- Note: This is a discussion of President Obama’s proposed budget for FY2011. It is unlikely that the proposal will be pass through Congress unchanged.
- Read Part I: [Link]
-
USPTO Press Release: [LINK]
Goals:
- A significant reduction in patent pendency periods and the existing patent inventory backlog; improvement in patent quality; enhanced intellectual property (IP) protection and enforcement; global IP policy leadership; and investment in information technology (IT) infrastructure and tools to achieve a 21st Century system that permits end-to-end electronic processing in patents and trademark IT systems.
- Achieve 3 percent annual efficiency gains in patents processing through the re-engineering of management and workflow processes.
- Initiate a targeted hiring surge and hire 1,000 patent examiners annually during FY 2011 and FY 2012. This effort will target former patent examiners and IP professionals who will require minimal training and can be productive virtually from the start of their employment.
-
Further details on the USPTO’s five-year strategic plan will be released in the second quarter of 2010 as they become available.
Fees:
- The administration is proposing an interim fee increase on certain patent fees which is estimated to generate $224 million.
- The administration continues to support granting the USPTO fee-setting authority as a significant part of a sustainable funding model that would allow the director to propose and set fees in a manner that better reflects the actual cost of USPTO services.
-
Just-an-Examiner: [LINK]
- “[I]t will be interesting to see how the Office goes about finding 1,000 former examiners and IP professionals to hire. Like the Office’s targets for pendency and backlog reduction, it seems pretty ambitious. Still, there’s certainly nothing wrong with aiming high.”
- Salary Rate for Examiners (Plus Overtime and Federal Government Benefits): Depending upon qualifications and prior experience, new patent examiners are typically hired at in the range of grades 7-11. [updated with 2010 salary information below]
The public is not paying attorneys. If attorneys are producing crap and the clients are OK with that, its a private party contract. Comparing attorneys and examiners is not apples and apples.
huh? The public, ie inventors, are paying attorneys. Examiners are paid out of the fee revenue pool, which is paid by attorneys.
“(I’ll probably mess up the tags, but) In response to: “JD’s suit swallowed him whole”
link to tinypic.com“
Sir your skills are too awesome! HAHAHAAHAHAH that’s hilarious!
This thread has been made WIN!
You may be a creep, but I must admit you have good taste in music.
more snow is on it’s way
Can we budget to teach certain examiners some English? I’m thinking mostly of the foreign ones, but clearly some of the locals could benefit too.
It would really help improve the quality of office actions.
“Do you need a partner for your tiki hut? Where are we headed? It’s 24 hours right? I’ll do 12hrs, then you. It’ll be grueling, but I think we can work it out”
“Hey Another Examiner and Bad Joke Ahead, Can I time-share into that Tiki Hut deal? I know where I can find an endlesss supply of straw and rope.”
Bad Joke and Noise, I don’t mind partners, as long as you’re not uptight about me taking off to surf when the big waves come in. (In the fantasy world I’m creating, I’m a really good surfer and my knees aren’t giving out.) We need to go somewhere with good surf and that’s high enough above sea level that the rising oceans won’t swallow it up. And a tax haven would be nice. (If the IRS is monitoring, I’m just joking!!!)
Anything sounds good as more snow is on it’s way.
David Byrne called. He wants his suit back.
I’ll take Thermionic and Jules’s posts as confirmation that the examining corps is underworked and overpaid.
Yeah, what she said.
Inspector,
You have a critical flaw in your analysis – I do not “underperform” in an argument. I answer all valid calls made on me (at least by those who will actually engage in a discussion – and I set reasonable terms to my answering with those who do not engage).
Further, I “come to the rescue” is a misdirection. I support certain viewpoints, as do others. My posts are never directed to “coming to the rescue”. I attack banality where I see it and if it can serve a lesson to the general readership.
Attempting to make an issue here is simply fishing for red herrings. It is rather “third-grade”.
Just call me the doctor of love… NWPA and NAL are too similar, therefore they would not get along in real life. It would be really boring. My matchmaking suggestion? If they got The Gimp involved (just throw on your zippered rubber mask, JD), then they’ll have some fun.
Next?
