In January 2009, I reported on a dramatic rise of BPAI Appeals and the associated backlog. Since then, the backlog has almost doubled to over 10,000 pending appeals. This is the largest backlog on record and tends to explain why the Board is attempting to implement procedures to streamline the process.
At the Board’s average rate of 500 disposals per month, the backlog would take over 20 months to eliminate. However, that result requires the counterfactual assumption that no additional appeals will be filed during that period. Rather, though four months remain in FY2009, the number of ex parte appeals filed this year will likely more than double the record-filing of 6400 ex parte appeals in FY2008. Thus, appeals are being filed at a rate about 2 1/2 times faster than the Board’s usual work flow rate. In May 2009, for instance, the Board disposed of 523 appeals, but received 1641 new appeals to decide.
See, BPAI WEBSITE; PATENTLY-O POST.
Amazing how self perception works. I imagine you not as the little fellow, but rather as the clothiers, peddling the invisible clothes to the king, what with all your “fun” and thoughtless posts and all.
I agree with Znutar’s suggestion to flood the BPAI docket. 50% chance on appeal is better than 0% in an RCE.
Watch it, JS, someone will accuse us of being one and the same. If you want to transfer some cases, let me know. I can’t say that the band-busting file history days are completely over – endless non-finals tend to produce a bloat, but I’ll appeal those too after a point.
Jules: Not the sort of difference I aspire to, but still worthwhile,eh?
Look MD, at the 08.20 post by “Argues with MM”. You have a poser. Apparently you are making a difference.
Hello Small Child. I have been posting here now for years, under my MaxDrei moniker. From time to time, I do indeed imagine myself to be the little fellow in the fairytale, muttering that the Emperor isn’t actually carrying much in the way of clothes.
Maybe it’s all pathetic self-delusion, but I do cherish the thought that some of the stuff I write on Dennis’s screen might be having a useful effect, here and there, from time to time. Actually, it is that which keeps me posting.
MM wrote “and really couldn’t give a crap”
Hmmmm …. did you run out of crap? Considering your extensive references to crap over the years on this blog, have you run out for good?
Or are you just refueling so you’ll be ready with more crap-laden posts in the future?
“I eat sockpuppets for breakfast.”
Interesting source material for your crappy posts. Are you eating sockpuppets to channel their intelligence within your posts?
MaxDrei,
Customer is king. Reminds me of the parable of the Emperor’s New Clothes.
What role do you see yourself playing in that parable?
TAI “His defense is to go on attack.”
Is it? Or is my defense to *appear* to go on the attack when I’m actually just engaging in some sort of blog comment jujitsu and really couldn’t give a crap?
[cuts air with hands, creating whooshing sound]
I eat sockpuppets for breakfast.
Yea, and the discrepancy in google searches corresponds to when 6 started using Google heavily for work. I figure it must have been him alone which contributed those billions of searches.
The amount of new technical information is doubling every two years. See link to youtube.com
So I am surprised that the rate of application filing is not greater than it is.
“My question is: can you point me to an example of you making a thoughtful contribution to any thread that relates to patent law? Because other than this familiar sounding pontificating and finger-pointing, I don’t recall you talking about a danm thing, ever.”
Mooney is up to his old tricks again. His defense is to go on attack.
Whether or not I have ever made a thoughtful contribution to any thread that relates to patent law does not diminish my capacity to make a thoughtful observation about the posting styles of Mooney and 6.
“Right, I ignore questions. Do you have a question?”
Regardless, there are have been dozens and dozens of questions that have been posed to you that you haven’t answered.
Your classic response is to employ some reference to scat or just ignore the question. Also, you are likely to come out with a comment comparable to “Identify those dozens of questions that I have not responded to.” There have been people who have taken that bait in the past — only to realize that you’ve never had any intention of responding to them when they call you out.
Mooney … there are patent trolls, and then there are patent blog trolls. You epitomize a “patent blog troll.”
TAI: “However, the difference between 6/Mooney and many other posters is that when pressed upon why they take their provocative position they either babble with nonsense (e.g., 6) or simply ignore the questions (e.g., mooney).”
Right, I ignore questions. Do you have a question?
You said that there are plenty of things “we” talk about on this blog that aren’t serious. My question is: can you point me to an example of you making a thoughtful contribution to any thread that relates to patent law? Because other than this familiar sounding pontificating and finger-pointing, I don’t recall you talking about a danm thing, ever.
