Patent Law School Exam: Essay No. 3

3. (15 POINTS) Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 patent claims may be invalidated as indefinite. The Federal Circuit has interpreted the law to invalidate patented claims only when those claims are "insolubly ambiguous." The insolubly ambiguous standard is a high standard, and patent claims are quite unlikely to be found invalid under that standard. More recently, policymakers have considered lowering the standard, but only for pre-issuance patent applications undergoing patent prosecution. Is this proposal a good idea? Why?

Comments

[pds]

"And your point is? If the art is good, no amount of MPEP is going to help you. It's not like all examiners follow the rules anyway."

Herein lies the problem. The art is rarely good. If the art is good, I usually don't need an examiner to explain why it is good. Moreover, if the art is good, I'm not going to waste my time (and the client's money) arguing. Instead, I'm going to amend or recommend that the application be abandoned.

However, I rarely have to amend, and my recommendations for abandonment are few and far between. Instead, I'm stuck with examiners trying to put lipstick on a sty full of pigs. This is where the MPEP and plain, old case law help me to show the examiners the errors of their ways.

If the examiners ignore the rules, then they will get appealed, and since (from my experience) a very large percentage of applications I appeal never get an examiner's answer, I would say that at least someone at the USPTO knows a solid argument when they see it.

[Patent Seeker]

Since process clams are now required to be tied to a particular machine or transform a physical article to a different state or thing, are process claims indefinite if they can be performed in different physical locations and on different models of a particular machine? Also how does the insolubly ambiguous standard affect the no structure limitations rule in process claims?

[Noise above Law]

Execution, Execution, Execution,

"PDS, remember, the reason we're "anti-patent" aka would like fewer allowed patents, is because of the whole public getting pissed about too many blatantly obvious patents slipping through. Never forget that."

So, this admission that the Office screwed up its job in not applying the Law and allowing bad patents is a rationale for changing the rules of the game? This is the rationale for STILL not doing your job and following the Law? Blame the applicants when the Office doesn't know and properly apply the Law? The job's too tough so let's change the Law? Man up, fix the critical problem. The critical problem is NOT the Law.

"It's not like all examiners follow the rules anyway."

HELLO - we have identified the problem. Know the law - do your job, stop the Power-grabbing, anti-patent campaigns. Ethical abandonment to force applicants to dance just because the Examiner can and try to meet the Examiner's expressed opinions that run counter to the Law:
"35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —..."

We need a new Head Coach for this team...

[Malcolm Mooney]

"So, this admission that the Office screwed up its job in not applying the Law and allowing bad patents is a rationale for changing the rules of the game? This is the rationale for STILL not doing your job and following the Law? Blame the applicants when the Office doesn't know and properly apply the Law?"

Wow, that's some serious crybaby right there.

News flash: e6k is a patent examiner, or at least he plays one here. Unless you get off satisfying e6k's sadistic tendencies, why get bent out of shape arguing with the guy? He can't do dick to change the PTO.

The last time I asked Teh Big Whiners here to provide some examples of their awesome inventions getting screwed over, we were presented with incredibly smelly and impossibly lame great great great great great grandchild of a continuation. I'm still waiting to see the good stuff.

[pds]

"I'm still waiting to see the good stuff."

When you out yourself, I'll consider outing myself. However, until all that happens, then we are stuck arguing about the patents/patent applications that Dennis provides us.

[JohnDarling]

"The last time I asked Teh Big Whiners here to provide some examples of their awesome inventions getting screwed over, we were presented with incredibly smelly and impossibly lame great great great great great grandchild of a continuation. I'm still waiting to see the good stuff."

The examples I provided met the exact criteria you specified. An objectively baseless rejection. Of course, faced with that proof, you changed the criteria. And then claimed that because the two examples had a large number of continuations pending, they were somehow disqaulified as meeting your request. Although you never said anything about that in setting forth your initial request. Nor did you explain why the number of pending continuations had any bearing on why the particular rejections were not objectively baseless.