(I’ll probably mess up the tags, but) In response to: “JD’s suit swallowed him whole”
link to tinypic.com
Speaking of sockpuppet conspiracies, I’ve noticed that anytime NAL is, let’s just say “underperforming”, in an argument and someone calls her on it, NWPA always seems to come galloping in to her rescue and vice versa. This could mean:
NAL = NWPA
NAL <3 NWPA
So which is it? If it's the latter, maybe one of the Patently O matchmakers can make some magic happen. Based on your post frequency, I think it's a safe bet that you're both single.
“(no pun intended)”
None taken
IANAE “It’s well known that I am Malcolm, and by extension I am also Dennis.
Which means we are all Patrick Bristow …
link to henson.com
It’s all coming together now (no pun intended).
“And I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn’t been for you meddling kids.”
rrrut – rrow
Is anybody else looking forward to law school exam week when IANAE will be grading blue books instead of posting here?
It’s such a bald face assertion of the truth it must be sarcastic, except it isn’t.
Dammit. I knew one of my many sockpuppets would slip up sooner or later.
And I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn’t been for you meddling kids.
“It’s well known that I am Malcolm, and by extension I am also Dennis. The correct answer is “I deduce that you are an academic”.”
That is a “hiding in plain sight” assertion if I ever heard one… It’s such a bald face assertion of the truth it must be sarcastic, except it isn’t.
I have to say that you have retreated once again to you ideal world.
Of course you have to say that, because I said that myself.
I know we don’t live in an ideal world. I think we should generally strive to get closer to the ideal world, even knowing full well that we’ll never get all the way there. I think it’s ridiculous that people have to wait three years for an appeal because of bad rejections. Only, I also think it’s ridiculous that people have to wait three years for an appeal because of bad claims and written arguments. I’m all for more training and common sense on both sides, and more time to do a proper job.
since you are in a position to see so many of these filings,
They’re on the internet. You’re in a position to see them too.
I deduce that you are affiliated with the Office, rather than being a practitioner.
Wrong again. It’s well known that I am Malcolm, and by extension I am also Dennis. The correct answer is “I deduce that you are an academic”.
Which blogs do you contribute to NAL?
NAL, sorry, but times are rough out here. My fees have declined, and I can only put enough in the start up for one ex-practioner right now. AND IT’S GONNA BE ME!
ps: It’s nasty out there today. I’m really looking forward to the weather turning.
IANAE
Regarding:
“It’s always better when decisions are correct in the first instance and don’t require appeals. That goes without saying”
And
“the rare occasion (and it should be rare) that an examiner is being unreasonable.”
I have to say that you have retreated once again to you ideal world. Unfortunately, what should go without saying not only has to be said – you have people flatly denying the why’s and wherefor’s of what drives the “goes without saying” Of course, unreasonable examiner’s should be rare – the fact of the matter is that they are abundant. They are driven by the management of the Office and the spineless POPA (spineless to protect examiner’s who don’t buy into the reject-reject-reject mantra and spineless to fight the incredibly bad production quota system).
Regarding
“When I see how many registered agents file doomed, unpersuasive written arguments, presumably thinking they’re advancing the case toward allowance, and then express shock when they get the same rejection back again, I very much question whether a lay person would be qualified to assess how well an agent is doing his job.”
IANAE – since you are in a position to see so many of these filings, but act in apparent complete disregard to fixing what to you are obvious errors – my Columbo like instinct once again perks up and I deduce that you are affiliated with the Office, rather than being a practitioner. Otherwise, you would be in serious jeopardy of violating ethical duties to your clients.
Hey Another Examiner and Bad Joke Ahead, Can I time-share into that Tiki Hut deal? I know where I can find an endless supply of straw and rope.
Another Examiner,
You framed the issue perfectly. The question is not simply how many more people are needed, but what changes are needed to make the work that IS DONE ALREADY more effective.
I know what you’re saying about just signing something that you’re not happy with. It’s not like we don’t have to do it too out here. I think all of these other govn’t types posting on here are just kids who have just completed their govn’t educations and started working for the govn’t. It’s clear that they’ve had not contact with the real world. I appreciate your more balanced perspective.
Do you need a partner for your tiki hut? Where are we headed? It’s 24 hours right? I’ll do 12hrs, then you. It’ll be grueling, but I think we can work it out.
