Did you Teach Enough in your Patent Filing?

Finding and fixing holes in cases prior to filing helps ensure easier prosecution and successful patent grants.  An expert not close to the case can find the holes better than you can.  The Solution Infusion provides this service to you.

A patent must sufficiently teach others the invention such that they could re-create it. If it doesn’t, it may not be granted or may later be found invalid in litigation due to insufficiency.

Have you ever had an examiner reject a patent on this basis, were 100% certain you included teaching that overcomes the objection, and then…find that you didn’t?

It’s very disappointing. There are many reasons it occurs. In my experience, the main reason is that the inventor and attorney working on the case are not focused enough on “what’s missing?” prior to filing. They are more focused on making sure that what is included is accurate and well-represented from a legal point of view.

To ensure this doesn’t happen, it’s best to have someone not directly tied to the case review it, find “holes” in the teaching, and recommend changes to fill the holes prior to filing. This is best done by someone with considerable experience partnering with attorneys to file patents, defend them (in prosecutions, oppositions, and post-grant litigation), and oppose others’ patents. A major key to success opposing others’ patents is finding holes in the other side’s case.

There are many “teaching holes” I’ve seen, but some common ones include:

  1. Insufficiently Defined Terms: Many define a term to describe the invention broadly to seek broad claims and differentiate from other art. If well-defined, that’s great. When not, it can be a disaster because claims can be interpreted differently than intended, and you may face a rejection over prior art from a field unrelated to what you were trying to seek coverage in. In my inventor training, I provide an example claim space, but I don’t tell the class what I was intending the claims to cover. Then, I ask them to guess what the claims are supposed to cover. Every time, the class concludes I was trying to write claims about a networked printer. But, what I had in my mind was a hand-held pen that can print in multiple colors and play music as I use it. While my example may seem silly, I’ve actually seen this happen in real cases. In each case, the inventor and attorney had become “blind” to how their term could be interpreted by others…and just missed it.
  2. Insufficiently Differentiating from Prior Art: When there is close prior art, clearly demonstrating how your invention is different is key. Otherwise, expect the examiner use the art against you. When possible, using data to demonstrate the difference is very helpful. This is especially true in selection inventions. For example, you may be seeking a claim such as “a polymer having a concentration of ‘component X’ between 30-50%”, and there is prior art disclosing the component in general in a similar polymer. If you have data showing performance inside the range works well and outside the range does not, you need to include it. If you don’t you have a high probability of at best a very challenging prosecution…or worse – complete rejection.
  3. Insufficient Methods: If you are seeking a selection invention or pursuing functional/parametric claims, you need to disclose a method. And, it needs to be sufficiently described such that others can run it and get the same result as you. If you don’t, there is strong risk of invalidation in the future. Many quote industry standard methods, however many have allowable variations of test conditions. If so, you need to specify all test conditions.

I have the experience to help you find and fix holes prior to filing, and I can help you find holes in others’ patents during litigation also. Reach out to me at The Solution Infusion for help. It will pay dividends down the road.

Also, review these related articles:  Getting Real Value from IP  Maximizing Value from IP


To learn more Contact Mark


Mark Kline

© The Solution Infusion


Becoming Efficient & Effective Intellectual Property (IP) Work

The inventor’s role in IP work is not taught in school.  An expert IP mentor can help inventors quickly learn to be efficient and effective.  The Solution Infusion can help new and even relatively experienced inventors in this area.

Anyone who solves a problem in a way others have not and gets IP in place is an inventor, but most people are never taught their role in IP via their education. Net, most learn their role on the job. If there is training, it’s often focused on what patents are and legal aspects. Very little is focused on “what is the inventor’s role in IP and how can they work most effectively with a Patent Attorney?” Even then, classroom training alone is not sufficient to fully embed the skills.

As a result, the first time someone works with an attorney on IP, they are very inefficient and make a lot of mistakes (which can be costly!) This is also very inefficient for the attorney because they have to spend time telling the inventor what they need and explaining why certain things can and can’t be done. Over time, if an inventor works on multiple cases, they become efficient and highly effective in working with attorneys to create strong IP.

