Reponse 2014 Roscoe

Mail Stop 24

Commissioner for Patents

Inventors Assistance Program

P.O. Box 1450

Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

Re: Reply to Complaint of Gwendolyn Roscoe, dated 07/08/2014

Dear Sir or Madam;

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint, filed by Ms. Gwendolyn Roscoe, against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison). Customer concerns upset everyone and our staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From the time of an initial contact, to the presentation of a client's product idea, we try to maintain an open channel of communication and secure our client's approval throughout the process. Ms. Roscoe has been a valued client since first contacting us in July 2012. The product development process provides no guarantees of financial gain and often is pursued over a lengthy period of time. As a result, clients sometimes lose track of the work performed and effort provided along the way, particularly in the unfortunate event that a license is not secured. Her complaint provides numerous mischaracterizations. Davison has provided its services with her express written approval and authorization, and to her documented satisfaction. A brief summary of events will aid in understanding the services that were provided.

Ms. Roscoe contacted Davison in July of 2012. She was provided with, and acknowledged that she received and read, two disclosures which outline our services and fees and the risks of the new product development process. She acknowledged having received and read these disclosures via an electronic signature on 07/07/2012. Following receipt of these disclosures, she entered into a Pre-Development Agreement on 07/20/2012 for the completion of research related to her submitted idea. This research was completed and provided to her on 08/07/2012. She completed a questionnaire about the pre-development service in which she provided nothing but positive feedback. Following the completion of this initial service, she entered into an agreement on 10/25/2012 for the creation of a product rendering and presentation material. Davison submitted a product rendering to Ms. Roscoe which she approved, in writing, on or about 06/ 1312013. Ms. Roscoe completed a second questionnaire about the product rendering in which she provided nothing but positive feedback. In reliance upon her approval, the [mal presentation materials, in the form of an Executive Briefing, were created and provided to Ms. Roscoe. She authorized the presentation of her product idea and completed a third questionnaire, covering the Executive Briefing, in which she again provided nothing but positive feedback. On 08/13/2013, the presentation of her product idea was made to the corporation who, unfortunately, chose not to pursue the idea. Ms. Roscoe has declined any further services.

Addressing the specific issues raised in her complaint;

1. She alleges she was not provided with the AIP A required disclosures - this is false. As stated above, she was provide with, and acknowledged receipt of, these disclosures before any contract for service was entered.

2. She alleges she was promised a 3-D rendering of her product idea - this is false. She contracted for the creation of an Integrated Product Rendering, i.e. a two-dimensional representation of her product idea.

3. She alleges she was promised a license agreement - this is false. Though a product on sale in the market is the ultimate goal of Davison's services, Davison does not, and cannot, guarantee that a particular product idea will be licensed. The disclosures and contract terms are explicit in this regard.

4. She alleges she was promised help in patenting her product idea - this is false. Davison is not a law firm, does not offer, or advertise that it offers, patent filing services, or any other legal service. The disclosures and contract terms are explicit in this regard.

As stated earlier, the simple fact is; the product development process provides no guarantees of financial gain. Davison's contracts and disclosures repeatedly and explicitly provide risk information and disclaimers. While this is of little comfort to a client who has expended considerable time, money, effort and emotion into a project, the fact that a particular project does not bring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services that were provided.

In summary, Ms. Roscoe was fully informed of all services and fees before she entered any contract for services. Davison performed the contracted services with Ms. Roscoe's approval and authorization. The services were provided to Ms. Roscoe's documented satisfaction. The unfortunate fact that her product idea was not licensed does not invalidate the services which were provided.