Mooney,
Your fascination with me is, like you, weird and creepy.
I did get a laugh out of your sockpuppet Herpeez though.
Carry on I guess.
JD
in a perfect world, communism would be great, in fact it would be ideal.
Huh. I never pegged you for a communist.
And my point is that – as you NOW acknowledge that certain remedies are inadequate – those remedies must be changed – or better yet, the actions of the Office should follow the Law and Rules and not lead to the situations that require remedy in the first place
I’ve always taken the position that the appeal process needs fixing – when it’s been relevant to the discussion. It’s always better when decisions are correct in the first instance and don’t require appeals. That goes without saying. Appeals should be for when reasonable people reasonably disagree, when the applicant has a good reason for wanting to change the law, or the rare occasion (and it should be rare) that an examiner is being unreasonable.
– welcome to corporate America – outsource capital of the world. Funny – all those other functions being outsourced don’t seem to draw the same criticism IANAE.
Most of the functions that US companies outsource are unskilled functions. Those jobs aren’t outsourced because people don’t know how, they’re outsourced because companies require a certain manufacturing (or whatever) capacity and they get it where it’s cheapest. Tech support is kind of an exception, because there actually is a foreign population of skilled workers in that field that will do the job cheaper.
Professional workers are different. Doctors, lawyers, and their ilk are hired for their expertise, generally by people who lack that expertise. There’s a certain implicit level of trust in that relationship, precisely because you presume the professional is qualified to do his job and you’re not always sure how to tell if he’s not. A lot of medical knowledge has actually become more accessible recently, but the law is becoming increasingly complex and obscure and beyond the reach of the lay person.
When I see how many registered agents file doomed, unpersuasive written arguments, presumably thinking they’re advancing the case toward allowance, and then express shock when they get the same rejection back again, I very much question whether a lay person would be qualified to assess how well an agent is doing his job.
“Another examiner — how old are you? when did you receive your engineering/science degree?”
(Trying again, sorry if it gets posted twice.) I’m 40. I got my bachelor’s in 1991 and my master’s a few years ago. This is notionally my “second career”, but I’m always reconsidering. I really enjoy examining, but I really DON’T enjoy working under a production quota system. I particularly don’t like signing my name to something I’m not proud of, but I have to do it at least a couple of times every bi-week in order to make my quota. So, the question is, how do you give people enough time to do a quality job and still draw down the backlog without having a quota system?
I have hope under Kappos. Otherwise, I may consider taking the bar and becoming an agent. But, yes, I know, the grass is always greener. I’m either going to find a job I love or die trying…or buy a tiki hut on a beach somewhere and sell drinks.
Don’t try to tell Mooney, er, IANAE, about the Constitution… he is all about “nuances.” Yes, nuances, like his oft asserted and nuanced claim analysis “this patent claim is crap” and his equally oft asserted and nuanced analysis involving patentees who assert their rights as “money grubbers.”
Constitution? To Mooney, that is just some old paper.
“It’s more of an ideal than a view of current PTO practice” –
You see IANAE, the problem with your posts is that you do not separate the ideal from the actual. Sure, in a perfect world, there would be no need to post – and in a perfect world, communism would be great, in fact it would be ideal.
We are not there. We will never be there.
Thus, while it may seem to you that many here are picking on the poor office, many of the posters are highlighting things that need attention and trying to prioritize where the Office should focus its efforts.
“My point was more that even a bad examiner who wants to reject your patent still needs to state a reason for so doing, and if it’s a bad reason there are (in some cases inadequate) administrative remedies like appeals, supervisors, and telephones”
And my point is that – as you NOW acknowledge that certain remedies are inadequate – those remedies must be changed – or better yet, the actions of the Office should follow the Law and Rules and not lead to the situations that require remedy in the first place (merely stating A reason is a crap cop-out) and not kow-tow to internal mandates of reject-reject-reject (or allow-allow-allow for that matter). An indication of the office being amiss is the state of these other remedies and the illegal power grabs of the Office in trying to eviscerate even these available remedies – all in the name of “let’s have the Office do less work.”
I am not against the hiring of more examiners – I am against the MERE hiring of more examiners. I also think that the holes in the boat need to be attended to BEFORE you throw more oarsmen into the boat to paddle faster. Drydock the puppy if you need to, but fix the sinking ship.