An effective way to quickly become efficient and effective is to have an expert in IP (from an inventor’s point of view) mentor others. This can help new and even relatively experienced inventors become more efficient and effective. There are 5 steps to obtaining IP. An expert IP mentor helps inventors understand the subtleties to complete each step with excellence. The inventor does the work. The expert IP mentor provides input to content and tips to quickly learn the required skills. The direct and detailed hands-on mentoring goes beyond what any classroom training can provide. A list of the steps and what the expert provides follows.

Defining a Patent Strategy: The right strategy is key. Too narrow and ownership opportunities are lost. Too broad and IP may not be granted and/or resources may be wasted. The expert mentors the inventor on how to think and file as broad as possible (yet not too broad), as well as to creatively carve out space versus challenging prior art.  This includes what types of IP to seek (utility patents, design patents, trade secrets, trademarks, etc.).

Documenting Ideas: The inventor and attorney both need to be clear on the problem solved, the solution, any important variations (including applications in fields other than the base), and where to search for prior art (and if any is already known – a simple list of it). When both people are clear, the first draft is typically very accurate and nearly complete. Up front written documentation saves time in the long run. The expert mentors the inventor on how to efficiently and clearly document the information, to expand (or limit) the variations and other applications, and to define and refine target search areas.

Prior Art Search, then Assessing Prior Art vs. Patent Strategy: The expert mentors the inventor on how to:

  • Understand impacts of art search results on the planned IP while finding creative ways to carve out business-relevant space.
  • Quickly read prior art and understand its relevance.

Drafting & Filing the IP:  As an attorney begins drafting IP, the expert mentors the inventor on the long-term business ramifications of the attorney’s legal recommendations. The expert also shows how to proactively play “devil’s advocate” to find and fill potential “holes” in the IP. An unfilled hole may lead to IP not being granted or being invalidated in the future.

Defending IP: Once filed, Patent & Trademark offices around the world assess filings and frequently deny granting the IP. After grant, litigation may risk invalidating or limiting the scope of the IP. Experts mentors the inventor on how to formulate strategies to defend IP and yield the most business-relevant claims possible.

The Solution Infusion can help with any or all of these steps (and also offers IP Training). Mark Kline has over 30 years’ experience inventing, creating strong IP, and defending it. Reach out to discuss how he can help you.

Also, review these related articles:  Getting Real Value from IP  Maximizing Value from IP


To learn more Contact Mark


Mark Kline

© The Solution Infusion


Getting Real Value from Intellectual Property (IP)

When a patent’s claims don’t cover what makes the technology valuable to the business, then the patent doesn’t have much value.  The Solution Infusion can help you maximize your patent’s value.

Having a granted patent increases value for the patent holder, doesn’t it? Not always.

The goal of IP protection is to provide long term sustainable competitive advantage by making it challenging for competition to make, use, or sell the patent-holder’s technology during a period of exclusivity. This allows an opportunity to reap monetary rewards from new technology with minimal competition. Many patents are granted. Some deliver this goal, yet many do not because:

  • The claims do not cover the meaningful, business-relevant aspects of the technology.
  • The claims are unjustly narrow.

Claims may have to be narrow due to a crowded prior art field, however many times claims could be broader than what is granted.

Other than crowded prior art, a common reason the issues occur is that the inventor and patent attorney are not sufficiently engaged through the entire process of drafting, filing, and prosecuting the patent.

Inventors come up with patentable solutions. A good inventor focuses solutions on business-relevant problems (which provide increased revenue and profit). A great inventor does this and works to ensure the patent’s claims actually cover what’s important to making the business money.

The patent attorney is well trained to translate the inventor’s solution into legal documents but may not understand what is truly business relevant. If the attorney makes decisions about claim scope without a clear understanding of what’s needed for the business, the above issues are more likely to occur.

The best possible scenario to avoid the issues is for the inventor and attorney to form an effective partnership from day 1 – prior to beginning to draft any cases. They must come to a common understanding of what is really important to the business about the invention. Once they have this, as they draft the patent, this understanding can be embedded in the disclosure and reflected in the claims. While it seems obvious this should happen, there are often pressures to skip this step and dive right into “here’s a great new idea – let’s get a patent filed ASAP”.

If the step does occur, independent claims will be aimed at the business-relevant focus, and dependent claims will be aimed at being the primary back-up claims if, during examination or later litigation, the independent claims must be narrowed. If the step does not occur, the odds the issues occur increase. They increase because the goal of business relevance is forgotten in the heat of examination/litigation and the goal becomes “get something granted or upheld”.

