tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post6752851510331124688..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: Board reverses obviousness of rejection involving Examiner affidavit of personal knowledgeKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-33542935478572053792013-07-02T22:53:26.551-04:002013-07-02T22:53:26.551-04:00No, he's educable. Just takes a few days.No, he's educable. Just takes a few days.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-406864228635636472013-07-02T21:13:12.401-04:002013-07-02T21:13:12.401-04:00"6 ... we need you to explain what happened h..."6 ... we need you to explain what happened here. Using your logic, this would appear to be a slam dunk obviousness rejection. Why did the Board get in wrong? Didn't they go to your instructional class?"<br /><br />I'm not seeing why this would be a slam dunk. I'm also not seeing why you need me to explain it to you (other than that I surmise that you are a ta rd based on your comment). <br /><br />A Miyazaki would have helped crystallize the issues in this case though, and perhaps the examiner would have come to his senses were the claims drafted in a less, shall we say, tangential manner. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-73150969601503312812013-07-02T11:57:26.315-04:002013-07-02T11:57:26.315-04:00"But from what I've seen, some Applicants..."But from what I've seen, some Applicants request a personal affidavit as sort of a boilerplate response whenever the Examiner uses Official Notice, 'well known', inherency, or even KSR's 'creative inferences.'"<br /><br />It is boilerplate. They're just repeating what they've seen in other responses. Pointing out the total lack of evidentiary support is the correct response.<br /><br />"It's usually abundantly clear from the record that the Examiner is not relying on personal knowledge, and in such cases I'm not sure why Applicants bother with the request."<br /><br />Because it's in their boilerplate response template. And they're too lazy to edit it out. Laziness and sloppiness don't only infect the examining corps. Plenty in the patent bar exhibit symptoms.ThomasPainenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-33689718685679907522013-07-02T11:12:12.167-04:002013-07-02T11:12:12.167-04:00The Board reversed because the Examiner did not pr...<i>The Board reversed because the Examiner did not provide a rational reason why a POSITA would shorten Gettleman's adapter plate based on the dispensing aperture in Bobrick's towel dispenser</i><br /><br />6 ... we need you to explain what happened here. Using your logic, this would appear to be a slam dunk obviousness rejection. Why did the Board get in wrong? Didn't they go to your instructional class?Just sayingnoreply@blogger.com