As to the fact that I am often commenting in reply to your posts, it’s not that you are biased IANAE, it is that you appear biased because you typically don’t get around to offering such views as above unless you are responding to an assertion that your pro-Office writing is out of whack (although I have seen more level headed first comments of late).
I also thought that your doctor analogy does not work and actually reinforces the opposing view because like doctors, applicants can go to a different attorney. You cannot go to a different USPTO.
“They hire you because they don’t know how to prosecute patents, so they’re in no position to critically assess your work.”
– welcome to corporate America – outsource capital of the world. Funny – all those other functions being outsourced don’t seem to draw the same criticism IANAE.
Don’t EVEN get me started on mis-underlinings of the period in a claim.
Gad – blame Obama? – that’s actually pretty funny. Not quite useful, but funny. I notice that your postings are best when kept under four words. Kudos.
As to a proposal for fixing the system – I have already stated one long ago that involved an evaluation of the incoming application by a select group of the best of each art group, ranking the application by difficulty and alloting separate and distinct time and effort goals to each individual application so that each individual application recieves the appropriate examination – not force some arbitrary quasi-average widget number and hope that in the end the averages work out. Perhaps you missed that.
the PTO grants nothing. The Constitution grants the right, the PTO merely examines an application for allowability under the laws established by Congress.
… and … grants patents. The constitution grants Congress the right to grant the PTO the right to grant patents. The PTO grants patents.
And there is NOTHING that the govn’t can do that can’t also be performed by a private entity.
Let’s take that statement arguendo and run with it. That private entity would still need examiners, and fees, and a budget. It would probably be subject to significant government oversight. It would still inherit a backlog of pending cases and need some way to deal with it.
So how’s about we fix the underlying problems instead of launching into a knee-jerk “government is evil” rant?
We need to get the office back to determining whether something is allowable under the law.
Maybe you haven’t noticed, but that whole backlog of applications thing is the government not having sufficient resources to determine whether they’re allowable under the law. Know what would fix that? More people whose job it is to determine whether something is allowable under the law. Know what would fix that? Money.
Incidentally, what’s your proposal for fixing what you perceive as the problem?
IANAE, the PTO grants nothing. The Constitution grants the right, the PTO merely examines an application for allowability under the laws established by Congress.
And there is NOTHING that the govn’t can do that can’t also be performed by a private entity. The question is simply: what is the govn’t allowed and required to do? What we “want” the govn’t to do is irrelevant because it has only the powers delegated to it by the Constitution.
You’re on the govn’t dole too aren’t you? It’s getting easier to pick you guys out because you argue for higher taxes and more govn’t at every turn, regardless of whether it makes sense to the current discussion or not.
We need to get the office back to determining whether something is allowable under the law. Once that’s done, THEN we can talk about increasing those efforts by increasing the budgets, fees, etc. The govn’t solution is always to throw money at any problem, but that’s a proven failure. You’re just throwing more money at an ineffective solution.
“Herpeez’s” (probably a new identity for Mooney to help him deal with that perpetual rash of his) post is the best reason I can think of to always post anonymously.
That loop is Mooney when he discovers that everyone knows his identity…
Fourth, what does the PTO do to “earn” the signficiant issue and maintenance fees?
It grants to the person paying the fee the exclusive right to make, use, and sell the claimed invention.
I have more questions than answers. First, how many patent attorneys can afford to live in DC and work at these pay levels? Second, why shouldn’t the PTO be required to hold our application fees in trust for 3 to 5 years until the applications are examined? Third, where is the price point at which the cost of a patent application will cause a significant downturn in the number of filings? Fourth, what does the PTO do to “earn” the signficiant issue and maintenance fees?
If we’re going to look at a 15% increase in fees as being effectively 2% when viewed in connection with the overall cost of a patent application, let’s look at the application fee effectively including issue and maintenance fees. If we do that, the numbers are very different. If we don’t do that, we’re fooling ourselves.
“What’s your solution when a particular job can only be performed by the government, and there are clearly not enough government employees in that function to complete the job at a reasonable pace?”
Blame Obama?
Which is precisely why we need […] FAR fewer govn’t employees.