The lens of business-relevance needs to be in place each time there are discussions of narrowing a claim, so it’s best for the partnership to continue through examination and litigation.

Without this lens, the discussion often turns to “we should be able to get something granted if we narrow the claim to…”. That may be true, but the narrowed claim will have no value if it doesn’t deliver the business goal. Given prior art, it may not be possible to get the desired claims. But, it is a significant lost financial opportunity if stronger claims could have been granted, but are not.

Bottom line…the inventor must have a business focus and bring that to the forefront with the patent attorney prior to drafting and through any legal processes that may narrow claims. The Solution Infusion can help you ensure this focus is present. Reach out for more information.

To learn more Contact Mark


Mark Kline

© The Solution Infusion


Getting Inspired by Nature

Nature is a great problem-solver and can inspire us to create all new solutions, if we’re open to learn from nature.

Shakespeare’s Hamlet said, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Some say Hamlet was pointing out how little even the most educated people can explain and the limitations of human thought.

True…nature often knows more than me. Nature has solved problems I would not even imagine existed and done so ways I had not imagined. So, I often look to nature when I have a problem and ask, “who else has solved this problem?” (per article “If 2 Heads are Better than One”)

There are numerous examples of this over time. For example, George de Mistral was hunting with his dog. Cockleburs entangled in his dog’s hair and inspired him to create Velcro®. More recently, many have studied how the Gecko is able to walk up smooth vertical surfaces. I could go on and on.

Many people call this “biomimicry”. That’s OK. While I don’t like to quibble with names, many (including me) prefer to call it “bioinspiration”. Why is the distinction important?

“Biomimicry” implies the goal is to copy nature. The term “bioinspiration” implies we should learn from and be inspired by nature. Why is that important? Often, it’s quite hard to copy precisely what nature does, and it’s often not necessary. Re-applying nature’s “magic” is the key.

For example, de Mistral saw the real “magic” of the cocklebur was having shafts protrude from a surface and a tip with small features pointing back down to the surface. The shaft allowed the tip to penetrate deep into the dog’s hair. The tip or head would snag on a hair making removal more difficult. The shaft and head form a hook. Each individual connection is weak, but each cocklebur has many hooks on the surface. A multitude of weak connections makes a very strong overall connection. Also, the cocklebur’s hooks extend in various directions. This improves the probability of a hook finding and connecting to a hair.

In applying the insights to make a new fastener, de Mistral choose to have a multitude of hooks across a surface which can engage into a fibrous component (loops). That’s where the similarity ends. de Mistral’s heads are a very different shape than found in nature, as are the hook’s size & material type. And, de Mistral’s hooks were all oriented in the same direction. De Mistral’s “loops” were also actually loops of thread stitched through a base – not fibers extending from a base, as dog hairs do.

Net, de Mistral did not copy nature. He learned from it, became inspired, and used the concept to make a useful (and breakthrough) new product.

Importantly, nature uses some solutions more than others. When I look at a huge variety of species (of both plants and animals) themes of how the problem was solved become evident. Not just one, but several themes.

For example, nature commonly uses many weak connections to form an overall strong connection. The cocklebur and Gecko do, as do many climbing vines and other species. The specific mechanisms (how the actual connection is made) may vary. The Gecko uses van Der Waals forces, while cockleburs use entanglement. But each fits the theme. Nature uses other themes and mechanisms for making connections including single, very strong connections, and using detachable layers, suction, adhesion, and more. The themes can be more inspiring than any single execution.

Typically, I find 1 or 2 themes are more predominantly used than others. As is often said, only the strong survive – there’s a reason nature uses certain themes more than others. That’s a good indicator that I should look to be inspired by this theme to solve my problem.

To learn more Contact Mark


Mark Kline

© The Solution Infusion


From Divergence to Group Think (and hopefully – beyond)

Once group think sets in, it’s hard to lobby for new ideas…until a new group think is created – with people believing it’s too risky to stay in the old group think.

I toured the Barber Motorsports Museum with my uncle and saw very modern to very old motorcycles. What struck me most was the diversity of approaches used for early bikes. All had 2 wheels, an engine, a drive system, a steering system, and a way to slow down. A wide variety of technologies and designs were used for each system. If there was a different way to do it, someone tried it.

