Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Obviousness reversed because Examiner merely asserted that combination provided a benefit, without explaining how (Ex parte UTC)


Takeaway: The BPAI reversed an obviousness rejection because the Examiner did not explain how a combination provided an alleged benefit.  The Examiner merely asserted that modifying the reference would produce a benefit. The Board held that the Examiner had failed to make a prima facie case.


Details:
Ex parte United Technologies Corporation
Appeal 2009006732, Appl. No. 10/899,886, Tech. Center 3700
Decided November 18, 2009


The claim at issue was to a process for machining blade slots in a turbine.  The limitation at issue was  forming a rectangular slot having multiple rectangular areas. Those areas had walls that formed a perpendicular angle with a surface.  For purposes of the obviousness discussion, the general idea is more important than the specific claim language, so here's an illustration of the claimed slot and walls:


The Examiner rejected under § 103, using a primary reference that taught multiple areas. However, the Examiner admittedly the walls in the reference did not include an angle perpendicular to the surface:

The Examiner then asserted that :
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the first and second surfaces of Yazdzik et al. perpendicular to the first and third [walls], and second and fourth walls because such a configuration would have been far easier to machine than the angled first and second surfaces of Yazdzik et al.
The Board held that such a mere assertion does not amount to a prima facie case for obviousness.
The Examiner, however, does not explain why making the noted surfaces perpendicular would be “far easier” or point to any factual support for that determination. The initial burden is on the Examiner to provide a factual basis to support an obviousness conclusion. In re Warner, 379 F.2d at 1017. No such basis has been provided. Moreover, even if making the surfaces perpendicular is in fact easier, the Examiner has not articulated why that knowledge would have been known to one with ordinary skill in the art.
My two cents: When an Examiner asserts that the combination provides a particular benefit, think hard about whether that makes sense.  And if not, argue on the basis that the Examiner has not provided an explanation of how the alleged benefit flows from the combination. You might also question whether the feature that the Examiner asserts to be a benefit really is beneficial. Finally, even assuming the combination does result in the alleged behavior and the alleged behavior really is a benefit, consider whether a POSITA would realize it was a benefit. 

As a side note, the Applicant didn't rely solely on the motivation-to-combine argument. The Applicant also argued that the reference did not teach, and won on this point. And this was a relatively rare instance where the argument really was about what the reference taught.  (The vast majority of arguments are really about how broadly to read the claims.)

The claimed process for forming a slot included two steps, using two different grinding wheels. The Examiner alleged that the slot shown in the reference (the second graphic above) was formed by two different wheels. The Applicant successfully argued, by pointing to specific portions of the reference, that the reference did not teach that the slot was formed using the second wheel. The reference taught instead that the second wheel was used for finishing the slot already formed.

22 comments:

  1. Just more garbage "examination" from the PTO. Should applicants really have to appeal to get such clearly improper rejections reversed?

    The PTO needs to send the APJ's out a tour of the TC's and so they can hold up cases like this and tell the examiners, and in particular the do-nothing "quality assurance" types, "Stop sending this garbage up to us!"

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The reference taught instead that the second wheel was used for finishing the slot already formed. "

    Um, finishing the slot using the second wheel is forming the slot usng the second wheel.

    Sometimes these kinds of arguments are simply too ridiculous to believe.

    Either way, it should be a simple matter to find a proper grind wheel reference showing a proper wheel and explain that whole obviousness rejection.

    Good job wasting the client's money.

    ReplyDelete
  3. >>"The reference taught instead that the
    >>second wheel was used for finishing the
    >>slot already formed. "

    >Um, finishing the slot using the second wheel
    >is forming the slot usng the second wheel.

    The Board thought there was a difference between forming and finishing. The Board said the reference taught "it is only **after** the roughened **slot has been formed** that an additional semi-finish grinding wheel is then inserted into that slot."

    I haven't spent a lot of time thinking through this, and turbine blades aren't my specialty, but I agree with the Board.

    On what basis do you summarily conclude "finishing = forming"?

    ReplyDelete
  4. >Good job wasting the client's money.

    It's not clear who you think was wasting the client's money. The Examiner who didn't find a good reference? Or the attorney who made the ridiculous argument?