What’s your solution when a particular job can only be performed by the government, and there are clearly not enough government employees in that function to complete the job at a reasonable pace?
Your stated views that when the good art runs out you get a patent simply is a fallacy in way too many cases.
It’s more of an ideal than a view of current PTO practice. I know there are bad rejections. I see them too. I have seen examiners who have decided in advance that they would never allow a particular case, and stick to their guns a decade later.
My point was more that even a bad examiner who wants to reject your patent still needs to state a reason for so doing, and if it’s a bad reason there are (in some cases inadequate) administrative remedies like appeals, supervisors, and telephones.
any client that is a big account
Yes, some of the really big companies that have internal legal and IP departments are sophisticated. Even so, I’ve seen some of them get really bad advocacy for years without moving their work to another firm. But most companies are not that sophisticated. They hire you because they don’t know how to prosecute patents, so they’re in no position to critically assess your work.
When you go to the doctor, do you form critical opinions about his diagnosis? Of course not, because you don’t know any medicine. That’s why you pay a doctor. If you think he might be wrong (i.e. you’re unhappy with the conclusion he reached), you have to ask another doctor. And even then, you have no idea which one is right. Oh, and try getting an impartial second opinion from a patent agent who wants your business.
Most clients don’t know what a patent is “supposed” to cost from start to finish, they don’t know what would be a good allowance rate for the types of patents they file, and they don’t know a good allowed claim from a bad allowed claim. Heck, most agents don’t know all that stuff.
And even bad agents shouldn’t be getting amendments bounced for non-compliance, other than the very occasional typo or mis-underlining that gets caught by a really anal examiner.
7, If you read all of these comments, you’ll find a common thread:
The only people who can make sense of govn’t actions are govn’t employees.
Which is precisely why we need less govn’t and FAR fewer govn’t employees.
I just don’t get why the PTO can’t have offices elsewhere. Those salary schedules may not be great for DC, but qualified people would be falling all over themselves for a secure job with that salary schedule in a lower cost of living area, say Texas, Colorado, Georgia, etc.
Of course, I should add that examiners are like most engineers in that they work hard and are decent people.
Thanks a lot Mooney, now I can’t stop laughing every time I see the JD gif.
Thanks, Mr. Whipple.
And how are you, JAOI(TM)?
>>Sure, assuming the clients can tell good >>advocacy from bad advocacy.
>>Otherwise, how would the Bar or the OED find out?
The difference is that our clients can walk down the street and pass ten other law firms to give their business too. We are stuck with the examiner that we are assigned and with the PTO. That is all the Congress has given us to protect the inventions and promote our economy and innovation.
What you see with clients is that they get progressively more sophisticated and switch law firms as they become more comfortable with the process. They may come back or only try other law firms, but any client that is a big account always trys several law firms to compare you with.
Gee, I think we do that with the EPO and find out that their searches are much better than the PTO’s, but we can’t just stop using the PTO can we?
Open the door and walk at least 1/2 to the street at least once a month.
>>attrition problems
>>can’t keep level
Don’t believe it. There are different ways of looking at this as I am sure all those economic professors you know would tell you. First, I don’t believe that the PTO can’t keep their employment levels. Second, it is a government agency, maybe what is going on is their management is so bad that it is like a unproductive slave pit. Third, a private company would never have located in DC where it is so expensive and you can only pay engineer wages. So, without spending a lot of time on your lesson, you should be able to see that your rductionism is not only likely factually wrong, but also based on false assumptions.
Sheesh, you government types are just so bleeding strange. You are like a kid that has been locked inside their whole life.
“you appear to give way too much of a sht.”
another 6 ism – great advice – don’t care – game the system and the applicant is your enemy.
/off sarcasm
IANAE – in case you hadn’t noticed, the “anti” views are also not only on one side. These boards are indeed very polarizing. However, my position on examination is not “one-sided”, and perhaps you have missed that. Examination is hard work. It is crucial work. I do work with examiners because thankfully, quite a few are not like those posting here. I do have a few that simply do not understand there role, or who are so cowed into the reject-reject-reject-mode that they continue to apply bad art time after time. Your stated views that when the good art runs out you get a patent simply is a fallacy in way too many cases.
“I think that’s actual looped footage of JD receiving a Final Office Action.”
