Xunantunich is an Ancient Maya archaeological site in western Belize, about 70 miles west of Belize City, in the Cayo District. Xunantunich is located atop a ridge above the Mopan River, well within sight of the Guatemala border –, a mere 0.6 miles to the west. It served as a Maya civic ceremonial center in the Late and Terminal Classic periods to the Belize Valley region. At this time, when the region was at its peak, nearly 200,000 people lived in Belize. Xunantunich's name means "Sculpture of Lady" in the Maya language, like many names given to Maya archaeological sites, is a modern name; the "Stone Woman" refers to the ghost of a woman claimed by several people to inhabit the site, beginning in 1892. She is dressed in white, has fire-red glowing eyes, she appears in front of "El Castillo", ascends the stone stairs, disappears into a stone wall. The first modern explorations of the site were conducted by Thomas Gann in the mid-1890s. Gann moved from Britain and served as the district surgeon and district commissioner of Cayo, British Honduras, starting in 1892.

He chose this area to settle in because he had an interest in Mayan archaeology, he wished to be able to explore the unknown wonders of the indigenous people. Gann's successor, Sir J. Eric S. Thompson, implemented a more methodical approach, was able to establish the region's first ceramic chronology; the main recent archaeological teams to work at Xunantunich and the surrounding region are the Xunantunich Archaeological Project and the Xunantunich Settlement Survey. In 1959–60, the Cambridge Expedition to British Honduras arrived in the colony and its archaeologist member, Euan MacKie, carried out several months of excavation at Xunantunich, he excavated the upper building on Structure A-11 in Group B and a newly discovered residential structure, A-15, just outside the main complex. Using the European method of detailed recording of the stratigraphy of the superficial deposits he was able to infer that both buildings had been shattered by a sudden disaster which marked the end of the Classic period occupation.

An earthquake was tentatively proposed as the cause. He was able to confirm the part of the pottery sequence constructed by Thompson; the detailed report by MacKie is "Excavations at Xunantunich and Pomona, Belize, in 1959–60". British Archaeological Reports, 251, 1985: Oxford. Farmers that fed the people living in Xunantunich lived in small villages, divided into kin-based residential groups; the farms were spread out over the landscape, though the center of Xunantunich itself is rather small in comparison. These villages were economically self-sufficient, which may be the reason why Xunantunich lasted as long as they did. Settlement density was relative to soil quality, proximity to rivers, localized political histories. Since the farmers were long established on their plots of land, they would not want to be involved with a polity, under constant upheaval due to invading forces and more. Other nearby Maya archaeological sites include Chaa Creek and Cahal Pech, Buenavista del Cayo, Naranjo. There is evidence of Xunantunich being settled as early as the ceramic phase of the Preclassic period.

The findings have been insubstantial to prove. It was not until the Samal phase in AD 600–670 that Xunantunich began to grow in size. Architectural constructions boomed in Hats’ Chaak phase when Xunantunich's connection with the polity Naranjo solidified. Left in a state of abandonment at AD 750 due to an unknown violent event, Xunantunich did not re-establish itself as a strong presence in the region until Tsak’ phase in AD 780–890; the core of the city Xunantunich occupies about one square mile, consisting of a series of six plazas surrounded by more than 26 temples and palaces. As a polity in whole, Xunantunich contains 140 mounds per square km, as discovered in the surveys done by the XSS. One of Xunantunich's better known structures is the pyramid known as "El Castillo"; the site is broken up into four sections – Group A, Group B, Group C, Group D, with Group A being central and most significant to the people. Prior to the seventh century, the site was occupied by small houses, formulating the occasional village.

With the architectural boom in the Samal phase, we see the extreme importance of cosmological and political placing of the monuments in relation to the axis mundi. It is the second tallest structure at some 130 feet tall. El Castillo is the intersection of the two cardinal lines. Evidence of construction suggests. Structure A-6–2nd had three doorways, whereas Structure A-6–1st only had doors on the north and south; the pyramid lays underneath a series of terraces. The fine stucco or "friezes" are located on the final stage; the northern and southern friezes have eroded, the others were covered during the reconstr

Novelty (patent)

Novelty is a requirement for a patent claim to be patentable. An invention is not new and therefore not patentable if it was known to the public before the filing date of the patent application, or before its date of priority if the applicant claims priority of an earlier patent application; the purpose of the novelty requirement is to prevent prior art from being patented again. Novelty is requirement for a patent claim to be patentable. In contrast, if an invention was known to the public before filing a patent application, or before its date of priority, if the priority of an earlier patent application is claimed, the invention is not considered new and therefore not patentable. To assess the novelty of an invention, a search through what is called the prior art is performed, the term "art" referring to the relevant technical field. A prior art search is performed with a view to proving that the invention is "not new" or old. No search can cover every single publication or use on earth, therefore cannot prove that an invention is "new".