Typical for you.

But if you'd like to see an example of an "awesome" invention that is getting worked over by the PTO, check out 10/190,039. It's a "simple" mechanical case. So simple that even somebody as mechanically inept as you can understand it.

The rejections are appealed to BPAI. BPAI affirms. Case is appealed to Fed. Cir. Appellant files brief. PTO requests a remand. Acknowledges rejections that were affirmed by BPAI are POS.

Typical PTO. Wait until the applicant/appellant has gone through the time and expense of briefing the case, and then admit all the work done by the PTO up until that point is worthless garbage, and request an opportunity for a do over. Like I always say, the PTO considers it their right to have an unlimited number of opportunities to get it wrong.

Check out page 12 of the (associate) solicitor's 9/7/06 brief. Particularly the part where she claims that if the Fed. Cir. will remand she'll personally monitor the application to make sure the case is expeditiously handled.

The remand is granted. 8+ months later another lame OA is issued. That's certainly expeditious handling.

Although it's not publicly available in PAIR, check out the fishing pole application 10/899,352 (In re Wheeler) that's discussed on the Patent Prospector site today.

Anticipation rejection. Affirmed by BPAI. Reversed by Fed. Cir.

We're now at the point where the PTO, and BPAI, can't even establish a prima facie case of anticipation against a fishing pole. Or recognize when the examiner's case is a complete POS.

But there are no problems with objectively baseless rejections being issued by the PTO.

Right?

Let me guess, these examples don't qualify either.

[pds]

JD:

Interesting case you cited. Classic USPTO. The BPAI affirms the examiner's 102 rejection. However, once appealed, the solicitor realizes that they are stuck with a bad decision and want to remand it.

To be honest, once the USPTO asked for the remand, I knew they were going to get it. The FC isn't going to opine on something they don't have to.

I see that a final rejection has been issued after remand. Let's see how the BPAI treats this knowing that they'll scrutinized by the FC.

[Malcolm Mooney]

"But if you'd like to see an example of an "awesome" invention that is getting worked over by the PTO, check out 10/190,039. It's a "simple" mechanical case. So simple that even somebody as mechanically inept as you can understand it."

Uh, that's an obvious piece of crap if I ever saw one. And the fishing pole case is just another example of an inept clueless patent drafter wanking off trying to get some o dat ol timey patent action.

Why would I feel sorry for these people? Who cares if the PTO "screws up" these applications? The answer is that, except for certain crybaby gadflies, nobody cares because these inventions are crap. If somebody actually cared the prosecution of the applications would be careful and focused, from beginning to end, and beginning with the decision to not bother filing a patent application in the first place.

[pds]

"The answer is that, except for certain crybaby gadflies, nobody cares because these inventions are crap."

JD ... I was going to write that MM would say this, but it would have been only stating the "obvious."

The reason why (even MM) should care whether or not the PTO "screws up" is that if the USPTO screws up an (allegedly) crap application, then it is indicative that the USPTO will also screw up an important/valuable "flowery" application.

The "perceived value" should not be the basis for how the government evaluates a patent application. God knows, if MM ever gets arrested for .... well, let's not go there -- this is a family message board .... we would hope that the government treats MM the same no matter his disagreeable nature and questionable character.

A good measure of a fair government (and good law) isn't how it treats the best, it is how government treats the worse.

Either MM doesn't care how the USPTO treats applicants or MM is advocating that someone from government can arbitrarily decide what applicants deserve better treatment and what applicants do not.

[Malcolm Mooney]

"The reason why (even MM) should care whether or not the PTO "screws up" is that if the USPTO screws up an (allegedly) crap application, then it is indicative that the USPTO will also screw up an important/valuable "flowery" application."

LOL. Yes, the USPTO screws up. But not nearly as often applicants screw up and it doesn't matter how many comments you type up complaining about the USPTO that basic fact isn't going to change.