    Except the way I see it attorney didn't waste the client's money, since the rejection was reversed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "The Examiner who didn't find a good reference? Or the attorney who made the ridiculous argument?"

    Both?

    Although, tbh, that reference is probably just fine. He probably just needed another ref (flat grindstone) to back up his "rationale" or to make a 2 ref 103 with.

    Either way, the attorney in this case should have been able to resolve this without an appeal.

    This nonsense is why there is a backlog at the board. The board should be for when there is a genuine breakdown/disagreement between the examiner and the attorney, not for something as easily remedied as this. All the attorney would have to say is "well, I don't think you've shown how we get to flat surfaces in your rejection, you'd at least need to show a flat grindstone and tell us why it would be used, that is, why it is easier" which is all the board said. After having said that, I kind of doubt that a spe would maintain the rejection without making that other showing. At least mine probably wouldn't.

    Getting a reversal after a couple of years and 10k$+ is a lot worse than getting the rejection "reversed" after 10 minutes on the phone. If you were a good lawyer you'd work on your 10 minute skills rather than your appeal writing skills.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "All the attorney would have to say is 'well, I don't think you've shown how we get to flat surfaces in your rejection, you'd at least need to show a flat grindstone and tell us why it would be used, that is, why it is easier' which is all the board said."

    Why can't the SPE and the other "quality assurance" type in the pre-appeal and appeal conferences look at the rejection and say, "Well, you don't provide any factual basis or even any explanation why forming the perpendicular surfaces would be far easier", which is all the Board said.

    "After having said that, I kind of doubt that a spe would maintain the rejection without making that other showing. At least mine probably wouldn't."

    Probably wouldn't? LOL If the average SPE could look at a rejection and note the gaping wholes where evidence and/or explanations should be, we wouldn't need the appeal process. But we do need it. We need it bad. What do you think this SPE and/or "quality assurance" type is going to do with the next appeal that points out the complete lack of factual support for the examiner's conclusions? Think it's gonna get sent up? Huh? Whaddayathink? Yeah, you're right. It's gonna get sent up.

    "This nonsense is why there is a backlog at the board."

    I agree completely.

    ReplyDelete
  7. >[save appeals for genuine breakdown / >disagreement between the examiner and
    >the attorney

    But the record shows that there *was* a disagreement!

    The Appeal Brief laid out two such areas of disagreement: A) ref did not teach two areas of slot made with two diffferent wheels; B) no motivation to change angled walls to perpendicular.

    In the Answer, the Examiner stuck with his original position.

    You don't see this as a "genuine disagreement"?

    >[appeals are] not for something as easily
    >remedied as this.

    I explain below why I don't like the remedy you have in mind.

    I think this case was a *perfect* one for appeal, because it appears that both sides understood each other -- they just disagreed.

    In contrast, a great number of the Board decisions I read are clearly the result of a fundamental misunderstanding between Examiner and Applicant. Almost always about claim construction.

    What I see is that the Examiner is interpreting the claim in a way that's broad enough to read on the reference. But he doesn't actually say that he just says "widget is taught in para. XX." Then the Applicant doesn't actually say, "No, you're interpreting too broadly, here's why". The Applicant merely says "widget is not taught".

    After 2+ years the Board actually goes through the process of claim construction. And that construction is usually dispositive.

    It took 2+ years for the Applicant to actually figure out how the claim was being interpreted.

    THAT is why there is backlog at the Board.

    >All the attorney would have to say is "well,
    >I don't think you've shown how we get to
    >flat surfaces in your rejection, you'd at
    >least need to show a flat grindstone and
    >tell us why it would be used, that is, why
    >it is easier"

    OK, if examination was a purely cooperative process and my only goal was to get *some* issued claims, then maybe your idea makes sense.

    But the way I see it, you want me to do the Examiner's job for him. Not only point out the deficiencies in the rejection (which I already do), but to actually tell him how to shore up those deficiencies.

    I don't see that as representing my client's interests.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Getting a reversal after a couple of years and 10k$+ is a lot worse than getting the rejection 'reversed' after 10 minutes on the phone. If you were a good lawyer you'd work on your 10 minute skills rather than your appeal writing skills."