A prior art search may for instance be performed using a keyword search of large patent databases, scientific papers and publications, on any web search engine. However, it is impossible to guarantee the novelty of an invention once a patent has been granted, since some obscure little known publication may have disclosed the claimed invention. A patent grants an inventor a enforceable monopoly over their invention; this means that others can be restrained from exploiting the invention. It is not the intention of the patent system to deny anyone what they have been free to do before someone claims an invention. For example, one cannot patent the wheel, as that would exclude others from doing what they had been free to do; the legal test is that the invention must be something new, i.e. it must possess "novelty". The invention of the wheel is not new, because the wheel forms part of the prior art. In some countries, such as the Australia, China, Russia, United States, a grace period exists for protecting an inventor or their successor in title from authorised or unauthorised disclosure of the invention before the filing date.

That is, if the inventor or the successor in title publishes the invention, an application can still be validly filed which will be considered novel despite the publication, provided that the filing is made during the grace period following the publication. The grace period is 6 or 12 months. In China, the grace period is 6 months. In Russia, the grace period is 6 months. In USA, the grace period is 12 months In other countries, including European countries, any act that makes an invention available to the public, no matter where in the world, before the filing date or priority date has the effect of barring the invention from being patented. Examples of acts that can make an invention available to the public are written publications, public oral disclosures and public demonstrations or use; the grace period should not be confused with the priority year defined by Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. The priority year starts when the first filing in a contracting state of the Paris Convention is made, while the grace period starts from the pre-filing publication.

Local novelty only regards publications, uses or sales that have taken place within that jurisdiction to be novelty destroying. Point of novelty is a term used in patent law to distinguish those elements or limitations in a patent claim that are conventional or known from those elements or limitations that are novel, i.e. not conventional or known. That part of the invention may be termed its "point of departure from the prior art." The term is applied to a patentability test--the point of novelty test--which determines patentability by considering the point of novelty after dissecting out the conventional part. In a Jepson claim, the conventional parts of the claim elements are placed in a preamble, such as "In a grease gun comprising a cylinder enclosing a piston longitudinally movable in said cylinder, said cylinder having a nozzle at a distal end thereof,", followed by a transitional phrase such as "the improvement comprising,", followed by a recitation of the element or elements constituting the point of novelty, such as "said nozzle having a fluted opening at a distal end thereof."A conceptual problem may arise in applying the point of novelty method of analysis when the elements at the point of novelty cooperate or co-act with the conventional elements or part of them in a novel way.

The novel co-action is properly considered part of the point of novelty of the invention and should therefore properly be recited after the transitional phrase. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit used the point of novelty test for design patents as the basis of a patent infringement analysis, but the court abandoned that test in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc; the Federal Circuit has at times criticized use of the point of novelty test in obviousness analysis, but the Supreme Court has continued to use a point of novelty test for obviousness. In Parker v. Flook the Supreme Court analyzed patent-eligibility under a point of novelty test, citing Neilson v. Harford and O'Reilly v. Morse as authority, but in Diamond v. Diehr, the Court used the opposite approach. In Mayo v. Prometheus and Alice v. CLS Bank the Supreme Court went back to the test of the Flook case. Present-day American patent law still acknowledges that some parts of a patent claim may constitute "insignificant post-solution activity".

This is regarded as a kind of "point of novelty" approach, di

Buzen-Nagasu Station

Buzen-Nagasu Station is a railway station on the Nippō Main Line operated by JR Kyūshū in Usa, Japan. The station is served by the Nippō Main Line and is located 71.0 km from the starting point of the line at Kokura. The station, unstaffed, consists of an island platform serving two tracks; the station building is an old wooden structure of Japanese design and serves only to house a waiting area and an automatic ticket vending machine. Access to the island platform is by means of a footbridge. Japanese Government Railways opened the station on 22 April 1911 as an additional station on its Hōshū Main Line. On 15 December 1923, the Hōshū Main Line was renamed the Nippō Main Line. With the privatization of Japanese National Railways, the successor of JGR, on 1 April 1987, the station came under the control of JR Kyushu. In fiscal 2015, there were a total of 29,787 boarding passengers, giving a daily average of 82 passengers. List of railway stations in Japan Official website