The behavior of applicants towards the PTO is about as senselessly greedy as Charles Manson trying every day and twice on Sunday to get McDonald's to deliver a custom-made Big Mac to San Quentin.

"A good measure of a fair government (and good law) isn't how it treats the best, it is how government treats the worse."

The "worst" end up with thousands of issued patents every year that they don't deserve so the government is working quite well for "the worst."

If the USPTO were Homeland Security, half the janitors in the Pentagon would be working for al Qaeda. The fact that some Afghani guy who can't produce a birth certificate or provide any proof of citizenship finds that his job application at Area 51 was "delayed" for an inexplicable reason is not a sign that the "system" is working against the public interest.

[6]

"As I said before, you don't know the difference between holding and a dicta "

Actually I do, and I'm using the dicta.

"If the claimed invention ecompasses obvious subject matter (i.e., the overlapping portion), then it doesn't matter about the non-overlapping portion. I know, I know ... difficult concepts for you to comprehend when you already have your mind set on your desired result."

I already comprehend this, and I go further. I'm probably going to have to investigate the cases that the court cites in their dicta and use one of those, but I bet this works out in my favor as I doubt the judge simply wrote his dicta without thinking what so ever.

[6]

"Since process clams are now required to be tied to a particular machine or transform a physical article to a different state or thing, are process claims indefinite if they can be performed in different physical locations and on different models of a particular machine? Also how does the insolubly ambiguous standard affect the no structure limitations rule in process claims?"

No, and there is no rule against structural limitations in a method claim so long as they are incorporated into the method step instead of recited by themselves, so not at all.

[Nobody123]

"As I said before, you don't practice before the USPTO. I don't care how many applications you have reviewed. Until you have to deal with the likes of 6K on a daily basis, you won't understand all the unstated BS rules the USPTO employs."

Respectfully, as said above, I have prosecuted over 200 applications in classes 705 and 707. I was prosecuting before business method became its own TC.

I deal with many examiners on a daily basis.

"See the BPAI decision in 09/077,337 (pages 8-9, iirc). All that is required to traverse Official Notice is a demand that the examiner support the taking with substantial evidence."

Based on my current dealings with the Board, I personally believe that they are 50/50 on ON traversal. I know some examiners that do not use ON at all. If the Applicant does not traverse, the Board pretty much lets anything stick as admitted art. If the Applicant traverses in some form, then I think the Board is 50/50 depending on what documentary evidence the examiner furnishes.

"Yes. My experience is that every time an examiner takes Official Notice, I simply respond by requesting that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of the taking. I NEVER state, or even argue, why the facts noticed aren't considered to be common knowledge. Why? Because I'm not required to. That's why."

Even if the MPEP had the effects of law, anything is appealable I suppose.

I never said that the MPEP is 100% correct. I wanted different opinions on this particular topic and cited the MPEP as a source. If one assumed that I believe that the MPEP is 100% correct all the time, one would err.

"My bad, I meant to cite:
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/12/during-prosecut.html

and

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/prec/fd073300.pdf"

I thought a little bit more about the original point a claim with multiple interpretations being indefinite or definite.

As said above, natural language will always have some form of ambiguity.

I also thought about the "broadest reasonable" standard. This implies that there may be more than one reasonable interpretations, and the examiner should adopt the broadest one for examination.

Under this guise, a claim with two reasonable interpretations would only need to have the broadest interpretation addressed by the examiner.

What happens if the two interpretations are equally broad? Any comment?

I'm just thinking aloud. I neither agree nor disagree with any particular person. If you disagree with me please just ignore.

[6]

"So, this admission that the Office screwed up its job in not applying the Law and allowing bad patents is a rationale for changing the rules of the game? This is the rationale for STILL not doing your job and following the Law?"