    So calling the examiner on the phone and telling him/her, "You conclude that it would have been obvious to modify the angled walls of the prior art to be perpendicular walls because it would be far easier to machine, but you don't provide any factual support or explanation for that conclusion" is more persuasive than writing down on a piece of paper, "The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the angled walls of the prior art to be perpendicular walls because it would be far easier to machine, but does not provide any factual support or explanation for that conclusion" and filing that piece of paper?

    What color is the sky in your world?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Why can't the SPE and the other "quality assurance" type in the pre-appeal and appeal conferences look at the rejection and say, "Well, you don't provide any factual basis or even any explanation why forming the perpendicular surfaces would be far easier", which is all the Board said."

    They can and do on occasion. Don't expect them to do your job in every single case.

    "LOL If the average SPE could look at a rejection and note the gaping wholes where evidence and/or explanations should be, we wouldn't need the appeal process. "

    So then, if they did your job for you every time then you wouldn't need the appeal process? Hmmmm. Great point.

    "What do you think this SPE and/or "quality assurance" type is going to do with the next appeal that points out the complete lack of factual support for the examiner's conclusions? Think it's gonna get sent up? Huh? Whaddayathink? Yeah, you're right. It's gonna get sent up."

    "pointing out a "complete lack of factual support" for the examiner's conclusions in the same manner as was done here deserves it. If you can't be bothered to put your argument in plain english and find a way to make the other side understand then you deserve your fate. Every, single, 10k$ costing time.

    "But the record shows that there *was* a disagreement!"

    Calling that a disagreement is irresponsible at best and an outright lie at worst. Call it what it is, the examiner missing some things and the attorney failing to convince the examiner of why his position makes sense.

    A genuine disagreement involves a situation where both are fully informed and fully comprehend what is going on. Clearly not the case here.

    "The Appeal Brief laid out two such areas of disagreement: A) ref did not teach two areas of slot made with two diffferent wheels; B) no motivation to change angled walls to perpendicular.

    In the Answer, the Examiner stuck with his original position.

    You don't see this as a "genuine disagreement"?"

    No. A someone interested in having a "genuine disagreement" would take the extra 5 minutes to find out why the one side is believing the one thing and why the other is believeing the other. The examiner saying "I stick by saying that's what it shows" is not why he believes that it shows this or that. And the attorney has failed to find out why. Likewise, the examiner appears to not have found out why the applicant believed as the applicant did, or to find out why it was truly relevant.

    "In contrast, a great number of the Board decisions I read are clearly the result of a fundamental misunderstanding between Examiner and Applicant. Almost always about claim construction. "

    I agree.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "But he doesn't actually say that he just says "widget is taught in para. XX.""

    Right, which is a great example of what it is the attorney's job to get him to expound upon. That would take all of 1 minute I'm guessing. Maybe 2. But like you say, it is all too common to see instead the nonsense you put down:

    "Then the Applicant doesn't actually say, "No, you're interpreting too broadly, here's why". The Applicant merely says "widget is not taught"."

    I agree. In their defense it can be hard to spot this if your eye is untrained. Then again, they are the attorney, their eye should be trained.

    "THAT is why there is backlog at the Board."

    Well that is additionally nonsense like this case, but yes, that is a major contributing factor as well.

    "OK, if examination was a purely cooperative process and my only goal was to get *some* issued claims, then maybe your idea makes sense."

    If examination was a purely cooperative process? IF? There is no reason it cannot be, every single time. The good attorneys that practice before me know this. Only the lesser peons have not discovered this truth. Perhaps they need an attorney buddha to show them the way.

    "But the way I see it, you want me to do the Examiner's job for him."

    Perhaps it involves a bit of that. Or at least what you'd like to call their job. I won't lie to you. I do a bit of the "attorney's job" every week to make the whole thing run smoother and I'm not btching. Either you're a professional or you're not. You either see your job as doing the small things, rejections or responses, or you see your job as doing the large things, processing an application smoothly. The best examiners and attorneys know their job is the later, the worst of each think their job is the former. Generally speaking anyway.

    "Not only point out the deficiencies in the rejection (which I already do), but to actually tell him how to shore up those deficiencies."

    If he can then do you think your opponent in litigation will?