“Instead, one has to be BOTH serious AND provocative, no? That’s a serious question by the way.”
One can be provocative without being serious. All you need to do to be provactive is to take a controversial position. Anybody can do that as Mooney and 6 prove on a daily basis.
However, the difference between 6/Mooney and many other posters is that when pressed upon why they take their provocative position they either babble with nonsense (e.g., 6) or simply ignore the questions (e.g., mooney).
If you want to take a provacative position, just be prepared to explain why you are taking that position. For example, one’s philosophy and/or point of view may shade your opinion one way or another. As another example, you can explain why you believe something based upon your logical analysis — and then lay out that analysis.
BTW — there is nothing wrong being “non-serious.” There are plenty of things we talk about on this blog that aren’t serious, and not being serious about those things won’t hurt your credibility. However, don’t be serious with your facts/analysis/logic and people will not take you serious.
Hopefully without sounding too high falutin,
Let me add one word: Respect.
Respect the Law, respect others, respect yourself.
Think, you wrote:
“What will be interesting is to see whether you are serious or whether you are just trying to provoke a response.”
but I gather from your advice that being unremittingly serious is the ONLY way to provoke a (more than transient) response in this learned blog. So, your two mutual exclusives aren’t mutual exclusives at all, are they? Instead, one has to be BOTH serious AND provocative, no? That’s a serious question by the way.
And I do so agree with you. “Do as you would be done by” should be the watchword.
“Tell me. What do you think? Is it already too late for me? Have readers already given up arguing with me, or can I still save myself, if I’m very very good from now on?”
Yawn.
“Tell me. What do you think? Is it already too late for me? Have readers already given up arguing with me, or can I still save myself, if I’m very very good from now on?”
There are new readers to this board everyday — which is why 6 and Mooney continue to get people to argue with them. However, those arguments rarely last long, as the newbies learn their lessons.
There are many versions of the “golden rule,” but one of the common ones is “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” If you want to treat people to treat you seriously, you need to treat them seriously — and if you don’t know what that requires — just think what would Mooney or 6 do, and then do the opposite.
What will be interesting is to see whether you are serious or whether you are just trying to provoke a response.
As you say, Think, if nobody will argue with me any more, then the fun goes out of it. You make a very good point about “consequences”.
Tell me. What do you think? Is it already too late for me? Have readers already given up arguing with me, or can I still save myself, if I’m very very good from now on?
“Sometimes they go too far, but that’s the luxury of the pseudonym, and (I had thought) part of the fun of blogging. And I don’t see this thread as a written examination, to see who gets the best mark in ‘logical skills’.”
Max — your problem is that you don’t recognize the power of the pseudonym “MaxDrei.” You are on a mission to extol the virtues of the EPO patent system, and the way you achieve this is by establishing your credibility and the soundness of logic in your arguments. Everything you write gets attached to “MaxDrei,” so when you stop thinking logically because you are having “fun” and attempting to provoke an outrage, people start to question your seriousness when you are writing about the virtues of the EPO.
The problem that 6 and Mooney both face is that they also like to have fun and provoke. They have made attempts to make serious posts. However, after they have, time and time again, established their non-serious side, few people have a serious discussion with them. Also, they have a tendency, even when engaging in a serious conversation, to end the conversation (particularly when it isn’t going their way) with posts best described as ‘attempts to provoke an outrage.’
Perhaps all you 3 are cut from the same cloth … comfortable jumping from serious poster to troll from one post to the next. However, just realize that those actions have consequences.
Nobody is banzed from PO. Even Just just posted. He is the foremost banning whiner around here. Obviously nobody is banned.
I should add though that I might be over at watchdog. It is either that or I’m having tech troubles.
In any event No Doubt is still rockin hard playin mostly the same ol tunes.
Finally, I don’t think that Noise would know an “escape” if it bit her right on the behind.
JAOI, good point. Prof. Crouch, please excuse my poor attempt at a joke, and please don’t take offence.
Fact is, JAOI, I was having a dig at posters who accuse others of using different sobriquets, but I really can’t be bothered to keep track of which poster displays which character.
When I’m trying to earn a crust, taking instructions from US patent attorneys, I must button my lip. Customer is king. But, here, anonymous, I have licence to be lippy, and simply indulge myself. Sorry if it upsets some readers.
