By Dennis Crouch
By Dennis CrouchThere have been numerous reports calling the US Patent System broken or at least in need of severe repair. From my view, the greatest problems with US patent law arise because of its common lack of clearly drawn property lines. In academic lingo, we call this a failure of the public notice function.
Examples of the fuzzy lines of patent law are well known to Patently-O readers and include the secret rights of unpublished patent applications; shifting rights that may be altered via extended prosecution, future continuing applications, and second look examination; and uncertain rights potentially crumbling under the vagaries of claim construction and obviousness jurisprudence.
These problems are exacerbated in certain technology areas – such as electronics – by massively overlapping claims and speculators asserting patents in a seemingly more aggressive fashion. At the same time, there is a strong consensus that these issues do not arise in the same fashion in the pharmaceutical and bio-technological areas. Pharmaceutical patent law is often heralded as an incredible success — especially in the post Hatch-Waxman days of strong generic competition.
Now comes the Patent Reform Act of 2007. Unfortunately, the proposed patent reforms now being debated by the Senate do virtually noting to address these serious problems and instead potentially cause harm to the current regime.
CAFC Chief Judge Michel has publicly discussed patent reform and its potential impact on the judicial process. Apart from the Chief’s particular quarrels with damage apportionment and expanded interlocutory appeals, he makes a particular point about the destabilizing effect of major Congressional patent reforms. In the decades following reforms, each amended word will be litigated and eventually construed. Unfortunately, during the wait for new statutory interpretations, patent holders and accused infringers will be left guessing. Judge Michel’s ultimate point is that changes in the property regime should only be made when we have a genuine reason to believe that the changes will improve the system as a whole. For the majority of the proposed patent reforms, that case simply has not yet been made.
Check out this article written by Paul Bedard (US News and World Report):
link to usnews.com
It covers the latest dealings with the Check 21 legislation, in particular examining the rise of “patent trolls” and how patent lawsuits impact some of the national security legislation passed after 9/11.
One thing I’d point out in Bedard’s piece, though, is that he refers to “Senate Republicans” as pushing this issue, but Check 21 passed with unanimous bipartisan consent out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In fact, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) was quoted as saying: “This is a very important amendment. It seems to me it is a no-brainer and I think it says to patent trolls that you cannot do this kind of thing.”
This is a hot issue that’s likely to get more play and attention as the Amendment comes to the floor in the next month or so.
there is no pattern of runaway jury verdicts in patent cases
link to patenthawk.com
Does our present patent board system do anything except place patents in the wrong name. Since these board members are financially interested patent holders why dont they call the process corruption.This board should be eliminated in the interests of justice.
Does our present patent board system do anything except place patents in the wrong name. Since these board members are financially interested patent holders why dont they call the process corruption.This board should be eliminated in the interests of justice.
Can anyone tell me how many ways to cheat an inventor our present and proposed system has.Ill bet its 15 or 20. How can we call this system justice at all.
Ahh, yes, I suppose considering the date you are pretty close on there.
“I see the supremes writings to be indeed mere clarification (and a huge show of support at the highest level) and not hardly any of the huge change that some feel that it is, or felt as if it might be.”
I on the other hand see Dystar as a last minute “come to Jesus” conversion by the CAFC to avoid humiliation at the hands of SCOTUS.
“Don’t forget that in Dystar the CAFC said that everyone, or almost everyone, misunderstood their decisions on TSM.”
Ever patentee in lititgation certainly misunderstood it. Intentionally.
“That’s when actually reading the spec helps.”
reading the spec doesn’t automatically classify cases that could arguably go in two completely different classes, much less subclasses. However, as I stated, during the search it became more clear to me that it would be better suited to fit in the other classification (which I didn’t even know existed, and wouldn’t have guessed existed either).
I’ll let you in on a little secret, examiners come into the system having not read (much less understanding) the entire classification schedule with all it’s nuances and rely heavily on the cases being properly classified during the initial pre-examiner review classification done. And asking a primary for a classification search is so hit or miss I cringe at even doing it. It is truly a wonder to me how some primaries make their numbers with such bad search criteria off the get go.
And of course I read the spec, as I read all my specs.
bhr, that decision is amazing, and should be taught in dicta? as the very basis of 103’s for all incoming examiners. Followed thereafter by the supremes of course. I had read bits and pieces of that before, but reading the whole thing indeed clarifies what they are talking about quite well, although in all honesty, it was exactly what I had thought it to say before having fully read it. Even so, it’s valuable to see the whole rationale set forth etc. Also, having read that, I see the supremes writings to be indeed mere clarification (and a huge show of support at the highest level) and not hardly any of the huge change that some feel that it is, or felt as if it might be.
Dystar: link to cafc.uscourts.gov
see page 15.
“Like right now in a case that really shouldn’t have been mine (I found out about halfway through the search) I had taken the word “energized” to mean “to supply electricity to” (definition no. 2) and the app responds omg, energizing could be done with a laser beam!111!!!!!!! ”
That’s when actually reading the spec helps.
bhr: Or, they didn’t clearly lay down their opinion about TSM for everyone to see. Which way did they say that everyone misunderstood it? As in people took it too rigidly, or the opposite? Have a link? I might have to look that up. It seems like I’ve heard of that case before, but I don’t remember the specifics.
Yeah, all my little one liners are fit right into my context, and even if it wasn’t, certainly you know that if I’m going into politics when I get to be an old man I’ve got to get good at my deflections now.
And yeah LL I got a 94% rating last reporting, I don’t really know what this number is based upon though, because obviously this is someone’s opinion of how well I’m meeting limitations etc. when we all know that one person’s reading of some references often turns out very differently than another person’s. This is especially true when the first person hasn’t explained themselves yet. And also, I don’t think that 94% rating is quite accurate because I have had to do some nonfinals here lately. Like right now in a case that really shouldn’t have been mine (I found out about halfway through the search) I had taken the word “energized” to mean “to supply electricity to” (definition no. 2) and the app responds omg, energizing could be done with a laser beam!111!!!!!!! In this case, because of the design of the reference I’m not too sure if he’ll get a nonfinal, but he might. In the very best circumstances he’ll get a 103 and have wasted my time and his clients money. Either way, I think it’s safe to say I’m not getting a bad quality review anytime soon. It’s a good thing I don’t get all my cases from JD though, or I’d be in big trouble having to first action allow almost everything.