Yes and yes. Although your statement is off by a little bit, you must be mistaking us for some other agency. Our job is not to "follow the law" our job is issue applications that appear on examination to be entitled to a patent. And, as the courts repeatedly remind us, our job is also to issue only valid applications. That is the part that is difficult. The parts about "law" come into play only in the context of a court room and in situations where there is a supposition that a court room might someday be visited. If your app is so bad there is no chance, then don't look forward to having the law looked at all that closely in regards to your application.

" The job's too tough so let's change the Law? Man up, fix the critical problem. The critical problem is NOT the Law"

No, you're right, the Law is not the problem. It is actually the "lawlol" that is the problem. The lawlol has arisen from the courts. Like in KSR, those are mainly the things that need changing. As soon as those get put back into good order, I predict that filing will go down to a reasonable level once attorneys get a firm grasp of what they have a prayer at getting a patent on under the more restrictive lawlol to come. Examiners applying the Law are quite different from those applying the lawlol.

Just today I had my spe recommend a 112 1st on a claim that was an originally filed claim to make app put support in the spec :( So bad. I tried to explain to him about how that's not how 112 1st is current interpreted, but I don't think he wanted to be wrong so I let it go.

And, we have the personal assurances from Chief Judge M that things are a changin' so that congress doesn't have to lay the smack down.

"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —...""

Funny how your bicycle application appears to be anticipated by this reference clearly showing a steel beam. ;) Lost your "rightlol" right there. Sorry.

"When you out yourself, I'll consider outing myself. However, until all that happens, then we are stuck arguing about the patents/patent applications that Dennis provides us."

OH COME ON, borrow a juicy one from your buddy at the office, I'm sure at least one wouldn't mind showing off a quality piece of work that is supposedly being stonewalled. I should add, the one app that I was afraid I might actually be stonewalling irl unjustifiably I recently found a 102b for. I consider myself vindicated.

"10/190,039"

Mah trigger finger is itchy.

[Nobody123]

"If you knew anything about In re Bogese and the law, you would now that it dealt with an EXTREME example of applicant abuse that isn't even possible for any applications filed after June 8, 1995, after which the patent term changed from 17 years from issue to 20 years from filing. This case was about dealing with "submarine" patents.

Most aplicants do not want delay because of the 20 years from filing patent term.

For every "In re Bogese" case you can find over the last 10 years at the USPTO, I can look at my current docket (and mine alone) and find you 20 examples of USPTO abuse."

I said directly that this is one, albeit extreme, case. I never said that it was representative of all cases.

If any of your 20 cases are available for public inspection, please post the serial number(s) as well as your take on the abuse.

"Stop sticking your head in the sand ... the USPTO is anti-patents."

This is one of many instances where you attack me in some form.

I simply asked for clarifications. If you don't want to acquiesce, then you don't have to reply.

"Your statement is just as much evidence as the examiner's is right?"

When both sides lack any real evidence, I suppose allegation from one is as good as allegation from the other.

Let me ask you an honest question though. Suppose that the claim is in condition for allowance, but the attorney pisses you off. Would you pass the case to allowance or would you bury the case in appeal?

You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I was just curious.

[Nobody123]

"I promise you pds, you have never had to deal with the likes of me. If you had, you probably wouldn't want to talk about it. We'd have to call you PTS from now on, for post traumatic stress."

I may have dealt with a few of your incarnations. I don't think you're as bad as you make yourself out to be ;p

"If an applicant wants a patent that's somewhat questionable, the Patent Office should err in favor of the applicant and allow it. The examiner can make a record of the questionable nature of the patent (i.e., the claims may potentially be found obvious over..., etc.) in the file wrapper. Let the patent holder beware; enforce with caution."

While I agree with most of your comments, how do you feel about examiners creating file wrapper estoppels?

"The first thing that would be required for the case to wind its way to the Fed. Cir. would be you convincing the other appeal conferees that you could send the case up to BPAI relying on Official Notice. Very unlikely to happen. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. Most likely (99.9+%) you'll be told to re-open and cite a reference."