LOLOLOL
“Ha! That does look kind of like JD.”
It actually does lol.
“http://www.nixon-vanderhye.com/attorneys/darling.htm”
JD’s suit swallowed him whole.
Ha! That does look kind of like JD.
I point out that the phrase “PTO (mis)management” appears nowhere on his bio page, indicating that he didn’t write it himself.
link to nixon-vanderhye.com
Oh no, here come the …. “patent teabaggers”
I think that’s actual looped footage of JD receiving a Final Office Action.
Another examiner — how old are you? when did you receive your engineering/science degree?
If we were overpaid, the PTO wouldn’t have attrition problems. I thought you guys were free market fans? Labor in the free market pop quiz: if the PTO cannot maintain workforce levels, does that mean the PTO is paying too much or not enough? I know what any economics professor would say, but the answer of the Patently O lynch mob is always not only cut pay, but increase production requirements. I allow cases all the time and the attorneys I deal with for the most part seem competent and easy to work with. I really don’t understand why the local whingers are having so much trouble getting their cases allowed.
By the way, long time no comment, Mr. Bloom. Good to have you around again.
Another examiner, you appear to give way too much of a sht. Chill man, then you will prosper.
I am a GS-9, step 7 examiner. I make ~$72,000 a year. I work 50-55 hours per week and work hard when I’m working (there’s no chit-chatting with my colleagues). I’ve had several jobs and this is one of the most difficult and draining. Maybe it’s the art unit I’m in, maybe it’s because I care about what I do.
Remember all, with any increase in grade (GS-9 to GS-11, e.g.) comes an increase in production requirements. You couldn’t pay me enough to be a GS-11 right now. I’m already exhausted.
Just my perspective.
Oh no, here come the …. “patent teabaggers”
“Assuming the clients can tell good advocacy from bad advocacy.”
We’re going in circles. The client can tell good advocacy from bad advocacy in the form of, for example, Notices of Non-Compliant Amendment, Allowance Rate, Cost per Allowance, and the like.
IANAE obviously thinks that clients are stoopit.
“teabagger”
There goes Mooney again talking about his favorite passtime…
“no room for nuanced or moderate opinions”
Mooney likes nuances, as long as they can be weilded like primitive clubs, are pedestrian, and are plainly obvious to anyone who really practices (like he clearly does not – just ask a “substantial fraction” of his “clients”)
Dear LB,
“…a management problem that’s probably not best addressed by punishing the examiner corps. In my humble opinion, of course.”
Hear, hear — well said. I totlally agree.
In case you haven’t realized it yet, IANAE,
Yeah, I’ve been to the internet before. I know the drill. Disagree with a crazy person once, and you’re his nemesis for life. Someone else disagrees with that crazy person once, and he’s obviously you. No room for only sometimes agreeing with people, no room for nuanced or moderate opinions, no room for admitting you’re wrong or changing your mind in response to new information.
Doesn’t bother me one bit. Well, sometimes I weep for humanity, but I don’t let it affect my day-to-day.
“…even holding “many who post here” – and even though the many being anonymous, somehow in disdain. You do not come out and say that you are a member of the patent bar.”
I’m a member of the patent bar, and I confess to having held in disdain quite a few of the comments posted here by alleged prosecutors. I personally couldn’t care less what IANAE really is – to me, his comments seem to reflect some real-world sense.
I also think it’s a little silly to suggest that a prosecutor shouldn’t have a “pro-Office” bias. I think we should all be pulling for the Office to get its act together. I’ve done my share of kvetching about the quality of examination, but that’s a management problem that’s probably not best addressed by punishing the examiner corps. In my humble opinion, of course.
you display anti-advocate views
Translation: you aren’t an PTO-bashing patent teabagger like NAL.
In case you haven’t realized it yet, IANAE, this “analysis” is a tradition of NAL’s and the sockpuppets (most of whom will have new names in a month or two). Have a drink and enjoy the laughs.
An attorney or agent who practices “bad advocacy” will eventually be held accountable by the State Bar and/or the OED.
Sure, assuming the clients can tell good advocacy from bad advocacy.
Otherwise, how would the Bar or the OED find out?
and even though the many being anonymous, somehow in disdain.
I can’t hold anonymous people in disdain? Have you been to the internet?
