By Dennis Crouch
The USPTO issued more utility patents in calendar year 2011 than in any year in history. The 2011 total – just shy of 225,000 issued patents – is only a small increase over 2010, but towers above all other historic figures. The previous record was set in 2006 with about 173,000 issued utility patents. The dramatic rise in issuance rate is not tied directly to an increase in filings (although there has been a small increase in new application filings). Rather, the two-year increase appears to be the result of regime changes instituted by USPTO Director David Kappos who took office mid-year 2009 after being nominated by President Barack Obama.
Notes:
Steve Jobs is listed as a co-inventor of dozens of patents – many of them … Patent Law Blogs and the ABA · 2011 Patent Grants: A New Record
Nevermind. I’ll fix it.
2003: 3637 2004: 3753 2005: 4258 2006: 4883 2007: 5477 2008: 6055 2009: 6243 2010: 6225 2011: 6785
source: link to uspto.gov and link to uspto.gov
Provide the art that invalidates it then, Malcolm. You won’t, because you can’t.
Calistus,
Please put your car in reverse and back up over the yelping mongrel.
“After dozens of failed conjectures, Night Wiper, you finally scored one.”
Here we go … non-atttorney –> check
pssed off that the partners servicing computer companies were raking in the big dough –> check
probably given the boot by that same big firm for pssing off the clients with his wacky opinions –> check
It is all coming together. How many of those types can be in San Diego anyway?
Night Wiper: MM is likely a paid K street boy. He probably works for one of the lobby groups for the pharmaceutical industries and is paid to influence public opinion.
LOL. You think the pharma industry would pay me to lobby against Prometheus?? Nevertheless, I appreciate your recognition of the fact that compelling arguments, articulated clearly and repeated regularly so that even the densest people can understand them, do influence public opinion. That’s why ultimately I’m not worried about how the Supreme Court rules in Prometheus. The claims at issue can never and will never be found both eligible, valid and enforceable. That’s why it’s so darn fascinating to watch Gene and Kevin, people who have opinions about everything and are allegedly quite bright, ignore the elephant in the room.
Same principle applies for your beloved Beauregard claims, by the way.
He was probably a patent agent at a large law firm.
After dozens of failed conjectures, Night Wiper, you finally scored one. I was a patent agent at a large law firm once, a long time ago. I have no idea what significance that would have for anybody.
MM’s vitriol is so effused in his posts that one cannot separate out the anti-patent stain.
Man, this blog has the dxmbxst trolls.
I have no idea if he was involved in the effort to remove the grossly unqualified Ms. Peterlin.
The examination of his application has been beyond cruddy. I love the advisory action where the examiner tells Mr. Morsa his arguments aren’t persuasive, but then after Mr. Morsa files his appeal brief, those very same arguments magically become persuasive and prosecution is re-opened.
I also loved the Board’s remand to the examiner that scolds the lazy PTO hack to actually address Mr. Morsa’s arguments.
I’ll take Mr. Morsa’s understanding of case law over careerist, affirm-at-all-costs, hack APJ’s any time.
So yeah, the examination he’s gotten has been cruddy. And that’s high praise for the job the examiner has done in his case.
“I have even thought that perhaps he is a pro-patent shill masquerading as a complete doofus.”
Shilling, that would be a comedic effect, and a performance well worth an Oscar.
MM’s vitriol is so effused in his posts that one cannot separate out the anti-patent stain. Were he to turn out to be a pro-patent person purposely making himself to be an anti-patent buffoon, such would be clever indeed.
To be able to post so consistently in suppressing any type of legal logic would be a herculean effort. One would suspect an occasional slip-up and something noteworthy to slip by in his posts.
Alas, MM does not indicate any such signs, and I fear that he is truly what he presents himself to be.
“Let’s have the application numbers. Then we can decide”
Well, MM, you have your wish. Someone willing to identify themselves and provide a real life specific example.
And what is the result?
You playing the coward (again). The coward who insults as he runs away.
Don’t you get tired of that?
Your snide “I did” is not an answer to Mr. Morenville’s post. What are the chances that you are actually going to do anything with an actual example? Like a dog that chases a car, what are you going to do now that you have cuaght one? Bark? Whimper? Turn tail and run?
Let’s at least see some legal analysis on your part. Let’s at least see some real attempt to answer Paul’s question put to you.
“paid to influence public opinion”
Not doing a very good job at that. His reputation is dogmeat (outside of the other shilling fools).
I have even thought that perhaps he is a pro-patent shill masquerading as a complete doofus.
Same Steve Morsa that wanted to expel Peterlin?
link to patentlyo.com
Back to ‘440, gotta love it when a pro se appellant tries to lecture the Board on case law. Just out of curiosity, are all examinations in which one doesn’t receive a first action allowance deemed “cruddy”?