    Oh, I forgot, you're in the softwarelol arts where validity doesn't really count for much/anything. Never mind. When you join us over in the useful arts, maybe even in an art where the client is interested in what they can have a legitimate legal claim to rather than some shinanigans, then perhaps a mentor will teach you how to prosecute patents properly. In the mean time, you can at least be aware of the proper way.

    Besides, there are more than one way to skin the cat of persuading the examiner, I just put one down. If you can't despicably figure one out that conceals what you want to conceal but says enough to convince then that is your problem. You can always pay 10k$ and wait a few years. Your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "is more persuasive than writing down on a piece of paper, "The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the angled walls of the prior art to be perpendicular walls because it would be far easier to machine, but does not provide any factual support or explanation for that conclusion" and filing that piece of paper?

    What color is the sky in your world? "

    Yes, because you can expound upon what you are saying if the other person doesn't immediately jump to the conclusion that hey, YOU"RE RIGHT I"M WRONG!!!!! There is an art called persuasion. And you can't perform it on paper as well as you can irl if you're any good at it. If you blow at it, then sure, paper is probably just as good a medium.

    The color of the sky right now is black.

    You know, I should write a book on prosecution for examiners and attorneys.

    It would spell out that there are major factors to every argument.

    Relevance.
    Correctness of findings (both factual and legal).
    Presentation.
    and some more things that I'm too lazy to write down right now.

    The short of it is that a failure at any of those stages can render your argument unpersuasive, and if you don't know why it was unpersuasive, then the answer is to root out which of the factors caused it to be so. Additionally, this is helpful to examiners, because they can point out that they believe an argument is irrelevant, is based on factually incorrect information, etc. and be persuasive to the attorney that he failed in his argument.

    ReplyDelete
  12. >someone interested in having a "genuine
    >disagreement" would take the extra 5 minutes
    >to find out why the one side is believing the
    >one thing and why the other is believeing the
    >other.

    Sounds like you and I use "disagreement" a bit differently. OTOH, I think our viewpoints converge.

    I still call what happened in the UTC case a disagreement: parties disagree about the positions on the record.

    I say our positions converge because I do think that if each side had tried harder to find out why the other side held that position, then the case could have moved forward without appeal.

    I try really hard to divine what the Examiner could possibly be thinking with his claim construction such that the claim reads on the ref -- and to then amend or argue as appropriate. If I argue, I put in the record what I think the Examiner was saying, in hopes of pinning him down to what his position really is.

    Yet my approach isn't always successful. [I suspect some commenters here will see that as evidence that I suck at my job. Certainly some have said as much. ]

    ReplyDelete
  13. >I should write a book on prosecution for
    >examiners and attorneys.

    I'd read it.

    >major factors to every argument [are]
    >
    >Relevance.
    >Correctness of findings (both factual and legal).
    >Presentation.

    A good summary.

    >failure at any of those stages can render
    >your argument unpersuasive,

    Agreed.

    >and if you don't know why it was unpersuasive,
    >then the answer is to root out which of the
    >factors caused it to be so.

    Good strategy.

    >this is helpful to examiners, because they can
    >point out that they believe an argument
    >is irrelevant, is based on factually
    >incorrect information, etc.

    Agreed. That's why I do what you suggest. Sometimes Examiners respond as you suggest. Other times I get nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  14. >the attorney's job to get him to expound
    >upon [how claim is interpreted to read
    >widget] is taught in para. XX.""
    >
    >>[Instead] the Applicant merely says "widget
    >>is not taught"."
    >I agree. In their defense it can be hard to >spot this if your eye is untrained. Then
    >again, they are the attorney, their eye
    >should be trained.

    As I've made clear in my other comments, I agree that to move prosecution forward, attorneys should do as you suggest.

    But by saying "it's the attorney's job" and "the attorney is the one who is trained" you're placing a lot of burden on the attorney and not enough on the Examiner.

    As you know, attorneys have legitimate reasons which point toward *not* putting arguments on the record. I don't see any adverse consequences to an Examiner clearly explaining his position.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Alright, after writing that I decided to go ahead and read hypothetical briefs. Je sus. That is a big ol' sht storm of incompetence on both sides if I ever saw one.

    There is no "disagreement" in there. There is incompetent arguing, most of it entirely irrelevant, from both sides.

    Did you even read the briefs?