Fairly quickly, most adapted to a narrow range of solutions, and bikes started looking more and more alike – both from a design and technology point of view. From divergence, the market trended toward convergence of ideas. What happened?

Certain ways became known as the best ways to solve the problems at hand, and people used what worked best. While a certain diversity remained, more was in common than was different.

This happens broadly, whether it’s motorcycles, cars, telephones, TV’s, or even laundry products.

Converging to good solutions is a not bad thing, but it creates the risk of “group think”. This can cause stagnation in development of new solutions because it drives a complacent mindset that leads to people say, “Why change? What we’re doing is good enough, and besides – we’ve always done it this way”

Yet if the whole market converges to very similar solutions – products eventually differ only in cost and brand equity. When consumers learn “they all work about the same”, more and more choose the lower price option. That is not good for business.

These are times when a true breakthrough can stimulate business and drive market share growth and incremental profit. But group think stands in the way.

To complicate matters, most true breakthroughs require giving consumers either a new benefit or new functionality that improves delivery of current benefits. And, here’s the challenge: most people think at the level of executional details and pay cursory attention to the higher order aspects of benefits and functions. Net, they struggle to understand the importance of new benefits or new functionality. Note: See my articles “Bringing Order to Chaos” about benefits, functions, technical approaches, and execution details.

How can you break up group think? It’s simple yet hard. You must establish a new group think! You must convince key people that change will provide compelling rewards that make business sense. You must convince them that the biggest risk is not change, but rather – staying at the status quo.

You must do this until you have critical mass. If you stop short of critical mass having the new group think, the slightest change in company priorities will derail the change.

This takes perseverance and compelling data. The data can’t just be compelling to you. It must compel those you are trying to win over. So, you need to spend time thinking, “who do I need to win over?” Then, you must talk to them and see what will compel them to join the critical mass with you. Then, you must get the data and use it to prove your point to them and others.

Back to motorcycles to close…the market did re-diverge after the initial convergence. Companies saw opportunities for different types of motorcycles…for the road, off-road, racing, touring, etc. Different technologies and designs were needed for the different types of bikes. This is also common…a continuing cycle of divergence and convergence. But, getting out of post-convergence group think takes winning a critical mass over to diverge again…every time.

To learn more Contact Mark

Mark Kline

© The Solution Infusion


If 2 Heads are Better Than 1…

Two heads are better than one…unless both think alike.  Diverse thought is essential to create new, out-of-the-box solutions.

If 2 heads are better than 1, then…3 is even better, right? If so, let’s add 4, 5, 6…20! That’s surely better…right? Maybe. Maybe not!

If all those “heads” think the same, no new ideas get injected into the group and a very narrow range of solutions to problems is found. The odds of the group coming up with the “same old thing” are high.

If the “heads” have a variety of background, education, exposure to varieties of ideas, we’re more likely to come up with a range of solutions. Diverse groups have long proven to deliver the best results than.

Beware that groups which may have be diverse can evolve to behave as a homogenous one. They may evolve into “group think” and discount new approaches by saying “we’ve always done it this way”.

To find new solutions on tough technical problems, “more diverse heads” really helps. To find these “heads”, a key question to ask is “who else has solved (or even worked on) this problem?

Think about the functional mapping in “Finding Order in Chaos – Part 2”. I ask, “who else knows how to enable this function or has used this technology”?

When I do, I often have an insight. A major insight – one that inspire a new direction.

How broadly should we look? Obviously, it’s convenient to ask others in your company/university. But, it may not be the best. Keep in mind “group think” and don’t limit yourself to “comfortable, well-known peers”. Ask people you don’t know.

I’ve found it most helpful when I look far outside my normal realm. For example, once I was working on diapers and trying to reduce leakage (keeping baby’s pee and poo inside). I had studied how others had done this, and most people have gravitated to very similar approaches over time. I asked myself “who else has to succeed at the function of keeping liquid from passing beyond point A to point B”? I realized this is a critical function in many other industries…such as construction (keeping buildings from leaking), automotive (keeping oil, coolant, etc. inside the engine), and more.

So, I studied “how to they do it?”. And, I was able to group their approaches into a few logical groups based on how the approaches worked

Confidentiality limits prevent me from sharing details, but I came to a very important conclusion. “We’d been doing it all wrong…for years.”