Some of my own cases went to appeal with ON. How many would you require to overcome "highly unlikely"?

"See MPEP 707.07(d): Nor should he or she (i.e. the examiner) express doubts as to the allowability of allowed claims or state that every doubt has been resolved in favor of the applicant in granting him or her the claims allowed."

Can you clarify? http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_707_07_d.htm

I am interested in comments about this issue as discussed above.

[Nobody123]

"Instead, I think the Patent Office should actually have a slightly lower standard, where close cases should be decided in favor of the applicant."

Thereotically, there would be 2 camps in USPTO management.

Camp 1 would want to grant maximum authority to examiners. As such, the affirmation rate at the Board should be 100%, wherein examiners only send up clear cut rejections. The rest should be negotiated with the applicant and allowed.

Camp 2 would want to grant minmum authority to examiners. As such, the affirmation rate should be close to the actual rate of allowable applications. Perhaps 50%? Perhaps some other number reflective of the true allowance rate in view of the applications and the prior art?

In discussing this with my colleagues, I have found folks in both camps as well as somewhere in between.

Any comments on the USPTO's official goal for appeal affirmation?

I personally believe that the USPTO is only a first filter. Some examiners go too far and reject all close calls. If examiners were to allow all close calls and let the courts sort out the mess, the backlog would be greatly reduced, but the problem would then be directed to the courts. Not necessarily a bad thing depending whom you ask.

One of my colleagues commented that patent reform is like playing chess in many different dimensions. You change one variable and the system reacts by changing many related variables.

[6]

"Let me ask you an honest question though. Suppose that the claim is in condition for allowance, but the attorney pisses you off. Would you pass the case to allowance or would you bury the case in appeal?"

It depends. So far I haven't buried any apps in appeal that I truly believe are in condition for allowance. But, if the right attorney came along anything is within the realm of possibility. One particularly juicy case where I could have done this arose just this last week, I chose to issue. The case was not in condition for allowance because the first ind blatantly covered things inherent to nearly all embodiments of 1000's of references of prior art but the evidence just wasn't there. The art was too unspecific to base a rejection on. But, that's fine, some litigator can tank claim 1, the rest of the inds are probably legit.

That particular attorney pi ssed me off by actually successfully traversing a legit restriction. The case should not have involved all that it ended up involving. Took probably 4 days to search that sht the first time, and 2 or 3 after their amendments.

[6]

"I don't think you're as bad as you make yourself out to be ;p"

I'm not really, except in this case with the bgard claim they want rejoined. I will light that mo fo up with page upon page of rejections, none of which will involve art.

[6]

For the case you guys cited above, I've looked over the art and I have a hard time seeing why the previous rejections didn't go to appeal on perusal. I haven't looked at the smith reference yet, but the Julius ref is da rn near exactly what is needed and it clearly shows getting stuff out through the ho le in the top.

[Noise above Law]

6 says

"Our job is not to "follow the law" our job is issue applications that appear on examination to be entitled to a patent."

Um, Are you saying that you are to issue applications that appear on examination to be entitled to a patent by NOT following the Law's rules on just what "entitled to a patent" means or how you are to perform the examination? No matter how much you like to think otherwise, you are NOT above Law.

"The parts about "law" come into play only in the context of a court room and in situations where there is a supposition that a court room might someday be visited."

"Only" you are wrong. I'm pretty sure that the law should be applied during prosecution and that you do have to follow the law. Someone quoted Donaldson recently to that effect -- something that the courts also repeatedly remind you.

Further, it is NOT your job to decide what is law and what is lawlol. Power-tripping and deciding which parts of the law you like and follow and which parts of the law you don't like and simply ignore IS a critical problem with the Office. If the offensive guard simply decides that he will be a receiver and runs a post pattern, guess what - the play doesn't count and your team is penalized.

pds, excellent reminder to Malcom.
Malcom, you are still stale.