    At the least, the examiner did recognize that some of that stuff was irrelevant. But even he falls prey to the babbling of the attorney and starts babbling about irrelevant nonsense himself. He gets so caught up in the babbling that when it comes time to address the actual argument, he addresses it not as an independent argument, but as a subportion of the nonsense hindsight argument. In other words, he probably approached it as a subset of nonsense.

    When the examiner did finally answer the argument, his rational was lolable. Where is the attorney's response to point out how lolable that rational is? It isn't even connected to the claim save perhaps tangentally.

    What I see in this appeal is the attorney leading off with an irrelevant argument trying, apparently, to divert attention from his real argument. Then he follows his real argument up closely by boilerplate nonsense that has nothing to do with anything, specifically, he's babbling about hindsight.

    In short, the attorney went out of his way to poorly present the argument, and indeed, fill it with nonsense to cloud the only real argument there. There is no disagreement here, there is the attorney stewing nonsense and the examiner being blinded by the nonsense and finally providing lolable rationales which go unanswered.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "But by saying "it's the attorney's job" and "the attorney is the one who is trained" you're placing a lot of burden on the attorney and not enough on the Examiner. "

    Well, personally, in my own cases I try to do it too. It is both side's responsibility while the ball is in their court.

    "Other times I get nothing. "

    How can you "get nothing"? Do you not have a phone? Do you not have the number? This is your job, not your dating life. Make it happen.

    "As you know, attorneys have legitimate reasons which point toward *not* putting arguments on the record. I don't see any adverse consequences to an Examiner clearly explaining his position. "

    Yes, I know of them, and I consider most of them rubbish of consequence solely to people who have no balls and/or no brain.

    I've got to get on to bed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Yes, because you can expound upon what you are saying if the other person doesn't immediately jump to the conclusion that hey, YOU"RE RIGHT I"M WRONG!!!!! There is an art called persuasion. And you can't perform it on paper as well as you can irl if you're any good at it."

    LOL

    I can't count how many interviews I've conducted with examiners in which I point to a statement or conclusion in their OA that has zero support or explanation (e.g. a cite to a column/line of the reference(s)) and ask them to explain where it is supported in the reference and get nothing but a blank stare and complete silence.

    "When the examiner did finally answer the argument, his rational was lolable."

    So getting a lolable rationale from the examiner over the phone would have been better?

    LOL

    "There is no disagreement here, there is the attorney stewing nonsense and the examiner being blinded by the nonsense and finally providing lolable rationales which go unanswered."

    Lolable rationales from examiners have to be answered. Usually the answer is, "The examiner does not provide any factual support or explanation for the conclusion."

    Yes, I did read the file history. And the attorney provided that answer about 3 times.

    This is a clear case of an examiner simply not wanting to allow a case because he/she "feels" that it's not "significant enough" to be patented, or because he/she is too scared of the QR boogey man to allow it. Plain and simple.

    "You know, I should write a book on prosecution for examiners and attorneys."

    You should. Then you should follow it up with a book on brain surgery. You know just as much about both subjects.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "I can't count how many interviews I've conducted with examiners in which I point to a statement or conclusion in their OA that has zero support or explanation (e.g. a cite to a column/line of the reference(s)) and ask them to explain where it is supported in the reference and get nothing but a blank stare and complete silence."

    So how did you conclude your interview? By being a loser and just saying "ok, hur, we'll see what you say after the response". Or did you do something awesome like getting the examiner to convince himself that the rejection is lacking, or at least getting something down on paper? My guess is that you losered it up, as per usual.

    "So getting a lolable rationale from the examiner over the phone would have been better?"

    Um, you could address it a lot faster and get it knocked out.

    "Lolable rationales from examiners have to be answered."

    They didn't answer it in this case. Read the briefs. There was no Reply Brief from the attorney.

    The first time the lolable rational is presented is in the examiner's answer. It is never replied to.

    "This is a clear case of an examiner simply not wanting to allow a case because he/she "feels" that it's not "significant enough" to be patented, or because he/she is too scared of the QR boogey man to allow it. Plain and simple."

    You and I both know that the hypothetical prima facie case is easily made out here. Obviously then, the hypothetical case here is that the examiner lacked the skill to put such forward even though, as you say, he knew it needed to be put forward.

