tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post1022455182568632778..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: BPAI finds that meaning of "integral" argued by Applicant (to avoid 112) reads on referenceKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-75798668402121777932010-12-15T09:34:02.006-05:002010-12-15T09:34:02.006-05:00I will probably arouse the wrath of curious, but e...I will probably arouse the wrath of curious, but even though the rejections were reversed, this was another example of poor advocacy. The amended to include "integral" and then made arguments about the feature, when they had the perfectly good argument that the combintion of references would not have provided air holes to the trapped animal. That argument won the day for them. The "integral" arguments were just garbage estoppel dumped on the client's patent. So sad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-49889058242296371292010-12-14T18:59:09.899-05:002010-12-14T18:59:09.899-05:00I love these kinds of situations. I regularly mak...I love these kinds of situations. I regularly make sure that they appear and delight in the execution of actions taken in the furtherence thereof. <br /><br />"It seems to me that the Applicant could have used Fig. 3 as support for an integral door and still argued that the door in the reference was not integral. "<br /><br />Obviously. But these are lawlyers we're talking about. They'll make a harmful admission or assertion in a heartbeat. All you have to do is put some forethought into the initial actions and set them up for it. <br /><br />The payoff is rich rich lulz.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-40944828564940981072010-12-14T11:11:06.658-05:002010-12-14T11:11:06.658-05:00>they ultimately reversed the obviousness
>...>they ultimately reversed the obviousness <br />>rejection on other grounds. <br /><br />Yep, you're right. I'll correct my post. Thanks.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-26391729043223171982010-12-14T10:58:31.549-05:002010-12-14T10:58:31.549-05:00"The Board went on to affirm the obviousness ..."The Board went on to affirm the obviousness rejection. "<br /><br />While the Board may have agreed with the interpretation of "integral" provided by the examiner, they ultimately reversed the obviousness rejection on other grounds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com