[6]

I'm not above the law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itmNiTwHOsM

"Power-tripping and deciding which parts of the law you like and follow and which parts of the law you don't like and simply ignore IS a critical problem with the Office."

Says who? You?!? Face me in one on one combat to the death. Maybe your fellows will learn something when I'm through with you. Send Donaldson if you like.

[JohnDarling]

"Why would I feel sorry for these people? Who cares if the PTO 'screws up' these applications? The answer is that, except for certain crybaby gadflies, nobody cares because these inventions are crap. If somebody actually cared the prosecution of the applications would be careful and focused, from beginning to end, and beginning with the decision to not bother filing a patent application in the first place."

Your ability to consistently not get it is indeed remarkable.

Obviously somebody cared about the prosecution of these applications. The applicants in particular. That's why they appealed them to the Fed. Cir.

The fact that the PTO has been unable, despite numerous opportunities, to present prima facie cases against either application, demonstrates that, despite your personal feelings regarding the merits of the inventions, the applications are not crap.

Granted, the applications don't disclose anything as ground breaking as the protein fragments and molecules that you apparently deal with, but as pds noted, the PTO's handling of these cases is indicative of the lousy state of examination at the PTO. That lousy state is only getting worse.

[pds]

"Our job is not to 'follow the law' our job is issue applications that appear on examination to be entitled to a patent. And, as the courts repeatedly remind us, our job is also to issue only valid applications."

Only 6K would write this. Your job !!!IS!!! to follow the law ... period. The law states what you are to examine, how you are to examine, and what standards you are going to apply. Everything you do is based upon U.S. Code, U.S. case law, and the rules (properly) promulgated by the USPTO (the USPTO has seem to forgotten how to properly promulgate rules these days).

I don't like getting political on these boards, but has 8 years of Bush degraded the ethics of the executive branch this much that even the peons like 6K feel that they are above the law?

FYI 6K ... if you ever get one of my cases ... please, I beg of you, write "my job is not to follow the law" anywhere within any of the office actions you prepare. I will make that the centerpiece of any appeal I file.

[pds]

"If any of your 20 cases are available for public inspection, please post the serial number(s) as well as your take on the abuse."

As I said to MM, when you out yourself, I'll consider outing myself. Actually, that question is rhetorical since I would never do it.

Why do people ask such silly questions?

Besides, any intelligent attorney isn't going to want to comment on any of their pending applications. Anybody on this board ever hear of estoppel? As if I'm going to ramble on about one of my cases, opining about stu-pid references that 6K finds, but never gets cited by the USPTO.

Like my clients (or anybody else's clients) are going to appreciate that.

Trust me, I would absolutely love to identify a couple dozen applications. However, my duty lies with my client's best interests ... no matter how badly I want to shine a light on the USPTO's incompetence.

[pds]

"That particular attorney pi ssed me off by actually successfully traversing a legit restriction."

Legit restriction ---- hahahahahahahahaha

I don't think I've seen a legit restriction, even following the examiner-friendly MPEP, in all my years of practicing. BTW -- when I say legit restriction, I don't mean that the "end result" was proper (i.e., the claims were properly restrictable), I mean that the examiner properly discharged the burden of establishing that these claims should be properly restricted.

If the attorney successfully traversed, then your restriction wasn't legit.

6K -- you problem (among many) is you think that everything you've been taught at the USPTO is correct. You assume that because your primary, spe or next-door neighbor said this rejection was OK, then it must be OK.

A good attorney (remember -- you once aspired to join our ranks; btw -- how's that job searching going?) doesn't rely on other people's opinions. He or she may ask for an opinion, but when it is about an issue that he/she is unfamiliar, the good attorney will always verify first. Look at the MPEP for guidance, then look at the code, look at the rules, and look at the case law (and when I mean case law, I don't mean the little one sentence snippets from the MPEP). Only after you review of those sources should you proceed.