MaxDrei said:
“…Perhaps Noise is just one of many pseudonyms of a certain “Dennis Crouch”…”
Max, if I were Prof. Crouch (and I’m not), I would take offense at your supposition.
In my humble opinion, your ability to judge a person’s character is lacking. I have every confidence that Prof. Crouch does not and would not stoop to the type of shoddy tactics which concern you.
Noise above Law said…
“Fear not for being banned, without the noise, Patently-O would not have the train wreck effect. Our mutual banter is in no danger of being expunged.”
I agree with Noise above Law…
Noise above Law said:
“And if you place Malcolm and 6 at some higher level, you REALLY need to think before you post.”
MaxDrei said:
“Thank you Jules, for encouraging the child in me, but a horrible thought just struck: Perhaps Noise is just one of many pseudonyms of a certain “Dennis Crouch”. In that case, crikey, I hope he isn’t now going to ban me from Patently-O. Dennis, I don’t want to be banned. Please. I’m having far too much fun.”
Jules said…
“Bravo.
MD: 1, Noise: 0”
I disagree with Jules.
The likes of Jules scoring for MaxDrei is just as funny as MaxDrei looking up to Malcolm and 6.
As far as crap, MaxDrei, if you were half as attentive to how I describe your posts as to what you actually post, the point would be moot.
Fear not for being banned, without the noise, Patently-O would not have the train wreck effect. Our mutual banter is in no danger of being expunged.
And another thing, Noise. In my working life, earning fees for my time, I get my orders from an instructing patent attorney. Just occasionally, the attorney is pompous, and the instructions are arrogant. This blog gives me opportunities to relieve myself of the ensuing frustrations. As nobody on this blog is my client, I have a chance to be rude. Thank you Dennis, for making the blog available. Thank you Noise, for giving me a target direction, in which to blow my raspberries. Ahhhh, I feel better now.
Thank you Jules, for encouraging the child in me, but a horrible thought just struck: Perhaps Noise is just one of many pseudonyms of a certain “Dennis Crouch”. In that case, crikey, I hope he isn’t now going to ban me from Patently-O. Dennis, I don’t want to be banned. Please. I’m having far too much fun.
Bravo.
MD: 1, Noise: 0
Noise, you really are an expert: an expert in scooping up and deploying synonyms for faeces. I counted three in your early morning 07.39 visit to the typing stool. I would suggest that you try to relax, and to purge this obsession out of your head. I’m really not in the mood to take advice from you, about what I should and should not smear all over this blog. And I’m too busy with other things to spend more time here. I think I already have the balance right, thank you very much, between the cost in my time and the benefit I get. If it upsets you, well, tough and as you say, you (and every other reader) are perfectly free to skip it or ignore it.
“And I don’t see this thread as a written examination, to see who gets the best mark in “logical skills”.”
Obviously, and that is why your writing remains scat. You don’t take expressing your thoughts seriously enough. I am not saying that all writing on blogs is “serious” stuff. I am saying that you should endeaver to express yourself to the best of your ability at all times. Your willingness to post excrement “for the fun of it” is perhaps more telling than when you post “…but I want to learn”.
Please expend the effort to think before you post and you will not only learn more yourself, but others may also learn from what you post (at least others may learn to not ignore your crap).
And if you place Malcolm and 6 at some higher level, you REALLY need to think before you post.
Znutar, I like your style, it reminds me of, well, my own.
Working in-house for a foreign company I have consistently advised against playing the RCE game, not just with the PTO but with outside counsel as well.
Its amazing to see some of the crap from outside counsel that passes for billable work product while failing miserably to address the issues in a meaningful way and simply prolonging prosecution through an endless series of RCEs.
It seems as if the days of rubber-band busting file histories should be over. Unless you just have a really long specification and a lot of references.
Noise, don’t take it so seriously. You write:
“It appears that you want to provoke by playing the fool…Do you understand yet why I put you and your logical skills in the same class as 6 and Malcolm? As I said before, I believe that you can do better. Why you choose not to, well, that is your choice.”
I don’t mind at all if you say you put “in the same class” as Malcolm and 6. In some specific ways, I envy each of them and wish I could play at their higher level. Sometimes they go too far, but that’s the luxury of the pseudonym, and (I had thought) part of the fun of blogging. And I don’t see this thread as a written examination, to see who gets the best mark in “logical skills”.
“We all know this goes on. We don’t need serial numbers.”
Oh, when you put it that way it’s much more convincing.
Carry on.
