tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post911515810708717807..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: BPAI finds it proper to use corresponding US application as translation of foreign patent applicationKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-23823559877245979162011-09-09T11:06:52.313-04:002011-09-09T11:06:52.313-04:00Now that's an example of an examiner being laz...Now that's an example of an examiner being lazy. If you haven't figured out how to find the equivalents of published apps and patents, please do so. That goes for examiners and practitioners.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-14495994665149543352011-09-08T18:03:37.708-04:002011-09-08T18:03:37.708-04:00I wanted to add that, in response to an Examiner c...I wanted to add that, in response to an Examiner citing a foreign reference as part of a rejection but only providing me with a translated abstract, I found an English language counterpart of the foreign rejection and used that English-language counterpart to traverse the Examiner's rejection. The Examiner withdrew the rejection in the next Office Action. What's sauce for the goose.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-34345226961642111722011-09-07T11:56:15.420-04:002011-09-07T11:56:15.420-04:00"That may be so but the burden was on the Exa..."That may be so but the burden was on the Examiner and the Examiner was lazy."<br /><br />The examiner explained, clear as a bell, on page 2, paragraph number 4, of the October 7, 2008 Office Action that Garu '181 (the published U.S. national phase application) was the English language equivalent of Garu '256 (the published French PCT application).<br /><br />What f#cking more do you need??????!!!!!!!!<br /><br />Are you telling me that an examiner has to explain to a partner in a law firm the "relationship" between equivalent applications/publications????!!!!!<br /><br />You have got to be kidding me!!!!!<br /><br />You know, I constantly read these blog comments from examiners that state that the attorneys they are dealing with are real dolts. I truly want to believe that they are not true. But after reading the nonsense from some of the posters here, I have to admit it's true. Some of the people in the patent bar, including the idiot partner who argued this "technicality", are so GD imcompetent that it is scary. Please turn in your registration numbers. Now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-3033050281413349142011-09-07T06:00:12.282-04:002011-09-07T06:00:12.282-04:00"I do believe that you're responding to a..."I do believe that you're responding to an attorney tardface. Not me.<br /><br />6"<br /><br />Ugh. <br /><br />"That may be so but the burden was on the Examiner and the Examiner was lazy."<br /><br />Ugh. The examiner gave all the explanation that was needed. Are you telling me that a partner in a law firm can't figure out the relationship between a published PCT application and its corresponding published U.S. national phase application?<br /><br />Ugh.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-57634851583073138152011-09-06T18:13:38.644-04:002011-09-06T18:13:38.644-04:00"I know 6-tard, you hate doing your job ... t..."I know 6-tard, you hate doing your job ... then again, it would have taken about 10 seconds to type that sentence."<br /><br />I do believe that you're responding to an attorney tardface. Not me.<br /><br />6<br /><br />As it turns out, there are attorneys in the world that think similar to me on many issues, including attorney whining lol. <br /><br />PS I do not use the world "Ugh". I really h8 that word in type. Almost as much as I h8 it irl. Unless you just got punched in your stomach. Preferably for having said "Ugh" in the first place without having first been punched in the stomach. <br /><br />Ugh is a dispicable ugly word.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-29845349221069529692011-09-06T17:40:27.475-04:002011-09-06T17:40:27.475-04:00"A first year associate could have figured ou..."A first year associate could have figured out the "relationship" between the French and English documents"<br /><br />That may be so but the burden was on the Examiner and the Examiner was lazy. I'm, of course, giving the Examiner the benefit of the doubt that the Examiner knew from the start that the two Grau references came from the same priority claim.<br /><br />The Examiner was lazy, and the practitioner, IMHO, was trying to get a free translation of the priority document from the Examiner.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-50745243298459049482011-09-06T17:23:25.013-04:002011-09-06T17:23:25.013-04:00MPEP 1207.01 states as follows on MPEP page 1200-2...MPEP 1207.01 states as follows on MPEP page 1200-22: If a document being relied upon by the examiner in support of a rejection is in a language other than English, a translation must be obtained so that the record is clear as to the precise facts the examiner is relying upon in support of the rejection. The translation may be a machine translation or an English equivalent of the non-English document.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-6890982122885162372011-09-06T12:11:22.789-04:002011-09-06T12:11:22.789-04:00"The Examiner was lazy..."
