tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post1610044171704259351..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: Board says claim term, as defined in the specification, reads on the referenceKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger38125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-10030697117011097402013-03-10T19:04:44.058-04:002013-03-10T19:04:44.058-04:00Do you believe in anarchy? Will you do what it ta...Do you believe in anarchy? Will you do what it takes to demolish the patent system? Would you ignore any law to get your way? If you've answered "yes" to any of those question, then we may have a job for you. Please direct all job inquiries to the Chief Administrative Patent Judge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.<br /><br />(1) What, specifically, is claimed as happening at the "wash station?"<br /><br />Be specific.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-85059246781723883372013-03-09T20:09:15.620-05:002013-03-09T20:09:15.620-05:00"Join the USPTO, most people do more by 9 in ..."Join the USPTO, most people do more by 9 in the morning than we do in an entire day."<br /><br />(1) What, specifically, is claimed as happening at the "wash station?"<br /><br />Be specific.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-76155102371541700492013-03-09T19:32:54.644-05:002013-03-09T19:32:54.644-05:00Focus.
(1) What, specifically, is claimed as happ...Focus.<br /><br />(1) What, specifically, is claimed as happening at the "wash station?"<br /><br />Be specific.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-55602682651305890112013-03-09T19:29:09.010-05:002013-03-09T19:29:09.010-05:00we have to agree on a set of very simple facts
St...<i>we have to agree on a set of very simple facts</i><br /><br />Start making your findings of fact .... I'll be waiting, but I won't be holding my breath.<br /><br />And while you are at, explicitly identify:<br /><br />(1) the facts I have ignored; and<br />(2) the facts I have made up.<br /><br />Again, I'll be waiting, but I won't be holding my breath. No one supporting the USPTO position seems to be able to put together a standalone analysis. Instead, they give it the typical USPTO examination treatment ... take tiny little bites and slowly dole out the analysis/findings.<br /><br />It must be grounds for termination at the USPTO to provide all your explanation the first time around.Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-30174638972625302872013-03-09T19:22:23.150-05:002013-03-09T19:22:23.150-05:00Analysis? No, facts.
You've described your po...<i>Analysis? No, facts.</i><br /><br />You've described your position perfectly. Try to improve upon it.Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-46966879820806881202013-03-09T15:12:16.578-05:002013-03-09T15:12:16.578-05:00Your "taking on all comers" concerning t...Your "taking on all comers" concerning the Osborne case has thus far consisted of either (1) ignoring the facts or (2) making up your own. Before we can have any kind of rational discussion about what it is that you do not understand, we have to agree on a set of very simple facts. No analysis, no conclusions, just facts. Very. Simple. Facts. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-25003175326799426392013-03-08T20:20:18.051-05:002013-03-08T20:20:18.051-05:00Analysis? No, facts. Focus.
(1) What, specifica...Analysis? No, facts. Focus.<br /><br />(1) What, specifically, is claimed as happening at the "wash station?"<br /><br />Be specific.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-49842877744264692122013-03-08T20:04:09.106-05:002013-03-08T20:04:09.106-05:00For the sixth time, please explain your analysis f...For the <b>sixth</b> time, please explain your analysis further.<br /><br /><i>This question of fact is not difficult.</i><br />Why don't you explain why it is relevant first. Then, since it is YOUR ANALYSIS, why don't you answer your "question of fact"?<br /><br />I have had no problems raising issues, citing case law, making findings of fact regarding my own analysis, and presenting conclusions based upon my analysis and findings. I know examiners like to have their hands held, but since its your analysis, perhaps you should explain it rather than have somebody else explain it for you.<br /><br />I have no ownership in YOUR analysis, so asking me questions isn't going to get you anywhere -- it isn't going to get you anywhere. I have zero interest in formulating your analysis for you.Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-38978037386821695122013-03-08T16:07:51.465-05:002013-03-08T16:07:51.465-05:00Focus. Remember, facts.
This question of fact is ...Focus. Remember, facts.<br /><br />This question of fact is not difficult. I showed the claim and the question to a sixth grader and she answered immediately (and correctly). Nothing to be afraid of.<br /><br />(1) What, specifically, is claimed as happening at the "wash station?"<br /><br />Be specific.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-5180747240241241792013-03-08T15:37:28.601-05:002013-03-08T15:37:28.601-05:00Sorry dude. You are the one that produced the con...Sorry dude. You are the one that produced the conclusory statement <i>Another problem with the evidence that appellant provided -- appellant is not claiming an antimicrobial "intervention."</i><br /><br />For the <b>fifth time</b>, please explain further. I know the USPTO confuses conclusions with analysis, but please try ... it isn't that hard. I gave you an outline to follow.<br /><br /><i>Do not be intimidated.</i><br />Yeah ... right. I've been taking on all comers on both threads ... a sure sign that I'm been intimidated. LMFAO<br />Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-75448654798530230872013-03-08T13:10:55.808-05:002013-03-08T13:10:55.808-05:00Do not be intimidated.