MaxDrei,
Someday you might learn that getting a reaction and actually advancing your position are two very different things when it comes to the debate of ideas.
Also, you confuse the strength of your argument (which has none), with the response, whose strength belongs to your opponent, not to you. My response is largely directed to you, rather than your particular argument. “I’m waiting” merely asked you to be more clear about what your non-argument was. What you put forth as an argument is clearly wrong, and clearly trolling for a response, but you do not provide anything that advances your stated position. There is simply nothing in your stated position for me to respond to – it is that vacuous.
Let me put it another way. It is one thing to tell a good joke and laugh with people. It is quite another to play the fool and be laughed at. Both cases have laughter, but that laughter is not the same.
It appears that you want to provoke by playing the fool…Do you understand yet why I put you and your logical skills in the same class as 6 and Malcolm? As I said before, I believe that you can do better. Why you choose not to, well, that is your choice.
Enough blah blahin’ about the board n their backlog.
No Doubt is close to town tomorrow, which of you patent chics wants to go?
“Thank you Jon Dudas. Your legacy lives on.” And thank you George Bush.
maybe put half of 1/2 of the QAS guys/ladies on the Board???
Re patent law professors, yes they can provide sometimes interesting research, studies and perspectives. However, when it comes to pontificating on USPTO operations and USPTO practice changes, I would wager that these days one could count on less than the fingers of one hand all those teaching patent law in law schools who have had any actual experience preparing and prosecuting patent applications in the USPTO [besides Dennis Crouch and Lisa Dolak].
The Posts are numbers 1 – 80. I had in mind Newton’s Law, that to every force (wearing down the Examiners) coming from attorney prosecutors, there will be an equal and opposite reaction (vividly evident from the thread, taken in aggregate).
My argument is a bit flimsy, I grant you both, but nevertheless (you see) it was forceful enough to provoke a force of outrage in reaction.
MaxDrei,
Your scat continues. Please check between your ears before you post. Are you purposely exchanging wearing down of the “examiner” with wearing down of the “applicant”? Unless you think googling, cut and paste of form arguments, and typing “applicant’s arguments are not persuasive” without explanation are too tough and can wear down the poor examiner…
Common sense indeed.
The professors earn their scorn with their agendized postulates. Let’s see them analyze the Office bungling and avoidance of following the President’s directives that before making new rules, the Office should verify what the source of the problem is (themselves and the ridiculous Count system). It is truly painful to see such mismanagement and power grabs. For the professors, you should recognize the difference between scorn and jealousy.
As to “disinterested channel that is effective to communicate the truth”, your manner of posting may make things disinteresting, but will not communicate the truth. You merely add Noise that distracts from what the focus should be.
“This thread rather suggests that the professors did know what they were writing about, after all.”
Please identify those posts that “suggests” this. The posts are numbered, so it should be rather easy for you.
I don’t need an application number. I know its true. I’ve seen it on my own desk. I have a case on my desk now. After 13 office actions and 6 sets of cited documents, the examiner finally found a few claims allowable, so I put them in independent form. A month or so later I received a call from the examiner wherein the examiner said the claims were allowable except for 101/bilski. I got the file, reviewed the claims and called the examiner back and read the claims out loud, slowing down and enunciating when I got to the bits that recited hardware. The examiner indicated that a discussion with supervisors would be in order. Six weeks later I called to see what the deal was. The examiner indicate that supervisors agreed that there was no 101 issue but “suggested” yet another search…a new non-final landed on my desk last week…. with extremely week newly cited references.
We all know this goes on. We don’t need serial numbers.
I find myself reminded of the verbal abuse heaped on those professors of patent law, who dared to postulate a phenomenon they called the “wearing down” of Examiners. “Rubbish” they were told, “There is no such thing”. This thread rather suggests that the professors did know what they were writing about, after all. But, apart from that, it’s only common sense, anyway. As ever, we don’t need professors to tell we patent practitioners what we know already. The public needs them, however, as a disinterested channel that is effective to communicate the truth to politicians and others who will make the wise decisions that will thereafter rule the lives of mere patent attorneys. I guess that’s why the professors suffer the verbal abuse: professional jealousy.
“This is the largest backlog on record and tends to explain why the Board is attempting to implement procedures to streamline the process.”
Is “streamline” the correct word, Dennis? I can think of many words to describe the proposed “procedures.” All of them are negative and none of them certainly is “streamline.”