Mr Page as always is tha man. And Mr. Thomas is unfortunately an idealist who believes that the patent IP system should benefit the inventor. Mr. Thomas, you’re aware it’s all about the big money honey, and they don’t want to share. What’s more, they have lobbyists to make sure nothing like you suggest ever happens. I sometimes wonder if all the people working in big corps even bother to disclose most of their inventions (and maybe prosecute them themselves) just because it won’t hardly benefit them any and they know it. Of course, there are problems with corporate security etc. I worked for a major manufacturer awhile back, and hardly anyone there even tried to have good ideas to make the system better. They just came, did their job, got paid and went home, and that’s all most of them wanted to do, a whole one of them had two patents on his cubicle wall. Keep in mind this company is an industry leader in that field.
Find Legislation:
That is a great link. I am embarassed I did not know of it earlier.
Thanks,
“What a load of sh1t.
99% of Fed Circuit law can be understood by the average Examiner, no problem.”
Don’t forget that in Dystar the CAFC said that everyone, or almost everyone, misunderstood their decisions on TSM. 🙂
Some attorney type wrote: “If you don’t understand the basics of judicial review, standards of review, statutory interpretation, precedence, weight of authority, and so on, the opinions can be extremely confusing and misleading.”
What a load of sh1t.
99% of Fed Circuit law can be understood by the average Examiner, no problem.
SC law is all simple, where it says anything at all.
Seriously, I know a-holes like this lawyer who love to go around spouting attorney-speak so they can intimidate people into believing that it’s suicide to try to understand case law.
Grow up.
“Sometimes he comes along just to point out how basic an understanding of things is by stating them blatantly falsely in order to contrast.”
This must be what’s happening with some of the office actions I’m receiving. The Examiner is being ironic…
HR636 – Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1908) to amend title 35, United States Code, to provide for patent reform. ( link to statesurge.com )
Thought you all may be interested in a new site devoted to transparency in government
and one of the best ways to find legislation. (www.statesurge.com)
They also provide my blog a widget (script) that shows the most active bills in any
of their states or at the federal level (free of charge). Contact
Larry@statesurge.com if you are interested in this widget.
You can sign up for a free trial on StateSurge.com and test out this legislative
management system. Its the best service I have seen for tracking legislation.
Apparently, soon much of the information will be open and free to use as a research
tool. Currently, http://www.StateSurge.com tracks Missouri, Illinois, Kansas, Tennessee, and
Federal legislation, but soon all 50 states will be integrated.
examiner#6k,
Captain Obviousness called you out and you try to claim you were being ironic? In context you appear to mean exactly what you state, which as CO stated is completely wrong.
“Sorry, but you’re 0 for 2 there.”
Captain Obvious, I’d like you to meet my good friend Captain Ridiculous, sometimes he comes along just to point out how basic an understanding of things is by stating them blatantly falsely in order to contrast. I believe there’s some big word for doing this, but I’m afraid I’ve forgetted what it is. Your eyes, however, are nonetheless keen!
I’m advised that we’ll be recieving training on the new decision, the last time that happened was, o, hmm, KS, wait, what was it again? I’m obviously so confuzzled that I can’t read what a judge says blatantly in their writing.
And while I haven’t had the opportunity to pour over all these various cases quite yet, I have no doubt I will be obliged to in the future. In any event, my basic understanding that there are a lot of factors that go into the determination of relevancy of a cited case (that I don’t have time to look into) will suffice for now in that I’ll probably let it slide if it looks really applicable and nothing earthshattering will occur if I let it go (which would probably never happen in my art anyway, all the stuff we work on is obsolete by the time we work on it) and if it doesn’t look applicable I probably won’t give it weight, and if it’s in between, or they’re really pushing it, then I’ll ask my primary and spe. Gee, that’s soooo hard to tell which way to go on a specific issue.
“The reason you have an MPEP is that amateurs shouldn’t attempt to be lawyers.” LOLOLOLOLOLZ (I had to mooney). That is all I have to say about that since we could easily be here all night but I’m due clubbing soon.
link to bio.org
worth reading
“My advice to any … examiner who really wants to understand case law is to actually read the case itself.”
My advice is that examiners NOT read the case law. If you don’t understand the basics of judicial review, standards of review, statutory interpretation, precedence, weight of authority, and so on, the opinions can be extremely confusing and misleading. This is not intellectual snobbery or elitism – it’s just the way it is. Witness 6k’s conclusion elsewhere that the CAFC had just dramatically revised Section 112 jurisprudence.
Wait until the case law is translated into official guidance, e.g., a revision of the MPEP. It may stink, but it’s far better than having 4000 amateur lawyers in the patent office coming up with their individual interpretations of Judge Newman’s latest opinion.
“My advice to any attorney … who really wants to understand case law is to actually read the case itself.”
An attorney who cites case law without reading it is incompetent.
“Of course judicial enforces and of course the legislative is there to tell us what the law “means”. ”
Sorry, but you’re 0 for 2 there.
Does anyone know what tiny fraction of 1% that inventors now recieve for their patentable marketable inventions wile corperations take the remaining profits for the next 20 years. Why dont they set a minimum 15% inventor share so we can restart human advancement. Also why dont they award a minimun 15% to inventors whose inventions that save energy of reduce costs.
examiner#6k … I did not characterize your statements incorrectly. In fact, I reproduced them word-for-word. Regardless, I see that you are at least attempting to have a reasonable discussion.
The problem I see with many examiners citing case law (as well attorneys who case cite law) is that he/she has never read the case and doesn’t understand the case law in the context of the facts. One cannot divorce the case law from the facts.
Consider the comments found in MPEP § 2144.04, entitled “Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale”
As discussed in MPEP § 2144, if the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar to those in an application under examination, the examiner may use the rationale used by the court. Examples directed to various common practices which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients are discussed below. If the applicant has demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation, it would not be appropriate to rely solely on case law as the rationale to support an obviousness rejection.