    Look, if you want to wait 2 years and pay 10k, then be my guest. Otherwise you could sit down and stfu so that you might learn a thing or two.

    By the by JD, did you like how that enablement case turned out at the DC? ZERO PERCENT CHANCE eh? Still looks like a 100% chance to me tar dface.

    I've got stuff to do today so I don't have time to sit and lol at your pathetic and costly prosecution procedures.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 6tard says:

    "So how did you conclude your interview? By being a loser and just saying 'ok, hur, we'll see what you say after the response'. Or did you do something awesome like getting the examiner to convince himself that the rejection is lacking, or at least getting something down on paper? My guess is that you losered it up, as per usual."

    Although this could also be posted on another topic on Karen's blog, here's a post from just-n-examiner's blog on interview and pre-appeals.

    "Why would an attorney/applicant go to the time and expense of requesting a pre-appeal conference without first requesting an interview with the examiner?

    My reasoning is simple.

    In my last trip to Alexandria, I had 4 interviews and reached agreement in 3 cases. Upon filing papers in accordance with the agreements, all 3 cases were rejected. In my experience, the interview process is useless. One examiner refused to consider arguments after final but had agreed to do so during the interview (in front of the SPE). Another sat on the case for 2 years before handing it off to another examiner who rejected our prior agreement. The third examiner just rejected, directly contrarily to our agreement.

    I'd say that, recently, about 80% or more of my cases go through PABR (Pre-Appeal Brief Review) and 90% or more of those result in a new non-final Office Action which appears to address the merits much more reasonably. Some go as far as filing an Appeal Brief before the new non-final OA, but they still come.

    Some have produced 2 or even 3 additional non-final Office Actions -- OA, PABR, new n/f OA, PABR (twice rejected claim), new n/f OA, PABR, ....

    Oh, going back to the 4th interview, here's how agreement was not reached:

    EXR: (interrupting me delving into the merits): My supervisor won't allow the case. He says the claims are too broad.

    ME: 'Too broad' means 102 or 103. Show me the art.

    EXR: I can't find it.

    ME: Then the case should be allowed.

    EXR: My supervisor says he knows the art's out there and tells me to go find it.

    ME: Well?

    EXR: I can't find it.

    At that point, the look of exasperation on his face told me all I needed to know. I wasn't going to get my case allowed except for perhaps through appeal.

    I know many examiners do good work, but evidence of that was very rare during the Dudas tenure."

    You can only persuade those who have the ability to objectively evaluate evidence and arguments. The thousands of examiners hired during the Dumbass administration, including you 6tard, were never taught objectivity. You were taught how to reject.

    The irony in all this is that if 6tard ever crawled out from under his rock over there at the PTO and manned up enough to practice, and prove these awesome skills he bloviates about all day, he would soon find himself conducting an examiner interview on behalf of a client. And then he would find out that persuading the gleefully and invincibly ignorant isn't as easy as he thinks it is. In fact, it's near impossible.

    But he'll never find out.

    ReplyDelete
  20. >6tard says:
    >"So how did you conclude your interview?

    So are we dealing with the famous 6 of PatentlyO fame?

    I find it very confusing to deal with dozens of anonymous posts. I understand the desire for anonymity. I just don't get why nobody uses handles (sockpuppets?), which provide that yet allow me to figure out whether I'm talking to the same person rather than 12 different anons.

    So is it too much trouble to create a profile and log in with that?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "So are we dealing with the famous 6 of PatentlyO fame? "

    And JD of patentlyO fame it seems. It takes a real loser to be able to fail as miserably as he does at prosecuting. Just look at his %'s. No lawyers I know of in my AU have anywhere near that. I doubt if he can even walk down his own hallway at work and find anyone with those kind of %'s.

    Oh, and JD, I responded to your pathetic sob story over on Justn.

    'I find it very confusing to deal with dozens of anonymous posts"

    You barely have any traffic here, I hardly think you're being overwhelmed.

    "So is it too much trouble to create a profile and log in with that?"

    Yes, because this thing likes to try to use my irl profile name iirc.

    Just easier to push anon than to have to deal with the accounts.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Yes, because this thing likes to try to use my irl profile name iirc."

    In other words, it's safe and cozy under that rock and 6tard can't find a pair to strap on.

    ReplyDelete