My guess is that the Examiner’s were afraid to write Examiner’s Answers for weak or bogus rejections because the Board might slap them down bad. But now since the Board won’t get to the appeal for many years what do they to be afraid of as a practical matter?
“If the inventor works for famous company, does that ever work in favor of an application?
For example, if an Examiner gets an Apple (the computer/iProduct company) application, what’s the chance that the Examiner will bear some goodwill towards Apple, and will be more likely to allow the case? Or, at least, be easier to work with?
Or Google? Examiners are probably aware of Google’s reputation for hiring the smartest engineers/inventors in the world.
Are there any applicants that Examiners strongly dislike–like, no matter how inventive an application is, they’re gonna give the applicant a tough time no matter what?”
—
There’s a difference between “easier to work with” and “favoring/disfavoring allowance of the case”.
The “easier to work with” is a function of the law firm and attorney on the case. There’s a couple of law firms I love dealing with because prosecution is far more relaxing and faster. Prosecution is this way because the attorneys have reasonable expectations of the type of coverage they can get.
Cases generally aren’t favored/disfavored for allowance based on either law firm or assignee, however. If there isn’t allowable subject matter, it won’t be allowed.
But, naturally, if you’re a known litigant in IP then you’re gonna get a tad more scrutiny. There’s more significant things than the assignee that will bring about the wrath of a patent examiner, though. Like blatantly adding new matter.
Green_Light,
You may be interested in the following Malcolm quotes:
“…Stop lashing out, mkay? It’s childish.”
Reply Jun 01, 2009 at 02:07 PM
“…It’s about engaging commenters with ideas which, whether correct or incorrect, are articulated coherently and defended with some semblance of honesty and credibility.”
Reply Jun 01, 2009 at 03:01 PM
Yes, Malcolm actually type that. Honestly.
“The SPE has to sign off on re-opening, but if the SPE is on board is there any way to break out of that loop?”
What if the SPE is the examiner who has the case 0.0?
“Does anyone know the criteria for exhausting your administrative remedies? I mean when the problem is that the administrators are sticking you in an infinite loop, you can’t formally exhaust them. Is there some kind of constructive exhaustion? ”
The criteria under the statutes appear to be “the board has rendered a decision which applicant is unhappy with”. If you never get to the board then you never get a rendered decision.
Glad to see that over the months . . . you’ll still go straight to personal and professional disparagement.
Way to keep it classy.
MM,
There was no 2004 camaro. The camaro and firebird were canceled in 2002, and the camaro is just now available as a 2010 model.
Kthxbye.
The SPE has to sign off on re-opening, but if the SPE is on board is there any way to break out of that loop?
Writ of mandamus perhaps?
“Was the Examiner not aware that you could appeal to the Board, and then to the Article III courts?”
If the examiner reopens and rejects and reopens and rejects and reopens and rejects then your case never goes to the board, and thus never sees the courts because the board never rendered an opinion. That is, I believe, what the deal is.
I’ve occasionally seen a strategy from an Examiner where they file one worthless rejection after another. I mean not even close and getting colder with each iteration. The Examiner sometimes give a new non-final and sometimes sticks by his guns through final, advisory, pre-appeal. Then I file an appeal and suddenly the rejection that the Examiner said was solid 100% right gets withdrawn… in favor of a new, less apt rejection.
The only way I found around this was to call the Examiner’s supervisor when I filed the next appeal and complain. I would list off every office action, advisory action, pre-appeal conference and appeal brief filed so far and say “please either let it issue or make the Examiner fight the appeal and let it issue if he loses, because my client is getting denied a patent that he deserves, not because the Examiner has a valid rejection, but because he is willing to send an infinite number of invalid rejections”.
So far whenever I have called the SPE in a case like that we get an Examiner’s answer instead of a re-opening. No rulings on any of the appeals yet, so I don’t know how any Examiners who use those tactics will respond.
Does anyone know the criteria for exhausting your administrative remedies? I mean when the problem is that the administrators are sticking you in an infinite loop, you can’t formally exhaust them. Is there some kind of constructive exhaustion?
“The Examiner promised to keep rejecting it forever and that there was nothing we could do about it.” Was the Examiner not aware that you could appeal to the Board, and then to the Article III courts?
Malcolm, sometimes you are clever, but usually you are just annoying.
“advise your client to appeal” — with the bpai backlog increasing at an exponential rate, appeals may not be a good option.