Unfortunately, it is likely worse than that. MM is likely a paid K street boy. He probably works for one of the lobby groups for the pharmaceutical industries and is paid to influence public opinion. He was probably a patent agent at a large law firm.
So, don’t waste your time arguing with him. You may as well argue with a commercial on T.V.
“Post your thoughts in this blog
I did. ”
He meant after you informed yourself of the actual substance, numbnuts (and more than your usual ‘sniff’ test).
Post your thoughts in this blog
I did.
These inventions represent over $50B in annual revenue in 2010
And with all that money you apparently have nothing better to do than whine on a patent blog? Lame.
and have been a major contributor to IT job growth since 2004.
LOL. Whatever you say, Paul.
Gartner named a new industry space after one family called the Role Matrix Management space
Wow, that’s a really impressive name. [eye roll]
“More classic sockpuppetry whining right there”
Except it’s not. It was merely a sarcastic comment about the site’s biggest (and dxmbest) crybaby whiner.
The fact that you glom onto the posting name and miss the point of the post is rather telling.
“BOOOOHOOOHOHOOHOOOHOHOHOHOHOHOOOO!!!!!!”
Careful there big guy, you don’t want to blow all of your “substantive” posting quota on one thread, do you now?
T O O L
Check out 09/832,440 for some really sh!tty examination.
“OK. Here you go. 20050086244.”
Ooh, I see that “appeals specialist” Vinny Millin singed off on that examiner’s answer.
That’s a slam dunk reversal.
“MM is an anti-patent Office hack. If you have not realized already, you will soon learn that MM has nothing of substance to add to any conversation”
As unfortunate as it is, I agree.
This particular application is what I believe is the next phase of the market. I’m stuck for years and years in the USPTO without an asset to leverage for funding to build a company based on my inventions
BOOOOHOOOHOHOOHOOOHOHOHOHOHOHOOOO!!!!!!
Patents Are So Evil
More classic sockpuppetry whining right there. Someone posts some crxp whining about how they are being treated badly by the PTO. When it is pointed out to them that they are whining, the response is that anybody who would dare point that out must be an Examiner or someone who thinks “patents are evil.”
Get a life, sockie.
Calistus/Paul,
MM is an anti-patent Office hack. If you have not realized already, you will soon learn that MM has nothing of substance to add to any conversation.
“In the meantime, ask your mom to change your diaper”
Very rich, coming fron the site’s biggest crybaby whiner.
That’s a pretty wretched Reply Brief from the examiner, Paul. I’ve seen more than a few that are very similar. Good luck to you.
my practice has been less frustrating too
OK. Here you go. 20050086244. You can look at my other apps and patents too. These inventions represent a reinvention of the enterprise software industry. Gartner named a new industry space after one family called the Role Matrix Management space. Some are the enabling technologies of the Identity and Access Management space. Others are the core technology of BPEL 2.0 and other nested state workflow standards. These inventions represent over $50B in annual revenue in 2010 and have been a major contributor to IT job growth since 2004.
This particular application is what I believe is the next phase of the market. I’m stuck for years and years in the USPTO without an asset to leverage for funding to build a company based on my inventions. In the mean time, they are published by the PTO for all to see and do with as they please.
Since you asked to see them and blew my Calistus O’Brien alias, please take a close look at the examiner arguments and explain to me why these are not nonsensical. Feel free to look at the rest of my appeals as well.
Post your thoughts in this blog. If you wish to contact me directly, use paul@morinville.net.
My guess is that you are either one of my examiners, or are you a patent counsel for a large tech company with a “patent troll” blog.
Then you’d be wrong, which is entirely consistent with the theory proposed in my previous comment.
Care to share those app numbers so we can all see these “nonsensical” and/or “deliberately” hostile attacks on your awesome claims?
MM, Wow. My guess is that you are either one of my examiners, or are you a patent counsel for a large tech company with a “patent troll” blog.
I have five applications in appeal. My examiners didn’t so much as read my applications or the prior art. Their arguments were nonsensical at best and at worst, deliberately intended to scuttle my applications.
Or maybe you just sxck.
Let’s have the application numbers. Then we can decide. In the meantime, ask your mom to change your diaper.
“Generally there are trade-offs between speed, quality and cost. Hopefully, Kappos has increased speed while not sacrificing quality.”
Trade-off? Quality will be cleaned up in litigation. Only ~1% ever get litigated anyway. This thinking makes it take seven years to get a patent and throws good patents into appeal.
“The “record” rejections and other Office actions that paint a more complete and less misleading picture (the Office is not rubber stamping everything “Accept Accept Accept.”
I have five applications in appeal. My examiners didn’t so much as read my applications or the prior art. Their arguments were nonsensical at best and at worst, deliberately intended to scuttle my applications.