(1) What, specifically, is...Do not be intimidated.<br /><br />(1) What, specifically, is claimed as happening at the "wash station?"<br /><br />Be specific.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-51660879909496530122013-03-08T11:28:58.521-05:002013-03-08T11:28:58.521-05:00Still avoiding explaining your point?Still avoiding explaining your point?Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-50209751589046276272013-03-08T11:28:19.076-05:002013-03-08T11:28:19.076-05:00Still avoiding explaining your point?Still avoiding explaining your point?Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-51220115733652813152013-03-08T00:19:22.869-05:002013-03-08T00:19:22.869-05:00I can see how you might be confused.
(1) What, sp...I can see how you might be confused.<br /><br />(1) What, specifically, is claimed as happening at the "wash station?"<br /><br />Be specific.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-77392565475032658232013-03-07T13:57:02.175-05:002013-03-07T13:57:02.175-05:00Getting back to the facts
Questions are not facts....<i>Getting back to the facts</i><br />Questions are not facts. Capiche?<br /><br /><i>Be specific.</i><br />You are the one with the point to make (e.g., "Another problem with the evidence that appellant provided -- appellant is not claiming an antimicrobial 'intervention'"). Why don't you <i>first</i> explain your point, as I asked you yesterday, and then we can move on from there.<br /><br />If you are having troubles articulating your reasoning, just say so. No need for this song and dance routine of yours.Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-16964950333740895392013-03-07T11:39:16.153-05:002013-03-07T11:39:16.153-05:00"What are the facts?"
"blah blah ..."What are the facts?" <br /><br />"blah blah blah, yada yada yada."<br /><br />Getting back to the facts -- <br /><br />(1) What, specifically, is claimed as happening at the "wash station?"<br /><br />(2) What, specifically, did appellant allege that the evidence showed?<br /><br />Be specific.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-89405253578278261322013-03-07T11:01:56.784-05:002013-03-07T11:01:56.784-05:00let's ignore the facts and argue about somethi...<i>let's ignore the facts and argue about something else</i><br />What are the facts? What is the proper claim construction of the term antimicrobial agent?<br /><br /><i>As when one tries to make an appeal seem to be all about temperature, when it's not</i><br />The issue is over the proper claim construction of the term antimicrobial agent. As best I can tell, the temperature of water is one factor that determines whether water is an antimicrobial agent or not.<br /><br />We had a discussion about guessing in the other thread. This is what happens with applicants are forced to guess as to the Examiner's reasoning. It appears that applicants guessed that the Examiner was asserting that the water of the prior art became an antimicrobial agent when it was at a certain temperature. Applicants responded by saying that the water temperature of the prior art didn't reach the proper temperature for the water to be considered antimicrobial. However, this apparently wasn't what the Examiner was driving at.<br /><br />The Examiner's reasoning was unclear, and applicants were forced to guess as to the reasoning. As it turns out, applicants guessed wrong about the Examiner's reasoning. Had the Examiner been clearer, Applicants could have more directly addressed this claim construction by arguments and/or amendments.<br /><br />Moreover, look at the non-final and final office actions and explain to me how applicants could have even remotely guessed as to the Examiner's reasoning behind the claim construction for the term antimicrobial. When you explain to me how applicants could have figured out the Examiner's claim construction after reading the final rejection, then I'll concede that the Examiner did a good job in explaining the rejection.<br />Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-90171669301884620062013-03-06T19:58:44.506-05:002013-03-06T19:58:44.506-05:00Ah, yes, the unsophisticated patent solicitor'...Ah, yes, the unsophisticated patent solicitor's tired ploy of "let's ignore the facts and argue about something else. Maybe nobody will notice." As when one tries to make an appeal seem to be all about temperature, when it's not.<br /><br />Just saying. Capiche?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-85402171766348455432013-03-06T19:34:36.018-05:002013-03-06T19:34:36.018-05:00I asked for an explanation ... not to engage in a ...I asked for an explanation ... not to engage in a typical USPTO let's play "hide the reasoning" game.<br /><br />Let me give you some pointers:<br /><br />(I) Start by reciting the rule of law. A case cite is usually helpful then as well.<br />(II) Briefly discuss the facts in the particular case you cite.<br />(III) Identify the particular facts in this application that you think are relevant and <br />(IV) Explain why these facts are analogous to the facts present in the case you cited.<br />(V) Finally, you can present your conclusion as to how the law of the case you cited applies to the facts of the present situation.<br /><br />When you do it like that, we don't have to play the guessing games the USPTO is so fond of. Capiche?Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-38600671880173027492013-03-06T15:51:28.847-05:002013-03-06T15:51:28.847-05:00"I don't see the importance here. You nee..."I don't see the importance here. You need to better explain your position."<br /><br /><br /><br />(1) What, specifically, is claimed as happening at the "wash station?"<br /><br />(2) What, specifically, did appellant allege that the evidence showed?<br /><br />Be specific.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-2696936114763968422013-03-06T10:17:19.220-05:002013-03-06T10:17:19.220-05:00Water is an anti-microbial agent. Period.