The goal (unstated or not) of all case law is to be consistent with itself. However, this isn’t always the situation. In certain instances, some case law may become distinguished or explicitly overruled; however, in other instances, although the case law may not be good anymore, it wasn’t explicitly overruled. In the real legal world (most patent prosecution, unfortunately, doesn’t constitute the real legal world), good practice is to “Shepardize” a case that it is cited in a filing. To Shepardize a case involves looking at any case that cites the original case (i.e., the case to be Shepardized) and look to see whether or not the original case (more particular, the law cited in the case) has been overruled/distinguished/etc.
Another point about case law, if there are two cases saying different things, it may be that these cases are directed to different factors as to patentability. Patentability (particularly with regard to claim construction and obviousness) is not a bright line test. Instead, there is some subjectiveness, which involves the balancing of certain (sometimes offsetting) factors.
My advice to any attorney or examiner who really wants to understand case law is to actually read the case itself. The MPEP is a terrible source for explaining the law. Without understanding the law in the context of the facts to which the law applies, it is very easy for both examiner and attorneys to misapply the law.
“Oh, and fyi, I work in a capacity more akin to a judge than an FBI agent.”
I suppose that this could be good news to all those arch-criminals out there.
Mr. 6k, with your latest musings on the nature of law, you’ve gone from slightly amusing to utterly pathetic. The reason you have an MPEP is that amateurs shouldn’t attempt to be lawyers. For similar reasons, orderlies are not allowed to perform surgery, regardless of how many episodes of “House” they’ve seen.
When you see case law cited in a response, you can assume that either (1) the attorney is wasting his (and your) time; or (2) the attorney is rehearsing his arguments for appeal, at which time you’ll get your tail kicked, if you don’t suddenly withdraw the final office action for unexplained reasons; or (3) both. Ignore the case law and go back to the relevant section of the MPEP. (And, perhaps, try actually reading the references and/or the application.)
Use the play book you’ve been given, no more and no less, and we’ll all be much happier.
“Oh and yeah, everyone should remember, saying 60% (if not 90%) is different than saying 60%, or saying at most 60% or at least 60%.”
Arguing construction of a claimed value and/or range? The broadest reasonable interpretation of “it’ll be correct on the ind. over 60% (if not 90%) of the time” is “greater than 60% of the time”.
JD, I would rather not give the SNs of the case as I would like to maintain some vague semblance of anonymity. As I remember (haven’t looked up the decisions lately; got them a couple years ago) the 1st decision ruled that the appellant had only argued that there was not a prima facie case made by the examiner and did not argue and details of the rejection itself nor did they provide any evidence as to why the rejections were not prima facie or where they had support in the original spec for the claims. The decision did not touch on the merits of the rejections themselves. The second decision, with the same rejections, brief and answer (so there was no difference in what the appellant argued – thus there should not be a different decision about not satisfying the deficiencies cited in the 1st ruling) ruled that the appellant did properly challenge the rejections. (which was completely counter to the 1st ruling). They then provided a rather tortuous line of logic to reverse the 112, 1, rejections. Basically, they picked words from different embodiments and different scattered parts of the spec (some 576 pages) to show that the claimed things were “disclosed” and “enabled”. The ruling and the picking of disparate pieces of the spec was clearly counter to the court ruling (forget the name – begins with “R” – Rastner or such?? It had the lines about the spec needing guide-marks much like a trail thru the woods has marks to guide a person thru the woods.) Go figure. Only thing we came up with is maybe the decisions were written by different judges on the panel.
examiner#6k,
For one, getting 60% right on the independent claims is pretty crappy. You better get around 95+% if you want to ever pass the programs. 60% right is a good way to get on warning for quality (yes, it does happen.)
For 2, there is no problem inciting most SNs anymore. Pretty much all the cases (including ALL the actions and responses) are available online for anyone to see by just going to public PAIR. Check & see if it is available there. If so, go ahead & give the # & we’ll see if you or JD is right & who is blowing smoke.
thanks,
LL
“I just left it as low as 60% just for JD, who we all know gets all the best, most inventive concepts from his clients, and drafts spot on claims the first time around, and who never submits a claim he feels would be more than his client actually contributed.”
I can’t disagree with that. 🙂
“A mind is a terrible thing to lose.” Dan Quayle.
“Stay in school, don’t do drugs.” Mr. T.
A couple of wise men!
pds, once again you characterize my statements incorrectly. Of course judicial enforces and of course the legislative is there to tell us what the law “means”. However, even according to the most BINDING precedent of x y or z case, there’s almost always at least one more to support the other view, even though you might say it’s less binding. In either case, until it says Code of Va, or whatever the federal equiv is (I haven’t been to law school so I’ll brazenly admit I don’t know) it’s in no way shape nor form the law, and you can cite common law all you like, that’s why I said fairly binding in most situations. If my case differs significantly from the case the binding precedent was issued for (which it usually does, or else I wouldn’t have made the rejection “improperly” in the first place) then there is a decent chance that it doesn’t apply as straight-forwardly as you seem to think it does.
There may be a few pieces of arcane lore in the monster we call the MPEP I haven’t been fully briefed on, nor read the full opinion on (a lot of those) but what I can say is that I do not IGNORE it when it is blatantly applicable, however, it rarely is when I have it cited against me. Usually it’s blatantly incorrectly cited against me. I.e. the piecemeal bs when it’s a straight forward 2 reference motivation enabled substitution of one piece commonly known to perform the function of another piece. That’s what we know around here as “a load of crap”. Sometimes I think they arise from a misunderstanding of the rejection, but eh, who knows.
Oh, and fyi, I work in a capacity more akin to a judge than an FBI agent. And I certainly don’t go around telling people to take obscene material off of TV, nor to have safe airplanes. Trust me on this one, the only person who’s role mine is anywhere near is a blend of searcher-factfinder/round one judge. Maybe that’ll help put your views on track.
Oh and yeah, everyone should remember, saying 60% (if not 90%) is different than saying 60%, or saying at most 60% or at least 60%. And frankly, I just left it as low as 60% just for JD, who we all know gets all the best, most inventive concepts from his clients, and drafts spot on claims the first time around, and who never submits a claim he feels would be more than his client actually contributed. As for the everyday rest of you, you’re looking at 90%+.
examiner#6k wrote:
“JD when you get an action from me it’ll be correct on the ind. over 60% (if not 90%) of the time. And then we can argue about the meaning of important words, like “on” and “aligned” for a few actions before you pull up a dep and get an allowance after RCE. It might not be a game, but you guys help make it one ;)”
I would be thrilled if the TC2100 examiners were correct 60% of the time on the independent claim.
examiner#6k writes “Don’t get me wrong, I regard the decisions as fairly binding in most circumstances, but I do NOT regard them as the law, which they certainly are not.”