That led me to a solution that saved money, improved performance, and eliminated the possibility of one of our most common manufacturing defects. I didn’t use the “exact” solutions I found in other industries. Instead, their approaches inspired one in my field.

This is the power of looking outside our comfort zone. And, while the example I used was looking at how humans solve the problem – looking at how nature solves problems can provide tremendous insights.

Leverage all you can outside your industry…after all, 2 heads with diverse thinking are better than 1.

To learn more Contact Mark

Mark Kline

© The Solution Infusion



Maximizing Value from Intellectual Property (IP)


The Solution Infusion can help you make smart choices in crafting a solid IP strategy to ensure you gain the maximum value from your technology.

A granted patent is a good start at providing value from a technology. Having multiple patents in a technology area increases the odds of maximizing value from the long term sustainable competitive advantage patents provide.

But patents require resources and money to obtain, so the patents must be strategically chosen. It’s often said that failing to plan is planning to fail. As one enters a new technology field, strategically planning a series of IP filings is the best way to maximize value from IP.

That’s easily said but hard to do. In my experience, I’ve learned many lessons on how to develop and execute strong IP Strategies, and it’s one service I offer through The Solution Infusion.

In a simple 1-pager I can’t share all I know, but I can offer some basics to consider in an IP strategy. A solid IP Strategy needs to consider:

  1. What are the business relevant solutions I have created or should try to create?
  2. What might competition try to respond with, and is there a way I can seek IP protection on that even if I might not take it to market myself?
  3. What are all the forms of IP protection I should consider seeking?

Regarding the first point, many think of an inventor toiling in a lab to solve a problem and suddenly they yell “Eureka!”. Patent lawyers come running in to file the patent and that’s it – job done. Yet, the most game-changing innovations create a cascading series of innovations building from the original.

Look at the innovation occurring in automobiles after Henry Ford’s initial contribution and in personal computing after the early contributions of Gates, Allen, Jobs, Wozniak, and Wayne. The real money didn’t come from the first innovation, the real money came from improving on the basics and leveraging them in a series of new products and services. A solid IP plan considers “what comes next” after the initial innovation and seeks to cover as many uses as possible. Ideally, filings are spread out over time to extend the life of the strategic competitive advantage.

Regarding #2, it’s rare when we find a solution that we have just 1. If we only file on our “favorite” but there are options which are similar (but not our favorite), someone else could go to market with those options and compete effectively vs. our favorite. This eats away at our potential market share, and therefore the rate of return on our investment. If we own the nearest options, we control who can and can’t use them. We might even elect to license out certain options to gain licensing revenue.

Regarding #3, if we work in a particular area, we tend to file IP in those areas but not others. For example, people who specialize in materials often file patents solely on the new material they develop. They might have ideas for the material’s use, but many don’t file on the uses. Filing on the material, its potential uses, and even the method of making of the material and/or products using the material broadens the coverage and gives the inventor greater leverage in the market.

If the above sounds like a lot of work, I agree that it can be. However, if done smartly, work can be minimized. And, if you don’t do it, someone will. They will gain the value from it – not you. The Solution Infusion can help you make smart choices in crafting a solid IP strategy to ensure you gain the maximum value.

To Learn More Contact Mark

Mark Kline

© The Solution Infusion


I hope you enjoyed Part 1…now here’s Part 2 about “Functional Mapping”.  Enjoy!

Finding Order in Chaos – Part 2

When we’re lost, a map can help us get back on track.  In a prior article, I discussed the chaos that can ensue when a business needs to solve a problem and said, “If we can find order in the chaos, that helps solve problems faster, more efficiently.”  I also said “Functional Mapping” is very helpful in solving technical problems.  So, “what’s a ‘functional map’…?”

I’ve found problems have many levels and different people tend to focus on different levels.  When one person is talking about 1 level and another is talking about a different level – we often talk past each other or struggle to understand each other.

“Functional Maps” shows these levels to create a framework for all to understand the problem in detail.  When we share it and invite others to understand and expand on it, this really engages others & builds ownership in finding a solution.  It also expands the possible solution space and invites new solutions.

I break down problems and systems related to it into 4 levels:  Benefits, Functions, Technical Approaches, and Executional Details (Details, for short).  I’ll bring these levels to life with an example.

One “Benefit” of a car is that it gets us from “point A to point B” (without walking or riding a horse).