“When he ran out, he saw a 2004 Camaro just like the one John Doll drives speeding away.”
I thought Doll drives a Toyota Solara
“Your case would be dismissed for failing to exhaust your administrative remedies. ”
Good to hear about that. Seems like PDS may have told me about that a long time ago.
Meh, you can always fall back on the good ol’ submitting claims that appear, on examination, to be entitled to a patent under the law. Works like a charm, you should try it 🙂
“At least try to make them interesting. For example, I heard from a friend of a friend who had prosecution over a thousand patents to issuance over the past ten years that in the past six months he has TWICE received Final Rejections in the mail which were marked with suspicious brown stains. A small piece of the stained paper was sent for lab analysis. I’m not at liberty to discuss the results but let’s just say the stain was “human in origin.” Also, back in March, one of the clients who received one of these stained Office Actions also was woken one morning when he heard some commotion outside. When he ran out, he saw a 2004 Camaro just like the one John Doll drives speeding away. And he found a deer head stuffed in his mailbox. One of Senator Leahy’s aides told my friend’s friend that the Senator was furious about this and promised a full investigation after the Dead finished their Spring tour. I’m not sure what ultimately happened, probably a sternly worded letter. In any event, things seemed to have quieted down and my clients have not informed me of any further incidents like this but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening to someone else.”
10/10, would read again.
“Are there any applicants that Examiners strongly dislike–like, no matter how inventive an application is, they’re gonna give the applicant a tough time no matter what?”
There is one guy who just got finished insulting my bud in another AU on Mon. due to my bud designating something as a certain type of line compared to a different type of line. My friend correspondingly spent all of today finding him a 102. I doubt that guy will get a patent anytime soon, but he is welcome to try.
Mark,
“Hey Dennis. If you really want to impress us with statistics, try this. link to bit.ly“
Now that’s hard core statistics!
Good luck, Dennis!
“If the inventor works for famous company, does that ever work in favor of an application? ”
Not really. If the claims are crap they’re going to get rejected either way. What works out well for famous companies is having the $$$ to hire better lawyers and go deeper in prosecution.
“Are there any applicants that Examiners strongly dislike–like, no matter how inventive an application is, they’re gonna give the applicant a tough time no matter what?”
Not really. There are certain applicants I notice that frequently file overbroad claims, but have no ill towards them because those cases are easier to reject. What makes more of a difference is the law firm or lawyer.
OT,
Hey Dennis. If you really want to impress us with statistics, try this. link to bit.ly
(Animated graphic of the evolution of world income and mortality statistics for the past 200 years.)
boss, you miss the point, which is to advise your client to appeal rather than go the route of an RCE (of course, when the rejection is not good). There are hours to bill with appeal, and the case is moving forward, at least in some respects, as opposed to filing an RCE and hoping the dishonest PTO will come around and allow the case.
Let’s not forget that there are patent attorneys out there who play the RCE “more billable hours” game.
Law firms are a business. Therefore, attorneys will continue to prosecute a patent application so that the client pays the maximum possible number of billable hours that the client will tolerate.
I got question:
Case where P sues two D’s for infringement in different dist. cts. D1 files for re-exam and gets case stayed after Markman ruling. Re-exams continue on. D2’s case is not stayed. So, D2 is faced with a Markman ruling that is not to D2’s liking, and there is lots of prosecution history in the re-exams that the first Markman did not consider.
Is there a fed. cir. case on point that the D1 Markman ruling should be given little deference since there was a lot of prosecution history and the D1 Markman was not appealed to the federal circuit?
“I would stand up to them and be fired before I would screw someone over like these people do. I have in the past (they backed down), and if I was still there, I would do the same.”
Hear hear. Lets hope more examiners find the courage to stand up to superiors who urge them to arrive at a particular result, regardless of what the rules say.
“The examiner at a personal interview about five years ago, after the case had already been pending four years, told the client and me that her supervisor said that the case would never be allowed.”
Application number, please?
Vapid anecdotes. It doesn’t matter if one or one thousand examples are provided. Without application numbers, they are meaningless.