It is clear as day that you never attended law school, or even a “freshman law class” (btw: in law school, it isn’t “freshman” but “1Ls”).
Notwithstanding your incomplete analysis as to the roles of the Legislative and Executive branches (i.e., the Executive branch is charged with enforcing the law), you completely ignore the role of the Judicial branch. Specifically, “[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is … [t]hose who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule.” Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
Thus, for over two hundred years one of the bedrock principles of U.S. jurisprudence is that the judicial branch (e.g., the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court) gets the tell you, me, and everybody else what the law is.
You might also want to brush up on a concept called “common law.”
link to en.wikipedia.org
In so doing, you may want to look at M.P.E.P. § 804(II)(B), entitled “Nonstatutory Double Patenting.”
link to uspto.gov
Honestly, just about every patent attorney who reads this message board knows the USPTO routinely ignores the law of the land, but it is refreshing to have one of its members so brazenly admit to it. What’s next, the FBI admitting to illegally wiretapping citizens in the US? the EPA admitting to ignoring companies violating anti-pollution laws? Now that would be refreshing as well.
Examiner#6k, in case you haven’t realized it, you are acting in a very similar capacity as someone who works for the FBI, EPA, FDA, FCC, etc. Moreover, just like these government agencies, the USPTO is bound by the rulings of the judicial branch unless otherwise Congress enacts and the President signs a law to the contrary.
It is sad that I have to rehash 5th of 6th-grade civics lesson on the US government to a college graduate who is employed by the US government, but as I rhetorically asked LL earlier in this thread, if you take the patent attorneys out of the loop, who will educate the patent examiners on patent law (or law, in general)?
“Don’t get me wrong, I regard the decisions as fairly binding in most circumstances, but I do NOT regard them as the law, which they certainly are not. In the event your freshman law classes were so long ago they’re getting fuzzy, last I heard was that in this great nation the congress shall draft legislation and then the president signs it into law. That my good fellow is the only place law comes from so far as I know. Judges can rule all they like and it stand until someone comes along to clean up their mess (graham I’m looking at you), but it’ll never be law.”
This (mis)understanding of the import of cases appearing in the MPEP is precisely why I don’t bother citing them.
Another Anon, trust me that attorneys have little desire to draft up 100 pages of argument. (Sure, they’d get to bill for it, but the average attorney’s docket contains very few cases worthy of such billing.) But I need to (a) present the examiner with every argument that I think might get the claims allowed, and (b) build my record for a possible appeal. That said, I still make every effort to keep things as concise as possible.
It also strikes me that if the attorney sees the potential for dozens of pages in an Amendment, the case likely is a great candidate for a telephone interview.
Pretty much what I expected from you.
Who the #$%&@ argues caselaw to an examiner? What a waste of time! If you can’t point to a feature **recited in the claims** that’s missing or you can’t find a common sense reason why something wouldn’t be obvious, citing caselaw is pretty fruitless. Point to the MPEP is there is a blatant failure to follow it, sure. But citing caselaw is a collosal waste of time.
> But if the Examiner knows what doc A teaches and knows what doc B teaches and the Examiner has combined A and B on 103 to reach your claim, you can argue for 100 pages and cite 20 CAFC cases and the response, 99.9% of the time will be – “applicants arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive.”
Do NOT send me 100 pages of arguments. Give me as short and to the point of an argument as you can. The more crap you throw in there, the more it looks like your argument is all crap, and the more the core of your argument is obscured. If you state clearly what your point is, then I won’t miss it, and if I disagree with it, I can spend the time I have addressing it in detail, rather than having to use most of that time responding to 100 pages of mumbo-jumbo.
Short and to the point, PLEASE!
Why yes, yes I do, one second.
It’s 11Everyothercasefiled, Docket number 000Everycasethisfirmfiles
In all seriousness though, who knows, I might throw it out there in a year after (if) it issues.
Don’t get me wrong, I regard the decisions as fairly binding in most circumstances, but I do NOT regard them as the law, which they certainly are not. In the event your freshman law classes were so long ago they’re getting fuzzy, last I heard was that in this great nation the congress shall draft legislation and then the president signs it into law. That my good fellow is the only place law comes from so far as I know. Judges can rule all they like and it stand until someone comes along to clean up their mess (graham I’m looking at you), but it’ll never be law.
One thing though, if this kind of thing happened to me as a client, what would the chances of me going back to that lawyer again? I mean come on, misinterpreting “on”, and at the same time getting schooled by a boy from hicksville, who cited art that I was no doubt already aware of, and who just got his rent paid by me for writing 2 lines of text. (and who apparently rejected me from behind the back after not even having read my specification and typing the first three big words of my ind claim into “I’m feeling lucky” google, according to what I supposedly write here) That’s a kind of blackeye I’d hope my attorney would stop me from getting, how’s that going to look when this thing goes to trial? There will be chuckles.
You’ll excuse me I have a rejection to finish before I get outta here tonight.
You got a serial number to go along with that excerpt?
Oh and btw, he might choose to cite “given their broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification.” >The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., and I might choose to cite these two:
“During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation >in light of the specificationthe plain meaning is inconsistent with< the specification. In re Zletz" and point out how his spec doesn't differentiate that they're not on the bottom of the other parts, nor even specify they're on the top. In fact, his specification is purposely left so wide open as to allow such a thing with only his drawings of "an embodiment of the present invention" to rely on while all his actual words are mirrored almost exactly in the claims with the exact intent to have a "broad" invention while at the same time having a narrow one to fall back on. Standard operating procedure from your side, same here. If he gets pushy, there's always the failsafe: Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular context changes their meaning, are construed to mean exactly what they say.
Here’s an excerpt from the OA recieved from JD (or his attorney associate, whatever):
Part X is clearly defined as being ON (underlined) the other part.
The reference shows Part X clearly underneath, and touching the other part.