Many “Functions” (i.e. accelerating to & maintaining a speed) must be delivered to enable the benefit.

There can be various “Technical Approaches” for achieving each function.  For example, the engine that provides power to accelerate and maintain speed could be internal combustion or electric.

Within a technical approach, there can many different executions that can be described with “Details”, such as the engine’s size, number of cylinders, the materials used, etc.  A full set of “Details” about a car would enable making a drawing of the car and describe its composition or formula.

The map looks like a flowchart with a series of “blocks” connected with lines.  See a very simple example to right or Click for larger version:    

Imagine we’ve created such a map, share it with others, and pinpoint where the problem lies.  The problem may be that a certain function is not delivered sufficiently to enable the benefit consumers desire.  Or, that the technology chosen is inherently limited in how well it can deliver a function.  Or, that a particular detail limits results.  Or, it could be that the benefit is not even relevant to consumers, so we need to focus on a different one!  Whatever it is, this focuses everyone on the same problem.

Also, when others see the map, they may suggest expanding it.  They might propose other technical approaches to deliver the function (i.e., using a “fuel cell engine” instead of internal combustion), other functions to enable the benefit, or alternative designs (details) which make the current technology work better.  This engages others & expands our thinking to new solution spaces.

To get to a solution, we may choose pathways at differing levels.  For example, we may pursue a short-term solution by optimizing executional details within a current technical approach in parallel with a longer-term solution of changing the technical approach.  Choosing to deliver an all new benefit may require new functions and/or technical approaches or a radical redesign.

The concept of the map is simple but creating one and using it effectively takes practice.  In future articles, I’ll give examples of using them.  Also, this is an area in which I can help my clients – creating and using such maps effectively.

                                                    To learn more  Contact Mark        

                                                                            Mark Kline, October 2018

This is the first of a 2-part article on problem solving.  Watch for the second part soon!


Meanwhile, enjoy Part 1!

Finding Order in Chaos – Part 1

If something isn’t working in a business, it can feel like chaos as everyone scrambles to solve the problem.  Opinions on how to solve the problem start flying around with different people lobbying for different solutions.  Often the various solutions put forward don’t even solve the problem because not everyone is clear what the problem actually is!

Whether the nature of the problem is in a technical area or another area – like sales or marketing, this happens.  And when it does, not much real progress happens.

If we can find order in the chaos, that helps solve problems faster, more efficiently.

So, what’s a good way to start?  How about getting everyone on the same page?

Before, I go into “how”, let’s briefly go back to childhood.  Remember the game “telephone”?  One person would whisper something into another person’s ear.  That person would whisper what they heard into the next person’s ear, and so on until the message was passed 1 by 1 from the first person to last.  Then, the last person would tell everyone what they had heard, and everyone would laugh because what started as “the sky is blue” ended up at the end of the chain being something completely different…maybe “the cow went ‘moo’…”

While that is a child’s game, the lesson for adults is that to pass information to others and keep all on the same page, it’s critical to write down the problem and not rely on word of mouth.

In fact, I believe this is vital for problem solving.  Problems can be very complicated and subtle insights often add clarity to what the problem truly is and is not.

The better we understand the problem, the more likely we’ll find an on-target solution.

If you are thinking, “this sounds obvious”, I fully agree.

Yet, how many times have you been in the middle of the chaos I describe, and you talk to someone who says, “well, I just heard from Mary that the issue is…”  Then, you later learn that what Mary really said was something completely different.  Or, you learn that Mary had been misinformed by Bill and was merely repeating what she’d heard.

During chaos, many feel they don’t have time to “write it down”I argue that you don’t have time to waste clearing out the clutter of wrong information.  I argue you will save time in the long run if you document the problem.  As you learn more about the problem, any documents can be updated.

So, how can you document the problem and all its subtleties?

There are many ways.  For simple problems, a text-filled document, often with images and/or videos to show the problem, may be good enough.  However, for very complicated or “multi-level” problems, it can also be useful to “map” the system to show the levels and subtleties and interactions.

In “Part 2” of this article, I outline an approach I call “functional mapping”.  I’ve found it effective for getting all on the same page.  It is particularly useful for solving technical problems.

Meanwhile – no matter what you do, write it down.  We’re not kids playing the “telephone game” any more.

                                                To learn more Contact Mark           

                                                                            Mark Kline, September 2018