tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post6859285309385835129..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: BPAI finds that "products purchased in a specified time period" reads on last purchase since that purchase has a time periodKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-2954996288551800362011-11-16T11:36:32.675-05:002011-11-16T11:36:32.675-05:00"So is a Petition to Invoke Supervisory Revie..."So is a Petition to Invoke Supervisory Review. Still more expensive than a call but a lot more likely to get some action."<br /><br />Waste of time.<br /><br />"Lulz, I understand them better than you do apparently."<br /><br />This from the examinertard who thinks that every brain fart he types into an office action is substantial evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-26213502433848312272011-11-15T22:47:47.719-05:002011-11-15T22:47:47.719-05:00"It's a lot cheaper than an appeal."..."It's a lot cheaper than an appeal."<br /><br />So is a Petition to Invoke Supervisory Review. Still more expensive than a call but a lot more likely to get some action.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-81627787508409205462011-11-15T13:24:04.036-05:002011-11-15T13:24:04.036-05:00This seemed pretty clear to me. The examiner cited...This seemed pretty clear to me. The examiner cited the history as a specified time period. Now I know this is revolutionary but if you don't understand what the examiner means try giving him a call. It's a lot cheaper than an appeal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-59725205876404473652011-11-14T15:37:29.621-05:002011-11-14T15:37:29.621-05:00"Add new grounds of rejection to the list of ..."Add new grounds of rejection to the list of things you don't understand, like evidence and facts, etc. "<br /><br />Lulz, I understand them better than you do apparently. <br /><br />Ya worthless fop.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-4347213786910243962011-11-14T14:09:47.612-05:002011-11-14T14:09:47.612-05:00"Nah bro. Only if they're making addition..."Nah bro. Only if they're making additional findings of fact, not if they're simply explaining the facts already utilized in a more simplified manner for the children in the room."<br /><br />Add new grounds of rejection to the list of things you don't understand, like evidence and facts, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-3754466036983342732011-11-14T13:15:04.276-05:002011-11-14T13:15:04.276-05:00"If the BPAI is bolstering a poorly-explained..."If the BPAI is bolstering a poorly-explained rejection, a new grounds should be designated."<br /><br />Nah bro. Only if they're making additional findings of fact, not if they're simply explaining the facts already utilized in a more simplified manner for the children in the room. <br /><br />I'm aware of what In re Lovin' was about, and I'm also aware of what their petition for rehearing is trying to make it about.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-47951287592396763722011-11-10T21:55:39.532-05:002011-11-10T21:55:39.532-05:00"I'll leave it to an administrative law e..."I'll leave it to an administrative law expert to say whether or not the Board's behavior complies with the law."<br /><br />I no expert, but I am a lawyer that reads the law.<br /><br />Allowing the Board unfettered discretion to designate a new ground of rejection—when it relies upon facts or legal argument not advanced by the examiner—would frustrate the notice requirements of the APA. See Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 154 (1999) (stating that the PTO is an agency subject to the APA).<br /><br />That was from In re Stepan Co ... decided by the Federal Circuit about 5 weeks ago. If the BPAI is bolstering a poorly-explained rejection, a new grounds should be designated.<br /><br />FYI -- In re Lovin was about the sufficiency of the argument needed to meet 37 CFR 41.37 -- not relevant to the points raised here.<br /><br />"find this to do nothing more than give the applicant a modicum of responsibility"<br />Next time, read what you have written to see if it makes sense before you hit "Post Comment."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-39432296419996274902011-11-10T17:29:57.703-05:002011-11-10T17:29:57.703-05:00"If it's not clear from the explanation (..."If it's not clear from the explanation (i.e., the record), the BPAI should not be affirming the rejection."<br /><br />I lulzed. Remember, failure to be clear is a petitionable matter brosensky. See In re Lovin (as in I'm lovin' it) where the CAFC declined to interpret a failure to be clear as being a challenge to a failure to have put the applicant on notice. <br /><br />"I find this to be fundamentally unfair to the Applicant, but that just seems to be the way it goes. "<br /><br />Whereas myself and the PTO also find this to do nothing more than give the applicant a modicum of responsibility. <br /><br />"No inference should be made from the facts of record in favor of the party bearing the burden of proof (in this case, the Examiner) when other reasonable conclusions are possible."<br /><br />Good thing that didn't happen in this case!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-43668405093882442762011-11-10T12:52:38.224-05:002011-11-10T12:52:38.224-05:00No inference should be made from the facts of reco...No inference should be made from the facts of record in favor of the party bearing the burden of proof (in this case, the Examiner) when other reasonable conclusions are possible. In re Carreira, 189 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976).<br /><br />Carreira may have touched on an issue other than claim interpretation but the general principle remains the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-89270987102113105782011-11-10T12:14:57.002-05:002011-11-10T12:14:57.002-05:00>If it's not clear from the explanation
&g...>If it's not clear from the explanation <br />>i.e., the record), the BPAI should not be <br />>affirming the rejection<br /><br />The BPAI routinely makes findings fact that go far beyond what the Examiner has done. <br /><br />I find this to be fundamentally unfair to the Applicant, but that just seems to be the way it goes. <br /><br />I'll leave it to an administrative law expert to say whether or not the Board's behavior complies with the law.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-65687319144603481462011-11-10T11:51:22.171-05:002011-11-10T11:51:22.171-05:00"As an aside, the Examiner didn't do a gr..."As an aside, the Examiner didn't do a great job of explaining how the "specified time period" limitation was mapped to the teachings of the reference."<br /><br />If it's not clear from the explanation (i.e., the record), the BPAI should not be affirming the rejection. If it's not clear, the BPAI is engaging in speculation as to what the Examiner meant. If the BPAI is going to do that, they should be going with what the Applicant says what they meant by that term in the appeal brief and let prosecution history estoppel hold them to that claim construction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com