My response will be (as soon as it’s moved to my docket):
The term “on” while inclusive of “on top” does not differentiate the claimed invention from the prior art referenced. I might cite the definition of on if I feel like it. No FP for you JD. I rarely use them anyway.
4 months (and 250$ late fee) later I’ll get an RCE and he’ll probably get an allowance.
Good times.
This all started as some discussion about citation to case law in responding to rejections. Everyone who’s been around this business for a while develops their own little theory on how things work and why. What I suggest is that practicioners shouldnt’ have a compact one-size-fits-all approach for prosecuting patents. Different circumstances call for different approaches. I’ve known some attorneys that do as suggested above, they get an app allowed by repeatedly amending the claims (often aimlessly) until the examiner is comfortable that it won’t ever be plastered all over the media after it issues. That might be fine for some cases, but for the ocassional promising application, this screws the applicant. There are rules to make sure that applicant’s are treated fairly. They’re not all in the MPEP. If you don’t know those rules and aren’t willing to rely on them when appropriate, then you’ve got an empty cylinder in your sixshooter. Smart practicioners accumulate nuggets of law (esp. regarding PTO procedure) and sometimes rely on them.
No I don’t recite case law. And if I do it’s usually in a discussion of a particular MPEP section.
If your clients are happy playing the game and paying you hundreds of thousands to pay examiner extortion, that’s their business. I don’t pity them as I’m sure they’ve made an informed decision. I’m quite sure the examiners are happy playing the game with you too.
I’m well aware that many (most?) examiners regard their job as a game of getting counts. Was one myself for a time. I know all the rules, and tricks, of the game. Doesn’t mean I have to play it.
Where I work is about collections and expenses, not “billable hours.” So I don’t have to play that game either.
6k,
With respect to your favorite dictionary, you may want to read a case called Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). And see MPEP 2111.01. Section III in particular.
I realize from your postings on other sites that you don’t regard court decisions to be the law, but maybe you want to double check that with your mentor Malcolm.
If I got an OA from you I would petition the Director to waive that “twice rejected” requirement so I could file my appeal brief immediately. But you’d probably re-open anyway (50% chance, at least), so I guess the game would require me to just file the usual response to see which lame form paragraph responses you’d punch up. Let me guess, you’d use the one about recognizing that hindsight can’t be used blah, blah, blah, and the one about attacking references individually blah, blah, blah. You might feel extra special creative and insert the one about bodily incorporation.
Now that I think about it, I have gotten an OA from you.
A guy who calls himself “veteran Attorney” wrote:
“That’s the problem. Examiners see prosecution as a game of getting counts. It’s not.”
Ahahahhh. Ah Hahahahahah! Ah hahahaha!
You want to know why I make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year prosecuting patents? Because I’m competing against “veterans” like this Yahoo who think that, for the Examiners, it’s not a game of getting counts!!
Ahhahahahahahahah
ahahahahaha
Please stop, Mr. Vet, please!
Ahahhahahah.
And let me guess, you haven’t figured out that law firm practice is about playing the “billable hours” game? Ah
Ah
Ah
ahoeuusntuheeoahaoeuhoaeuheoauheoha. Whoopee!
Wow, I pity your clients.
I tell my clients as often as possible – getting patents is a game, not a legal pursuit. The fact that I have a JD only means that I’m really smart and I play the game well.
But it must sound good to your clients – I’ll give you that.
It must sound good when you start rambling about inventions and diligent prosecution and legal precedent and the new KSR precedent.
You do cite a lot of case law, right?
Bhaahahahah.
It’s wonderful.
At first, when clients hear me say, “The patent system is a joke and a game, and your two choices are to 1) play the game or 2) to pursue the idealogical spam that is promulgated by most PTO higher ups and most Reg Numbers – the first choice gets you patents at the highest rate of speed possible and to a breadth of claim scope with which you are comfortable, the second gets you bigger bills, the slow track, and marginally stronger patents, although fewer of them” react poorly.
Then, after most of the things I tell them will happen happen, they start to appreciate that I’m more than a cynic.
Like Telly Sevales, I’m a player baby!
That’s right – I say it with pride – why sugar coat it?
What it comes down to is simple . . .
You can spout all the legal crap you want, but wise clients will always be more impressed with your ability to tell them what is going to happen (your counsel) than with what has happened (your ability to cite legal precedent).
And remember young mousekateers, even invalid patents that haven’t yet been invalidated have value!!
You consider 60% correct on JUST the independent claims acceptable?
That explains a lot. Seriously.
JD when you get an action from me it’ll be correct on the ind. over 60% (if not 90%) of the time. And then we can argue about the meaning of important words, like “on” and “aligned” for a few actions before you pull up a dep and get an allowance after RCE. It might not be a game, but you guys help make it one 😉
Maybe a dictionary would help many of you out, Dictionary.com is my preferred source since it gives amer. heritage along with its defs.
LL,
Not defending the Board, just taking a guess at the reason for two diametrically opposed decisions on the same issue. 🙂
Feel free to post the serial numbers and I’m sure you’ll get an explanation to your liking. If not from me, from somebody else.
JD
Exam6k# – i had had a long day filing ids’s for cases that average 10 years of pendency (over 75% of my docket – real special) …
“ironic, too much to go over all the way, but in my art I don’t get small fries, I get big boys and less big boys, one time I thought I had a small fry, and it turned out he was actually more of an ass kicking fight for every claim they have loner inventor professor than most attorney’s for the big boys are. He does all his own work, its pretty cool actually, if all inventors were like him patent law wouldn’t even be taught in law school because no lawyers would be hired. He is the very definition of an inventor in my field.”
ahh … a brother in the fight … it is likely your pro se is very much the type of person i am familiar with … pouring over the mpep trying to distill the reasoning of case law … and then crafting a story so that the examiner can hit the real meat of the invention …
which is why i find a lot of banter here quite enlightening, actually … i can understand your situation a WHOLE LOTTA MO
no communication = no compromise
again, thanks for your service …
Mr. Long, funny you should mention that. I currently have two cases before the BPAI, submitted about two months apart. Without going into details, the fundamental issue in each is the same — a question of whether it is permissible to rearrange the combinations disclosed in two references as the examiners have done. It’ll be interesting to see how the two decisions compare, I guess.
