigan in the final scheduled meeting between the historic rivals.  Words simply cannot describe how awesome and incredible that experience was.  When I parked my car a few miles from the stadium I could hear the faint fanfare of tailgating in the distance.  As I walked closer I could smell the brats and burgers on the grills and I could hear the vibrant music; the atmosphere was electric.  During the game I struggled through the chants and cheers seemingly every other student had memorized.  However, by the end of the game I think I had most of them down.  I still have a few games to go and can’t wait to experience them with the amazing Notre Dame community.

A post from our student blogger Megan

If you know me you know that I love law.  I love talking about it, studying it, and practicing it—and I especially love statutory law.  I know, that sounds riveting, right?  About now you’re probably saying, uh…no.  But trust me on this; the relationship between two United States Code sections that govern patent law is actually pretty cool.  Patent attorneys and agents rely on statutes, or laws, that are enacted by the legislature.  Specifically, Title 35 of the United States Code, provides the statutes that cover patent law.

35 USC §101 is a great starting point when drafting or examining a patent application.  This statute can be thought of as an initial hurdle to obtaining a patent because it controls what material can receive patent rights and what standard must be met in order for it to be considered patent eligible.  35 USC §101 states that a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter … or any improvement thereof” may be patented.  In addition, besides meeting the statutory material criteria, section 101 also states that a patentable concept must be “new and useful” as well.  Therefore, 35 USC §101 tells us that there is a two-part analysis to examining whether an invention or method is patentable or not:  does it meet the statutory criteria of items that can be patented and does it have basic utility?

Through the MSPL Patent Law and Prosecution class, we have learned that once you fulfill the statutory obligations of 35 USC §101, you may now move to an analysis under 35 USC §112(a).  These two statutes weave together some very basic patent concepts.  While section 101 governs what inventions are patentable, section 112(a) administers what contents must be contained in the specification of a patent application.  If you think about the specification in terms of anatomy, it is the skeleton and muscle of the entire application:  it contains the description and claims which give life to the patent by making it legally operable.

Now let’s take a closer look at section 112(a).  While at first glance this section looks like a run-on sentence packed with too much legalese, it can actually be dissected into three fairly basic concepts.  First, the specification must have a “written description of the invention.”  Second, the written description must be enabling, or in other words, a “person skilled in the art” must be able to make and use the invention based on what is described in the specification.  Finally, 112(a) mandates that the specification of a patent application must contain the “best mode.”  This means that the specification must include, in the inventor’s opinion, the best way to carry out the invention at the time the application is filed.

So how do 35 USC §101 and §112 relate to one another?  Simply put, if you fail to state the utility of your invention in your specification then there is no way that you can enable anyone to practice it.  Several United States courts have interpreted this connection and reiterate that if the invention utility is not enumerated under 35 USC §101, then it is not possible to “enable one of ordinary skill in the art to use the invention under 35 USC §112.”  In re Kirk, 376 F.2d 936, 942, 153 USPQ 48, 53 (CCPA 967).

Patent laws are kind of like spiders’ webs:  alone, a single statute is a long string of words that seem to have no connection to anything else, but when you weave the statutes together they form an intricate, distinct and really neat body of law that’s quite fascinating to look at.  The interplay of statutes is only the beginning, though.  There are the Code of Federal Regulations and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure sections that facilitate patent law as well.  We’ll delve into those at a later date so stay tuned.

A post from our student blogger Catie

To answer that question: no, completing the MSPL will not necessarily make me a lawyer (at least not in the sense in which the person is likely thinking!) I can’t keep count of how many times I was asked this and other similar questions in the months leading up to my start at Notre Dame. These questions mostly arise just because most people are unaware of what patent agents are and what they do. I, myself, was not really aware of these facts until I was introduced to the MSPL program during my last semester of undergrad. Therefore, I’m going to attempt to explain these differences!