At least try to make them interesting. For example, I heard from a friend of a friend who had prosecution over a thousand patents to issuance over the past ten years that in the past six months he has TWICE received Final Rejections in the mail which were marked with suspicious brown stains. A small piece of the stained paper was sent for lab analysis. I’m not at liberty to discuss the results but let’s just say the stain was “human in origin.” Also, back in March, one of the clients who received one of these stained Office Actions also was woken one morning when he heard some commotion outside. When he ran out, he saw a 2004 Camaro just like the one John Doll drives speeding away. And he found a deer head stuffed in his mailbox. One of Senator Leahy’s aides told my friend’s friend that the Senator was furious about this and promised a full investigation after the Dead finished their Spring tour. I’m not sure what ultimately happened, probably a sternly worded letter. In any event, things seemed to have quieted down and my clients have not informed me of any further incidents like this but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t happening to someone else.
This is a question for the Examiners on here (triggered by a comment or two above):
If the inventor works for famous company, does that ever work in favor of an application?
For example, if an Examiner gets an Apple (the computer/iProduct company) application, what’s the chance that the Examiner will bear some goodwill towards Apple, and will be more likely to allow the case? Or, at least, be easier to work with?
Or Google? Examiners are probably aware of Google’s reputation for hiring the smartest engineers/inventors in the world.
Are there any applicants that Examiners strongly dislike–like, no matter how inventive an application is, they’re gonna give the applicant a tough time no matter what?
“Take your case to the District Court.”
Your case would be dismissed for failing to exhaust your administrative remedies.
“The Examiner promised to keep rejecting it forever and that there was nothing we could do about it. This sort of thing has been going on for a long time.”
I swear some PTO employees need jail time. I would stand up to them and be fired before I would screw someone over like these people do. I have in the past (they backed down), and if I was still there, I would do the same.
“The Examiner promised to keep rejecting it forever and that there was nothing we could do about it.”
Who amongst you predicted that this behavior was perfectly valid about a year ago?
Me.
Who proposed the solution to the behavior?
Me.
Take your case to the District Court.
I have a similar “black-listed” case. The examiner at a personal interview about five years ago, after the case had already been pending four years, told the client and me that her supervisor said that the case would never be allowed. We have filed a pre-appeal brief, which forced the examiner to withdraw her rejections and issue new rejections. Office action after office action, all with bogus rejections.
broje: “The Examiner promised to keep rejecting it forever and that there was nothing we could do about it.”
Was that promise made by phone? Odd that nobody bothered to record it, especially if this was such a “famous” case. What was the application number, by the way?
Where is JAOI, by the way, to bemoan these anonymous attempts to slander the PTO? I thought that was, like, the worst thing ever?
“I had an unreal conversation last year with an Examiner who indicated that the application had been ‘black-listed’ and would ‘never be allowed.’ Despite the fact that all of his rejections were lame and he couldn’t come up with better art. The responses were taking $5k+ to respond to 64 pages of ridiculous rejections, so the client just gave up. There’s ‘promoting the progress of science’ for you.”
You’re not the only one who’s had this conversation with an Examiner. And they are tougher on patents filed by public figures. One said that the application was famous throughout the USPTO and that Examiners throughout the USPTO were looking for art but not able to find it. Nevertheless, it was repeatedley rejected and appealed and examination reopened over and over again. The Examiner promised to keep rejecting it forever and that there was nothing we could do about it. This sort of thing has been going on for a long time.
Question: are there more or less patents issuing monthly right now compared to, say, the summer of 2000?
Why does David Letterman hate patents? Why does the PTO hate America? Don’t these people understand: patents are freedom. When people are unfairly denied their patents, Abe Lincoln cries.
By the way, are there more or less patents issuing every month now compared to, say, the same time period in 2000? Just curious.
“…who cares that the patent office jerked around his client?”
I care. In the unlikely event that you are ever admitted to practice before the PTO, you’ll care.
“That’s a great anecdote! Very compelling. You should have included something about the inventor being unable to afford chemotherapy for his kid because all his licensee’s disappeared. That would have made it even better.”
Even though you haven’t seen them, you know they were crap claims that are unpatentable, right? And, in that case, who cares that the patent office jerked around his client? The right result was reached.
:\
Storyteller: “I had an unreal conversation last year with an Examiner who indicated that the application had been “black-listed” and would “never be allowed.” Despite the fact that all of his rejections were lame and he couldn’t come up with better art. The responses were taking $5k+ to respond to 64 pages of ridiculous rejections, so the client just gave up. There’s “promoting the progress of science” for you.”
That’s a great anecdote! Very compelling. You should have included something about the inventor being unable to afford chemotherapy for his kid because all his licensee’s disappeared. That would have made it even better.