I'm not ..."The Examiner was lazy..."<br /><br />I'm not one to excuse lazy examiners, but in this case the examiner should not have to hold the attorney's hand. A first year associate could have figured out the "relationship" between the French and English documents (they are the same!!!!!). Good lord what are we coming to when a partner at a supposedly reputable firm like this is making sh!t arguments like this? Is he at all embarrassed that the Board slapped down his weak a$$ argument with no effort whatsoever?<br /><br />It's sh!tty "advocacy" like this that has gotten us stuck with In re Jung and its ilk (e.g. the case where they argued that a provisional couldn't serve as the 102(e) date, In re Giancolini or whatever the heck the applicant's name was). Let's not forget Hyatt v. Dudas.<br /><br />Stop making these crappy arguments and taking them to the BPAI and the Federal Circuit. The level of whining and crying from the patent bar in these cases is just embarrassing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-44877731963171201872011-09-06T12:00:21.914-04:002011-09-06T12:00:21.914-04:00The Examiner was lazy and should have explained th...The Examiner was lazy and should have explained the relationship between the Grau applications from the get-go. Having said that, I agree that the practitioner should have easily been able to establish the relationship between the two applications. I would hate to set the precedent that a national stage entry is not presumed to virtually identical to its foreign language PCT application. The burden did shift to applicant to translate the published PCT application to see if there were any discrepencies. It can be expensive so I can see how the applicant was most likely trying to get the Examiner to provide a certified translation of the PCT application via the PTO Translation Branch.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-13083816441442611952011-09-06T11:43:32.859-04:002011-09-06T11:43:32.859-04:00national stage is pretty much exact translation, f...national stage is pretty much exact translation, for better or worse, Euros are real sticklers about thatAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-34472595067090394192011-09-06T10:28:53.761-04:002011-09-06T10:28:53.761-04:00"Uh no, although "technicalities" m..."Uh no, although "technicalities" may seem an annoyance to you, there is a reason for everything." <br /><br />6tard didn't post the first comment. I did. And I'm a practitioner. <br /><br />If you can't look at the publication of a PCT application in French, and then look at the published U.S. national stage application and make a reasonable determination, on your own, without the examiner holding your hand for you, you should be handling insurance claims, not prosecuting patent applications.<br /><br />"Here, there is no indication that just because it is a national stage (or even shares the same drawings) that it necessarily includes the same disclosure. It is claiming PRIORITY, which does not require that the disclosures be the same."<br /><br />In order to enter the U.S. national stage, the applicant had to file a copy of the PCT application. In order to get the case out of the office of PCT operations at the PTO, classified, and onto an examiner's docket, the applicant had to file a certified translation of the PCT application from French into English. Therefore, the U.S. national stage application is the exact same application as the French PCT application. <br /><br />You don't see that? <br /><br />You're as embarrassing as the guy who argued this "technicality" to the BPAI.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-38485135891608836882011-09-06T10:17:55.686-04:002011-09-06T10:17:55.686-04:00"Uhm, because arguing the 'technicalities..."Uhm, because arguing the 'technicalities' in this case makes you look like an idiot."<br />Uh no, although "technicalities" may seem an annoyance to you, there is a reason for everything. Here, there is no indication that just because it is a national stage (or even shares the same drawings) that it necessarily includes the same disclosure. It is claiming PRIORITY, which does not require that the disclosures be the same. <br /><br />"The examiner needs to explain that to us?"<br />I know 6-tard, you hate doing your job ... then again, it would have taken about 10 seconds to type that sentence.<br /><br />"Practitioners like this are simply embarrassing to the rest of us."<br />The "rest of us"? Come on 6-tard, you are not part of us and never will be.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-84687936388172269912011-09-06T06:03:11.971-04:002011-09-06T06:03:11.971-04:00" As long as you're fighting on substance..." As long as you're fighting on substance, I don't see anything wrong with also arguing about 'technicalities.' Here. that means forcing the Examiner to thoroughly explain his use of the English language, non-prior art Grau as 'evidence' of the teachings of the French language, prior-art Grau."<br /><br />Uhm, because arguing the "technicalities" in this case makes you look like an idiot. That's why.<br /><br />"The most interesting thing about this case is how many rounds it took for the Examiner to explain the family relationship between the two Grau references."<br /><br />Ugh. Really? The examiner needs to explain that to us? You can't look at the info on the front of the patent or published app and see that they share the same priority document? You can't look at the foreign language version and see for yourself that it has the same exact drawings as the English language version?<br /><br />"Not sure why the Applicant didn't dig up the family relationship himself,..."<br /><br />Lazy and/or stupid.<br /><br />"... since there's enough information on the WIPO website to figure it out."<br /><br />There's enough info on the faces of the documents to figure it out.<br /><br />Practitioners like this are simply embarrassing to the rest of us. Please go chase ambulances or something else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com