I have nothing against prosecutors as a group. I’m not a fan of the arrogant ones who think they’re always right and every rejection is wrong. It’s both easy and fun to criticize the PTO, and some of the criticisms are of course valid, but there are also clearly some problems on the other end. I’m not anti-advocate, I just know a bad advocate when I see one.
The PTO is not your enemy. Examiners are the people who give you the patents your clients want, and you should never forget that.
You do not come out and say that you are a member of the patent bar.
Would it make you feel any better if I did? It wouldn’t change my opinion about anything.
strong symptoms of Office training
I did say I’d never worked for the PTO. Guess you missed that?
“Sure, assuming the clients can tell good advocacy from bad advocacy.”
They can.
They can also tell good examination from p!ss poor examination. They see precious few of the former and tidal waves of the latter.
“Sure, assuming the clients can tell good advocacy from bad advocacy.”
An attorney or agent who practices “bad advocacy” will eventually be held accountable by the State Bar and/or the OED. There is no such code of ethical conduct with attendant obligations, sanctions, and the like, nor is there even a decent avenue of administrative redress for “bad examination.”
“I wish I was rich enough to has a basement”
Or even to afford grammar lessons…
I like NAL, he may be right about IANAE (the cute reverse psychology of his very name – I AM NOT AN EXAMINER – except I really am) but I think he’s wrong about Mooney. There have been too many glaring hints about Mooney’s true identity.
I’ll take a stab at playing Columbo – since obviously Malcolm blesses that use on these comment boards….
IANAE – you have work with agents, but you are not an examiner, you display anti-advocate views, even holding “many who post here” – and even though the many being anonymous, somehow in disdain. You do not come out and say that you are a member of the patent bar. Your tone in talking about prosecutors slips to a decidedly third person tone. And if that was not enough, clearly the 6 Famoosity adage is in play – 6 thinks IANAE is a prosecutor, thus IANAE cannot be a prosecutor.
With such heavy pro-Office bias (even though I saw your claim as being pro-applicant and pro-patent) and strong symptoms of Office training – are you a failed examiner, or worse yet, a trainer?
“You guys are waaaayyyy overpaid!”
Not really, considering the cost of living in the DC area. Also, not every Exr is a 22-year-old fresh out of engineering school, if that’s what your statement is based on. Many Exrs have MS, PhD, signifcant industry experience, and maybe even JD, maybe even prior law firm experience.
“And from earlier, am I to understand that an examiner moves up a GS level approximately once a year?”
That’s generally true up until GS-12, assuming of course the Exr is already producing 107%+ at their current GS level. Most primary Exrs are GS-14 and remain within that grade with incremental moves to the right (stepwise, within the same grade), maybe 1 step for every 3 yrs, something like that.
“Hey, I was a primary and know what the examining job involves. Believe me, although it may be harder than your “typical government job,” it is still much much easier than being out here!”
So the grass isn’t greener on the other side?
“Reason for leaving the PTO is not based only on money. Even though the hours are longer, acquiring, keeping and satisfying clients always difficult, and dealing with the PTO pinheads sometimes exhausting, working out here is better for the mind and sole. We live longer than retired examiners. We stay in the game!”
Is your firm accepting new “players” to the “game.” For the past year, all I’ve read about is law firm layoffs, frozen salaries, decreased or no bonuses. Is all this true for patent prep/pros? How many new attorneys has your firm hired in the past year? I don’t think the PTO is necessarily targeting already-employed IP professionals. More likely they are looking at people that have been laid off and/or newbie law school grads with an interest in patent law.
“Question: A number of law students (with scientific backgrounds) have indicated that they would like to become patent examiners. (1) Should the PTO hire them over folks with only the science degree? (2) How much of a grade-bump is given for a JD?”
Exrs with JDs are alot more common than it used to be, no doubt due to the economy an oversupply of patent attorneys in private practice to meet whatever work is left out there. Plus, JD Exrs have increased mobility once they enter the office if they choose to try something different than patent examining (e.g., office of the solicitor, trademark examining, BPAI, office of general counsel, etc.). Presumably, it would make alot more sense to hire a newbie law school grad with an interest in patents than a fresh engineering grad who doesn’t even know what a patent is, has never read a court case, and doesn’t know the basics of how the patent system works. Law school grads should at least have a better idea of what they’re signing up for if they choose to apply, which might also help with the PTO’s retention numbers. Btw, no bump at all is given for JD, only if you have MS/PhD will they consider hiring at an increased grade level, plus it puts the Exr on a more level playing field with the prosecuting attorney, so the public interest is better served.