I’m happy to see the allowance rate increase, but the problems (corruption?) still exists.
I’d actually like to see that. It would be much more meaningful.
Still, I suspect you’d see a good uptick. My practice has become far less frustrating since the examiners have been permitted to allow patents. It was so frustrating to hear “Well, I know it’s not in the art, but my supervisor said I can’t allow anything.”
“so perhaps you’ve changed”
Now that’s funny.
“But perhaps later today I’ll dig up one of the many glistening txrds that Lord Kappos foisted on the public this past Tuesday.”
That show has gotten really boring. Do you really think people actually read what you write about claims you know nothig about.
Why don’t you surprise us and search last Tuesday’s offerings for some patents that you like? Maybe some software patents as well? Now that would be worth reading.
Frankly, I don’t thin you have it in you, but it is a new year, so perhaps you’ve changed.
Make this a graph of grants versus volume/backlog. Do 2010 and 2011 still “tower” over all other years?
Here’s one that just sort of fell into my lap, issued to everybody’s favorite company, Citibank, one year ago yesterday:
7,865,605
Try to believe this:
1. A method being executed by software operating on a hardware processor for providing banking services comprising at least one of funds transfer services, investment services, and trade services, over a network from a host to a bank customer, comprising:
receiving a request for access to the banking services from the access location via the network;
receiving, by the host, a communication from a local access application at an access location associated with the bank customer, wherein the local access application is configured to provide a plurality of tiers of service access;
identifying a user from a plurality of users associated with the bank customer, wherein the bank customer is an entity having more than one user or groups of users;
identifying a tier of service access associated with the user; determining which of the at least one of the banking services within one of the plurality of tiers of service access the user is entitled to access;
and providing access at the access location for the user to the determined at least one banking service.
Heckuva job, Kappos.
But, hey, Citibank is so cool they don’t need patents to promote the progress. But I’m sure Kappos would gladly have handed them a patent for this, if only they had asked (and who knows: maybe they did and it just hasn’t been granted yet):
link to blogs.reuters.com
It makes sense, for lots of reasons, to make your mortgage payment on the day you get paid. Most salaried Americans, however, get paid every two weeks. Which means, to all intents and purposes, that you need to be able to make one mortgage payments out of every two paychecks. And that in turn raises an intriguing possibility: if you take half of your mortgage payment out of every paycheck, you’re going to end up making 13 mortgage payments a year. Which will pay down your mortgage faster, and could save you thousands of dollars.
Enter the ever-helpful Citibank, with a product which does just that. It’s called The BiWeekly Advantage Plan®, and it’s essentially an automated mortgage payment, of half your monthly mortgage payment, which comes out of your account every two weeks. Easy. There’s even a Savings Calculator to see how much less money you might be able to end up paying.
And then, of course, there’s this:
There is a one-time non-refundable enrollment fee of $375 and a transaction fee of $1.50 for each draft.
That’s an up-front fee of $375, plus another $39 a year, just for the privilege of making your mortgage payments every two weeks rather than every month.
So awesome.
“Not true, not by a long shot” fits better with “the only ‘fair and balanced’ commentator on this blog”
Fixed – Thanks Max.
Malcolm never met a patent he didn’t think was doo-doo …. well, except for those patents that he got issued in first action allowances.
Not true, not by a long shot.
But perhaps later today I’ll dig up one of the many glistening txrds that Lord Kappos foisted on the public this past Tuesday. Then we can all gaze upon it. And you, sockie, can get on your knees and worship it. Again.
Malcolm never met a patent he didn’t think was doo-doo …. well, except for those patents that he got issued in first action allowances.
Malcolm — the only “fair and balanced” commentator on this blog.
Obviously, Kappos is doing something right if he is not sacrificing quality.
Generally there are trade-offs between speed, quality and cost. Hopefully, Kappos has increased speed while not sacrificing quality.
I know Malcolm as a view on the latter issue.
There were a bunch of new examiners hired several years ago. Most of those have earned several promotions (grade increases) by now, which necessitates higher overall output. Many became primaries, which greatly facilitates allowing stuff (good or bad). What I don’t know is whether the total number of examiners now is at an all-time peak. Maybe someone else has those stats?
Articles like this are fodder for the anti-patent crowd. Fuel for Something, alright
Let’s see the rest of the story:
The previous regime’s suppression of rightful patents being stopped and the backlog of those finally being acted upon.
The “record” rejections and other Office actions that paint a more complete and less misleading picture (the Office is not rubber stamping everything “Accept Accept Accept.”
Come now, Prof. Crouch, this call for balance in your reporting is not the first time.
Perhaps a typo Dennis. How can the 2010 total be an increase over 2010?
Comments are closed.