JD, actually, the differences had nothing to do with the issues that were under consideration. (Any differences in claims did not effect the enablement or written description and no one ever argued anything differently. SO, same issue). Nice try, though. Didn’t think that you would defend the bored Board 🙂
thanks,
LL
JD, actually, the differences had nothing to do with the issues that were under consideration. (Any differences in claims did not effect the enablement or written description and no one ever argued anything differently. SO, same issue). Nice try, though. Didn’t think that you would defend the bored Board 🙂
thanks,
LL
“Claims were a little different.”
LL, there’s your answer.
“…those two page OA’s that I’m sure you’re all so fond of.”
You are correct. Two pages of nonsense is much easier to deal with than 10. Or more.
Keep it short and simply wrong, instead of long and overly wrong.
Pointing out every mistake in the OA is time consuming.
When I get the OA that starts out, “Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as clearly anticipated by European Patent 1 234 567” I just point out the glaring error and resist the temptation to see just how silly the interpretation of the reference really is. (It’s truly surprising how many of those OA’s I get.)
LL,
I know what you mean. Today is movie quote day. I will respond with movie quotes:
“What kind of topsie turvy world do we live in where @pes …”
“You blew it up, ahhhh darn you, darn you all to heII.”
“If I was half the man I was five years ago, I’d take a flame thrower to this place.”
“That’s the problem. Examiners see prosecution as a game of getting counts. It’s not.”
Yeah you’re right, it’s not, until I get some experience, then it is. I took it very seriously the first day I was here, and then I realized what the hell was going on and now I take it a little easier. By the time I’m a primary (if I did that) I’d be sending out those two page OA’s that I’m sure you’re all so fond of.
Did anyone notice that the patent reform act 2007 takes away inventor rights to a new patent in the event it is later determined that an inventorship error was made.This act gives big business a blank check for inventor civil rights violation.
GideonPope is an optimist when he is citing the (un)likelihood that of getting agreement in Board decisions.
True case: we once has 2 related cases go up to the Board a couple months apart. Same inventor, spec, etc. Claims were a little different. But the same basic issues in both cases. Specifically, 112, 1, written description and enablement rejections based on the same claimed limitations. The rejections and applicant responses in the files (including briefs, etc.) were all identical in all substantive ways. Same panel of judges in both cases.
Should get the same decision in both cases, right? WRONG!
In the 1st case we were affirmed on the rejections. In the 2nd case we were reversed! How the same panel of judges can rule in completely opposite directions on the same issues, with the same arguments by the applicant and examiner, is completely beyond understanding.
However, this is a good reason why going to the Board is often a shot in the dark for applicants. It is also part of the reason that some examiners & SPEs don’t like to go to appeal. As well as part of the reason for the affirmance rate is what it is.
thanks,
LL
Has the concept of patent invalidating due to inventorship disputes helped make fighting for intellectual material rights useless? Should we eliminate this option to Help find correct inventorship.Has backdating helped to work in combination to deny our greatest inventors credit and compensation?
>
Here’s a newsflash for you – – LIFE is a game – – if you can’t play, then take your chips and go home.
“Lower, I think an attorney does his client a disservice by knowingly submitting anticipated/obvious claims which will be heavily amended in prosecution… The inventor is paying for our legal/technical expertise. We’re not mere scribes, and I feel it short-changes that client when we pretend to be…”
This is what happens when I only read Patently-O once a day. I respectfully disagree that the inventor is paying for my technical expertise. It is clear when I speak to them that they know way more about their field than I do.
I should probably give a little background and acknowledge that I work in a crowded field of art where, for example, some compounds are known for use for solving problem A. I’m thinking of cases where the inventor discovers some compounds that can be used to solve problem B, but some of them overlap with the known ones for solving problem A. Kaboom, I think (and the Examiner usually thinks) the claim is obvious, but the inventor still wants to claim the compounds broadly. That’s what I meant.
I agree, I don’t think it’s the way I would run a practice, but at this point, I’m the associate, not the partner.
As for time estimates, I think it depends heavily on whether you’re picking up the file for the first time or whether you wrote the application and are now prosecuting it. I am fortunate in that some clients mainly look at the overall bill per patent. So any additional time learning the case (say, 8 hours for the 1st response) is made up for on the (usually) 3rd or 4th responses that only take 2 hours to complete.
“…and he’s someone who knows how to play the game.”
That’s the problem. Examiners see prosecution as a game of getting counts. It’s not.
I find that when practitioners and clients acting together favor expediency over quality then garbage is the result. And garbage practice is a race to the bottom and leads to things like calls for reform. When a good attorney actually spends the proper amount of time carefully analyzing and properly responding to rejections with the full array of options, such as argumentation, amendment, appeal, petition (as mentioned above), then good things CAN happen, examiners CAN be persuaded, dogs and cats CAN live together, and strong patents CAN issue.
In my opinion, as any good coach or other leader would probably agree with, when or if there is a suspicion that things are all FUBAR (to quote #6K), you get back to the basics. Clean house at the PTO and get some new and competent upper management in position. Raise the training bar. Step up the basics in Patent Academy with competency tests and other consequential actions. Make it harder to get a registration number. At least get Whealan a haircut. If the PTO looks deep inside itself and within its orbit, I’m sure there are plenty of good people prepared to step up and teach the true and proper way in which things should be done.
Stop trying to fiddle with the system, especially those political hacks and those “under the influence,” e.g. on the dole. Morale and quality become low when good people are put in a position to do a mediocre job as a result of poor leadership. People always need to be driven to do their best and have a high goal to aspire to. High aim is a universal motivator – as the old Scottish proverb goes, “set a stout heart to a steep hillside.”
Incidentally, sorry erez gur, your reasoning is flawed. Something easy and predictable isn’t better. Actually the reverse is true. I’d say if something was easy and predictable I, personally, wouldn’t really think it was worth much…
Come to think of it I’ve never seen Dennis and MM in public at the same time…
The article “worth reading” mentioned (Jan 30, 2008 at 03:07 AM) is excellent (and short).
The writer (Gernot Pehnelt) notes that the USPTO system is basically sound, but does not discuss the problems which do exist. In my opinion and as many have proposed, the simplest way to solve these problems is give the Examiners more training, tools and time to perform better searches.