Examiner Mooney,
Glad I could brighten your day.
Huh?
IANAE is clearly not a prosecutor. My guess is an academic.
LOL, Columbo.
“Not necessarily you tho IANAE, you seem like a decent prosecutor.”
IANAE is clearly not a prosecutor. My guess is an academic.
dark, thanks for the explanation. To those of us unfamiliar with the govn’t red tape, it’s very enligtening.
And from earlier, am I to understand that an examiner moves up a GS level approximately once a year?
“Dark Knight, can you explain further? Does everyone receive 33% more than the listed salary?”
Here’s the base general schedule:
link to opm.gov
Here’s the DC metro schedule:
link to opm.gov
The DC metro schedule is the base schedule*1.2422 (but not more than 155500)
Examiner pay, instead of getting that 24.22% locality pay gets a supplement as shown below:
GS05, GS07: 53%
GS09: 46%
GS11: 39%
GS12+:33%
The fixed supplements are what makes hoteling even more attractive if you want to live outside the DC metro area. However they haven’t been adjusted since instituted which is a frequent complaint for POPA because the locality pay for the DC area keeps going up.
My folks have pottery equipment and materials in the basement so I can make teh awesomez if I take a notion.
I always figured your parents were hippies, 6. 😉
“The only time you get in any real trouble is if you screw up something objective, like missing a final deadline or losing priority.”
Or when the examiner points out the attorney’s ineptness with skill and clarity for the applicant to read.
Not necessarily you tho IANAE, you seem like a decent prosecutor.
“Nice straw man. The Mooney fan club meets in 6’s basement every Saturday night. Feel free to stop by.”
I wish I was rich enough to has a basement 🙁 Or even that my folks lived within 100 miles to have one nearby. My folks have pottery equipment and materials in the basement so I can make teh awesomez if I take a notion.
where you can lose the client with one mistake.
I repeat: “Sure, assuming the clients can tell good advocacy from bad advocacy.”
Most clients will keep paying you as long as you blame your inability to secure a patent on the examiner’s reject-reject-reject attitude. Several agents I’ve worked with (and many on this board) have been doing that so long they believe it.
In litigation, if your lawyer loses your case you might begin to suspect that you got bad representation. In patent prosecution, that never happens. Any agent can get any patent allowed by narrowing the claims sufficiently, and any agent can blame any rejection on the examiner’s unreasonableness no matter how poor his claims or written arguments. The only time you get in any real trouble is if you screw up something objective, like missing a final deadline or losing priority.
In fact, a big part of the reason patent agents can’t charge what they want is that clients don’t recognize quality, so they go with the cheapest provider. So go cry me a river about how accountable you are to your clients.
We are not talking about not making the best arguments or arguing limitations more specifically than claimed. We are talking about things like arguing rejections that are no longer in the last rejection instead of the actual rejections, for example. Are these things that the applicant would want the attorney to argue?? Is this something that an ethical attorney would do if the applicant asked??
“The public is maintaining their name on a register of agents who are competent to represent the public before the PTO.”
Nice straw man. The Mooney fan club meets in 6’s basement every Saturday night. Feel free to stop by.
IANAE: you need to work at a real job with real clients where you can lose the client with one mistake.
“Dark Knight, can you explain further? Does everyone receive 33% more than the listed salary?
DC”
Dennis, the salaries listed in the above tables correspond directly to actual examiner salaries. No one at the office receives a salary greater than what is listed on the table. (Overtime and bonuses are another story, but even then, the max. anyone at the Office can earn in a year is capped at $155,500 for FY10.)
The rather confusing 33% supplement refers to the fact that the patent examiner salary table (posted above) is approx. 33% higher than the basic locality pay for a generic federal employee working in the Alexandria/Arlington/Fairfax area.
The 33% supplement for patent examiners is ostensibly justified because of the technical nature of the work (e.g. BS degree or equivalent required).