McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

« Patently-O Bits and Bytes | Main | Tafas v. Doll: Continuation Limits Invalid; Limits on Claims and RCEs are OK »

Mar 20, 2009

Comments

Tafas v. Doll has been decided by the CAFC panel - affirmed in part and reversed in part. Rader dissented on the part reversed. I don't want to spoil it for anyone who has not read the decision yet, but it's not good for applicants. Of course this case is going en banc, so this decision is merely the first step in the process.

OK, technically they affirmed-in-part, vacated-in-part and remanded. Rader concurred-in-part and dissented-in-part.

The holding is fairly narrow, but a vindication for the underdog PTO nonethless. I await the request for rehearing en banc, but I am no longer certain as to how the court will rule.

according to Doll, the PTO has "stopped hiring at this time."


-- if this means that the PTO is not even replacing departing examiners, the backlog will continue to get worse

"managing our fishing industry." This is the first I have heard of this issue.

Loss of maintenance fees will hurt more than loss of application fees.

"the backlog will continue to get worse"

Perhaps "the backlog" is not even really a problem... and maybe it never was.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search & Share


  • Share


  • The Web Patent Blog

Patently-O Jobs

Subscribe


  • Patently-O is the most popular patent law blog and a daily read for over fifteen thousand patent law professionals from every major innovative corporation, IP Law Firm and world patent office. Click the link above to receive an automatic Patently-O e-mail each morning with the freshest posts.

Recent Posts

Author

Recent Comments

Terms of Use & Disclaimer

  • Terms of Use

  • Patently-O on Facebook
    Connect with Patently-O readers.

  •