Patent law and intellectual property are a smaller sub-category of employees that can be found at any given law firm. Currently, there are only about 42,500 active registered patent practitioners in the U.S. (http://patentlaw.nd.edu/patent-agent-and-program-faq/). Although there are currently not very many practicing patent practitioners, they are in high demand because they bring in plenty of good business for law firms, and the skill set that they possess are incredibly useful in the industry. Their usefulness is really a hidden gem, because inventors who even consider trying to patent their own invention are often in over their heads, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are currently under about a two year backlog of reviewing patent applications (just to give you an idea of how many inventors are trying to obtain patents).

Patent practitioners can be divided into two main categories: patent agents and patent attorneys. Patent agents typically do what’s called patent prosecution; or drafting patent applications for filing. Referring to my previous statement, a patent agent would be the person who drafts the patent application for the inventor. Patent prosecution is what we are training for in the MSPL. This job includes working with inventors, understanding the technical details behind the inventor’s new idea, and doing tons of searching and writing to prepare the patent application. Prosecution still requires a strong understanding of the patent laws and codes found in the MPEP to ensure that the new idea is patentable and that no laws will be infringed upon in the patent drafting and filing process. Patent attorneys perform patent litigation, and they are the people who can stand in court and litigate in cases of patent infringement. Infringement can include breaking a code from the MPEP or situations where another company or individual attempts to make or sell an invention that is patent-protected. There is also a third category of people related to patent practitioners made up of patent examiners. These are the people who work for the USPTO and review patent applications with the power to either grant a patent or reject the application.

You’re probably wondering how you make your way into one of these careers. In order to be a patent agent, you MUST have a technical background in either science or engineering (basically a Bachelor’s degree in one of the approved fields, check here: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/patent-bar-exam/patent-bar-qualifications/ ) and must pass the patent bar exam. A patent attorney must complete the same requirements and must additionally have a degree in law. Patent examiners are only required to have a minimum of a Bachelor’s degree in science or engineering, although passing the bar exam and holding a PhD in the desired technical background is helpful. So, if you ever find yourself in my place and people ask you “Isn’t that a far stretch from your degree?”, you can now politely correct them and inform them that it was the first step towards your patent law career! As a final note: if you are considering the MSPL program, the student bloggers can be a great resource for getting your questions answered! My technical background is in biology, but Megan would be great to talk to if you have a degree in law, and Roberto would be the person to talk to if you have a background in engineering!

A post from our student blogger Roberto

After all the anticipation and preparation our first week of studies is finally in the books.  After searching the beautiful campus we have found all of our classrooms and have met all of our instructors.  And after the first football game of the year we have all been unofficially initiated into the Irish family.  As students in the MSPL, most of us take courses in patent law and prosecution, patent application drafting, patent searching, as well as our capstone project and two science or engineering electives of our choice.  All of our MSPL courses are taught by current or retired patent professionals who have a wealth of experience in their fields and are preparing us to hit the ground running after graduation.

By far the largest pillar in the MSPL curriculum is the capstone project I mentioned earlier.  Throughout the course of the year each MSPL student will work directly with an inventor at Notre Dame to go through the entire process of patenting their work.  To do this we meet with our inventors regularly to work through the process with them.  Our meetings during the first week of classes consisted mainly of getting to know the inventor and the research.  As an engineer, this was a really enjoyable part of my week.  I loved getting to know the inventor, research, and invention.  My curiosity keeps me asking questions.  How does it work?  Why does it work this way, and why does it have this part?  Can it do this?  Why doesn’t it do this?  The answers to all of which, will greatly help me draft a patent that will protect every aspect of what the invention is and could be.

While the academic and professional activities I took part in during the first week of school were fun, I would be lying to say that the football game against Rice was not the best part.  My father, brother and I all got to go to the game and had amazing seats directly opposite of the student section.  From where we sat we could see everything.  We saw the crowd pour into the stadium and we saw the student body quake and move in unison, we saw the band draw out complicated patterns on the field, and we saw the Irish dominate on their new turf.  As I took it all in, I couldn’t help but feel like I was a part of something special.