I disagree with Mr. Pehnelt about the reasons for fewer filings with the EPO.
In the past, an EP patent was much more expensive than a US patent. In the coming years, EP patents will be cheaper while over the years US patents have become more expensive (silly rejections, endless RCEs, interviews). Additionally, patentability in the EP is much more predictable than in the US.
If the US increasingly makes the patenting process more expensive, less predictable, less likely of success and devaluates the value of issued patents the EPO will ultimately become the preferred office to file at the expense of American jobs.
Gideon’s speakin it how it is yo, he seems to be the only one that really “gets it” amongst you attorney’s posting here.
“You may
1. – Play the game at the PTO the way it’s meant to be played, or
2. – Set up for and file an appeal.
In Re Vaeck is never going to compel an allowance from a junior Examiner.”
” Why? Because there is no “law” of obviousness.
The SC decisions say, “get the art, skill of artisan, differences, blah blah blah”, but, after you read through that crap, which is supposed to make you feel as though guidance has actually been provided, the conclusion is, “and then determine whether it’s obvious.”
!!!!
In other words, it’s obvious because the Examiner/Board/Fed Circuit says it is!”
PREACH IT BROTHER MAN! GLORY TO JESUS! AMEN!
I’m not entirely convinced about the DC=MM though, that’s still just a theory, I beat him to the first on the last post today.
“And if you’re interested in optimal coverage, you don’t amend the claims to overcome an improper rejection.”
Optimal coverage?
Are you including patent term and immediacy in that?
You can easily burn 1-4 years going after an Appeal or continued prosecution that may fail. The overturn rate at the Board is what? 50%
So you’re going to tell your client to hold out years for “optimal coverage” and there’s no guarantee that you get it?
I don’t know how you define “optimal”, but often in business less than optimal right now is worth a lot more than maybe optimal in maybe 1-4 years.
And my experience is that RCEs don’t usually result in allowances if all you do in the RCE is argue the same crap again.
What that results in is an easy count for the Examiner.
Dear GideonPope,
Re “Silly Gideon.”
Yup, you got that right.
* * * * *
The objective of prosecution is not to persuade the examiner. The objective is to get the best coverage that the applicant is entitled to, less whatever coverage applicant choses to forego despite being entitled to it. If an examiner’s rejection is legal rot, and it’s an important application, I feel sorry for the applicant whose attorney can’t overcome. So you get an RCE… so what. You appeal, you file an RCE, have an interview. Maybe you have some basis for a petition. It’s a special form of legal practice, prosecution, but no less deserving of smart and effective ADVOCACY.
It’s a simple game. Assuming you’re entitled, the broader claim coverage you want, the longer prosecution takes. And if you’re interested in optimal coverage, you don’t amend the claims to overcome an improper rejection.
99.9% is just wrong.
If the Examiner is “violating some case law”!!!
Oh that is rich indeed. Like the case law is some Southern Belle virgin, and the Examiner is giving her the old 102 and 103. “You like that? Have some 112 with it!”
It’s not that tough, but you can make it tougher if you want to.
Most rejections don’t involve esoteric issues of law. I can quote the 20 golden rules for you verbatim . . .
Inherency must be established by the Examiner . . . must occur invariably . . . reasonable expectation of success . . . not obvious to try . . .
So what? Why spend hours running down useless case law and pin point cites when it won’t change what the Examiner is going to do?
That’s pissing in the wind. I learned that about 3 years into the practice.
In the end, you really have 2 options at any point in prosecution.
You may
1. – Play the game at the PTO the way it’s meant to be played, or
2. – Set up for and file an appeal.
But why mix the two?
In Re Vaeck is never going to compel an allowance from a junior Examiner.
Oh yeah, I also remind the panel that 80% or more of rejections are typically 103 by the time you whittle down the issues.
And what does Gideon say the law of obviousness is?
It’s nothing!! That’s the beauty of it!
You can take 100 BPAI members, put them in 100 different rooms, have them review 100 103 rejections, and you won’t get 10 members who agree on more than 70 of the rejections.
Why? Because there is no “law” of obviousness.
The SC decisions say, “get the art, skill of artisan, differences, blah blah blah”, but, after you read through that crap, which is supposed to make you feel as though guidance has actually been provided, the conclusion is, “and then determine whether it’s obvious.”
!!!!
In other words, it’s obvious because the Examiner/Board/Fed Circuit says it is!
So when it gets down to the 103s, there is no “you’re giving away client rights.”
Finally, to the numb nuts attorney who suggested such a give away, if you’re doing your dammm job right it’s never you doing anything.
CLient – so what now?
Gideon – well, we can do A, B, or C. If we do A, then, if B, then . . .
Client – do C.
Get it? I don’t decide anything, I just advise. And it’s ridiculously easy to tell a client –
“The Examiner is legally wrong, and we’d have a good shot on Appeal. Our other option is to make an amendment and give up claim scope, which might result in allowance – the claim material we give up could be pursued in a continuation (unless the PTO gets its way)”
What do you do? Narrow the claims and file the Reply without telling the client?
To 1 year associate:
you wrote
“Gideon – that is not Dennis replying to you, it is a poster called “Malcom Mooney” Unless Dennis = Malcom Mooney???? That would send shockwaves through this blog :)”
Wow, the irony of a guy named “Mr. Obvious” posting this.
Of course MM is DC. I’ve mentioned this before.
How many times has MM been the 1st poster on a new topic and that first post is a trolling?
Duh!
You don’t think I make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year advising clients because I miss obvious crap like that, do you?
“My 2 cents – I’ve only been practicing for a year, but unless it’s a really shoddy OA, I can’t respond in less than 6 hours. 8 to 12 is typical if it’s a “good” OA.”
You’ll figure this out as you get older – the shorter an OA, the better it tends to be.
“If the Examiner clearly spent a lot of time and effort on the OA, I will do the same on the response, even if it means getting my time written off (which it generally does).”
You’ll figure this out to. You’re wasting your time.
No Examiner is going to allow claims because you put in the extra effort on the “quality” of the reply.
Examiners allow claims because . . .
The claims are patentable.
and/or
He needs a count.
I guess back when i was 1 year in I was the same way.
I actually thought that they gave patents out for inventions!!!
Silly Gideon.