Granted, most examiners (you included) are not particularly familiar with the MPEP, most of the case law, the rules, and the code, so you have to rely on your compadres at the USPTO. However, as anybody who has played the "telephone game" can vouch for, as the message gets transmited from one person to the next, that message becomes garbled.

Eventually, what I've seen from the examiner I deal with (and from you) is an incomplete (at best) and/or incorrect knowledge of the law.

[6]

"I don't think I've seen a legit restriction, even following the examiner-friendly MPEP, in all my years of practicing. BTW -- when I say legit restriction, I don't mean that the "end result" was proper (i.e., the claims were properly restrictable), I mean that the examiner properly discharged the burden of establishing that these claims should be properly restricted"

Right. Never seen one in all your years.

I'm not unfamiliar with restriction practice. I don't need to seek others help with it, although there are those who feel some types of restrictions which are completely legit should be against an unwritten policy. Ridiculous. You attorneys take the system being so biased towards you in many areas for granted and don't realize that anytime you actually win "on the merits" there's a 50/50 that you only won "on a dumas policy" that was put into place so that you don't btch too much about the parts of the law that aren't blatantly biased for you. The only areas of the law that I can think of off the top of my head that aren't subject to some dumas policy or other are 102 and 103. They're the most solid of our grounds of rejection because they're basically the only portions of the law that haven't been gutted by the courts.

One on one, to the death.

Actually the "job search" (which was just me responding to people seeking me out mostly) isn't going anywhere atm, unless you consider people still seeking me out it going somewhere. I've been busy with working out and a few vid games and going out. I'm thinking maybe take the agents exam right fast, a bud of mine just did it and passed with only a few days o studying. Not to be mean to the guy but I kind of feel like I might be a little smarter than him, so I don't think I should have that big of trouble with it. Thing is, 550$ for something I'm not completely sure I'm going to use? Jebus, what a ripoff.

[Nobody123]

"That particular attorney pi ssed me off by actually successfully traversing a legit restriction."

Follow up question. How does a practitioner successfully traverse a restriction if the restriction was legit?

Granted that not many people understand MPEP 800, which is rumoured to be currently undergoing major reconstruction, if you correctly assessed the inventions and/or species, followed by estalishing the burdensomeness of searching, how then can the requirements be successfully traversed?

I feel that if the groupings you make up are not subject to statutory double patenting rejections when filed in divisionals, the burdensome search is pretty much a freebie test.

If he/she/it traversed your burdensome search criterion correctly, you did a pretty bad job of establishing the burden.

Any comments on what happened in the case?

[Nobody123]

"As I said to MM, when you out yourself, I'll consider outing myself. Actually, that question is rhetorical since I would never do it."

That's fair. How about picking out a random published app and give your take on Office abuse?

[Nobody123]

On a related note, has anyone here been an applicant, an examiner, and a practitioner as well?

I have met many people who are 2 out of 3, but very rarely did I meet someone who was 3 out of 3.

[Watcher]

The standard IS already lower during prosecution. The policy makers and patent law school professors should find something else to do than gratuitous intermeddling.

[sauce for the goose]

"The answer is that, except for certain crybaby gadflies - like Mooney, nobody cares because Mooney is crap. If somebody actually cared Mooney would be careful and focused, from beginning to end, and beginning with the decision to not bother getting involved in patents in the first place."

Referring to the original post, what utterly worthless garbage. The above edits are provided to offer a more realistic interpretation of the original crap post.

[Tom Dickey]

Folks, please don't denigrate the word "ambiguous"

According to the Collins English Dictionary the word "ambiguous" has two distinct definitions:

1. having more than one possible interpretation or meaning.
2. difficult to understand or classify; obscure.

There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with a patent term having more than one possible meaning - in fact it's a good thing, in that it allows one write a claim of appropriate scope without being prolix.

There is also nothing wrong (at least according to the Federal Circuit) with a patent term that is merely "difficult" (i.e. challenging or demanding) to understand.