Wrong. ...<i>Water is an anti-microbial agent. Period.</i><br /><br />Wrong. Water <i>could</i> be an antimicrobial agent. It is not necessarily an antimicrobial agent. The applied prior art taught using water, which is not necessarily an antimicrobial agent. Thus, you cannot argue that it inherently teaches an antimicrobial agent (inherency requires that the prior art necessarily teaches the missing limitation).<br /><br /><i>suffice to say that so long as water is running over the garment, some microbes will be removed</i><br />That all depends upon what the definition of "removed" is in the context of the prior art and consistent with the meaning one skilled in the art would give the term "anti-microbial agent." Under that definition, a sharp knife would be an anti-microbial agent, yet I doubt those skilled in the art would see it that way. Perhaps "removal," in the context of those skilled in the art, means destroy.<br /><br />If you look at the specification, they wrote in paragraph [0037]<br /><i>The agent applied to the animal hide can include any additive known to kill or remove bacteria or other kinds of microbes. For example, in one embodiment, the antimicrobial agent includes bases or caustics, acids, esters, oxidizers, or enzymes. Other examples include treated water, such as electrolytic water, ozonated water, or charged water, which includes hydrogen ions added to or removed from the water. In various embodiments, the antimicrobial agent includes one or more of sodium hydroxide, chlorine, trisodium phosphate, sodium metasilicate, phosphoric acid, fatty acid monoesters, organic acids, and hydrogen peroxide. In another aspect of the invention, the fluid is a probiotic agent. A probiotic agent is a non-harmful bacteria or other microbial that competitively prevents growth of microbial pathogens.</i><br /><br />While they mention certain types of water may be an antimicrobial agent, they didn't teach that <i>all types</i> of water are an antimicrobial agent. Given the specific examples described in the disclosure, I think it is a reasonable argument to say that plain, untreated, unheated water would not be considered by those skilled in the art as an antimicrobial agent. As I noted in a previous post, the loose language in the specification opened up a door that the PTAB walked through, but the argument presented is certainly not a 100% all-the-time losing argument.<br /><br /><i>Now, reevaluate your ta rd ation.</i><br />Why do you have to be so rude all the time 6? Do you get your jollies acting like a 5th grader?<br />Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-71981951613686102522013-03-06T09:55:38.131-05:002013-03-06T09:55:38.131-05:00Another problem with the evidence that appellant p...<i>Another problem with the evidence that appellant provided -- appellant is not claiming an antimicrobial "intervention."</i><br /><br />I don't see the importance here. You need to better explain your position.Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-34964184025441094752013-03-06T09:54:03.093-05:002013-03-06T09:54:03.093-05:00The spec states that the "antimicrobial agent...<i>The spec states that the "antimicrobial agent" may be any chemical or substance capable of --removing-- microorganisms.</i><br /><br />The interesting question is what does "removing" mean in the context of the art? Based upon my limited research, I don't think the ability to wash away meets the definition of "antimicrobial agent" as would be understood by those skilled in the art (i.e., destroy and/or inhibit growth). Regardless, the use of sloppy language opened the door, and the PTAB is always more than willing to walk through that door.<br /><br /><i>Water, at the temperatures disclosed by Norrie, is capable of removing microorganism - that is, by merely washing them away from the surface</i><br />Is this speculation or were their findings of fact, supported by substantial evidence, made regarding this assertion? I don't know.<br />Just sayingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-9538246226067827762013-03-05T16:01:11.092-05:002013-03-05T16:01:11.092-05:00"Karen is pointing out that the spec demonstr..."Karen is pointing out that the spec demonstrates that this is too broad with respect to water."<br /><br />Karen never points out such a nonsensical thing. And if she tried, then she tried and failed miserably. <br /><br />And this has nothing to do with the BRI, we're using the applicant's OWN FU CKING DEFINITION. If the applicant had so choosen to define the term in another way, then so be it. But he didn't, and here we are, with Karen arguing about nonsense out in left field divorced from the actual proceedings and you bringing in BRI for no apparent reason. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-89169430218991418322013-03-05T09:40:53.010-05:002013-03-05T09:40:53.010-05:00"Surely the question of what chemicals or sub..."Surely the question of what chemicals or substances meet the kills-neutralizes-or-removing definition, is one of fact."<br /><br />True dat.<br /><br />"Does water kill microorganisms at any temperature?"<br /><br />That's irrelevant. Water removes microorganisms at any temperature. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com