>
Fine – – then be prepared to file an RCE to get your amendment in AFTER final rejection, because as GP already pointed out “99.9% of the time [the Examiner’s response will be]’applicants arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive'”.
“Ditto what GP said. Unless you have a good reason for citing a case, then leave it out. An attorney arguing case law tells the Examiner that he (the Attorney) has no other argument to overcome the art.”
This advice is vacuously true and useless. It’s like saying “don’t do wrong, unless you have good reason to”…
Some similar advice has been floating around for a long time (maybe PRI or some review course teaches this): cite the MPEP rather than equivalent case law, when possible. This seems to make sense.
But, if by your comment you mean don’t argue case law when you can argue technology, that’s bad advice. If an examiner is violating some case law to an applicant’s detriment, then the prosecutor must consider the option of making case-based legal arguments, and choose to do so when the battle is worth it. Sure, you may go to the BAPI, but if you’ve done your homework, you probably win. It’s all about knowing the applicant’s legal rights, and chosing whether or how to effectively protect them.
If you narrow a client’s patent (whether by argument or by claim amendment) to overcome a rejection that was legally improper, then you’re giving away patent rights. Sure, sometimes an applicant may want to just take the path of least resistance and amend claims to overcome the rejection, but don’t do so because of some perception that arguing case law is ineffective.
I’ve seen many legal aruments help get solid patents allowed, sometimes based on MPEP, sometimes on case law… even saw a constitutional Due Process argument win in the PTO (an inter partes re-exam, issue related to consolidating re-exam patents).
GP said: “But if the Examiner knows what doc A teaches and knows what doc B teaches and the Examiner has combined A and B on 103 to reach your claim, you can argue for 100 pages and cite 20 CAFC cases and the response, 99.9% of the time will be – ‘applicants arguments have been considered but are unpersuasive.'”
VA said: This is where your response is simplified, because it’s a pretty safe bet that the examiner has not read 1) the app, 2) A, or 3) B.
I say: as an Examiner, I can say that GP knows what he’s talking about and he’s someone who knows how to play the game.
About OA response times:
I can say that the shorter your response, the more well-received it will be by the Examiner. I’ve received some responses that literally look like a Supreme Court brief (at least in terms of length), except for the fact that they were replete with misspellings and improper English. Even if your application has 50 claims (2 independent, 48 dependent), most attorneys will focus their time on the rejections of the independent claims – – if you overcome those rejections, you overcome them all. Thus, GP’s estimates for response times do not seem that unreasonable, unless you (the Attorney) is unfamiliar with the art that you’re working with.
About case citations:
Ditto what GP said. Unless you have a good reason for citing a case, then leave it out. An attorney arguing case law tells the Examiner that he (the Attorney) has no other argument to overcome the art. What exactly are you expecting – – the Examiner to spit back a law review article? – – the arguments should be about the technology, not the law. Unless the situation clearly calls for it, save your legal arguments for the Board or the FedCir. That goes for all those attorneys out there who continue to cite In re Dembiczak even after KSR – – nice try – – very persuasive – – NOT!! You’d be much better off amending the claims, and then pointing out how the rejections cannot be maintained in view of the amendments.
I was not aware Denise went by MM. That would explain a thing or two though.
Gideon – that is not Dennis replying to you, it is a poster called “Malcom Mooney”
Unless Dennis = Malcom Mooney???? That would send shockwaves through this blog 🙂
My 2 cents – I’ve only been practicing for a year, but unless it’s a really shoddy OA, I can’t respond in less than 6 hours. 8 to 12 is typical if it’s a “good” OA. If the Examiner clearly spent a lot of time and effort on the OA, I will do the same on the response, even if it means getting my time written off (which it generally does).
Dennis Wrote:”How much did it cost you to have the doorways in your house modified to accomodate your head?”
Come on Dennis, you’re better than that!
Of course I designed my own house, which I built myself, so there was no need to “modify” them at all – I just had them built big in the 1st place!
Duh!
When will secret patent sales and prices be required to be made public. public notice of intention to file allerts inventors of illegal restricting of their valuable rights.
Pitchford wrote- “I can write a claim to a ballast control circuit that accomplishes a new control function. However, if that ballast control circuit includes a microprocessor executing instructions, what is its status now? Hardware and software are only completely separate in your minds, not in the real world of electronics.”
Quite to the contrary, my mind is clear- hardware and software are integrally linked. However, a “ballast control circuit” is a piece of hardware- since it includes a combination of elements- comparators, power inputs, diodes, etc. it’s either an article of manufacture or if you like, a machine under section 101 (or 52 EPC if you prefer). Its control function provides for its utility/industrial applicability.
Software is another story altogether, for without hardware to run it, software is simply a set of written instructions that no one would bother reading, or writing for that matter. That was my point that you seem to have missed- not all electrical hardware needs software to be operable, however, ALL software requires hardware to have any value.
Same story for stepback (who appears to be the only one ranting and engaging in name-calling in the hardware/software discussion). The cash register circuit and the reprogrammable ROM chip- under the EPC both of these devices (hardware) would constitute patentable subject matter under EPC Article 52. The unpatentable (in the EPC) subject matter would be any software that flashed upgrades, etc. to the hardware
“But seriously, I have worked in dozens of arts. It’s all mostly the same.”
How much did it cost you to have the doorways in your house modified to accomodate your head?
I wrote: “So figure 1.5 hours to read the art and the action and formulate a response.”
Dennis wrote: “LOL. What is the technology? Folding chairs?”
That was clever – made me giggle.
But seriously, I have worked in dozens of arts. It’s all mostly the same. Biotech and pharma as the easiest, in terms of art, but require the most time to draft a reply.
Mechanical arts tend to be the hardest art to review, but very easy reply.
Chem, chem e, somewhere in between.
90% of the Office Actions I get have 1-3 U.S. patents cited as the core art.
Rejections are like . . .
Claims 1-x rejected over A. 102
Claims 1-x rejected over A or B, 103
Claims 13, 17, 20 rejected over A or B, further in view of [Q]. 103
So read A and B closely, review Q, which is cited only to pull in a dependent claims limitation.
How long does that take you?
If you’re an old guy who is slow reader and a slow typist then I can understand why drafting replies is so grueling.
But Dennis, you’re not that old.
How long does it take you to read?