tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post1070434401753701721..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: BPAI finds Examiner assertion that reference describes a commercial embodiment to be unsupported by evidenceKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-53110624911188481412012-03-01T13:58:26.812-05:002012-03-01T13:58:26.812-05:00"Rather, incompetent examiners makes the pate..."Rather, incompetent examiners makes the patents that we get for our clients less valuable."<br /><br />Agree 100%.<br /><br />"yes-- they are extreme examples..."<br /><br />They may be extreme, but I see them fairly often. I'm simply amazed at the number of practitioners that don't know how to traverse garbage rejections like "design choice" and "lack of criticality" and those based on boilerplate case law. It's depressing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-85113754266881922772012-03-01T07:55:21.384-05:002012-03-01T07:55:21.384-05:00To begin with-- I'm not an examiner.
Secondly...To begin with-- I'm not an examiner.<br /><br />Secondly, a response that says "You haven't proven my claims are unpatentable" is indeed an acceptable Rule 111 response. The deficiency is that the Examiner hasn't carried the burden.<br /><br />That said, when it comes to enforcing a patent, it is in your client's best interest to make the examiner-- and the exchange with the examiner-- look as professional and complete as possible. The real problem with incompetent examiners isn't that it makes our lives as prosecutors more difficult. Rather, incompetent examiners makes the patents that we get for our clients less valuable.<br /><br />As for the "responses that suck" that you point out-- yes-- they are extreme examples-- but not the only ways that the prosecuting attorney effectively carries the burden of proof.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-61881770839696182062012-03-01T07:54:49.901-05:002012-03-01T07:54:49.901-05:00To begin with-- I'm not an examiner.
Second...To begin with-- I'm not an examiner. <br /><br />Secondly, a response that says "You haven't proven my claims are unpatentable" is indeed an acceptable Rule 111 response. The deficiency is that the Examiner hasn't carried the burden. <br /><br />That said, when it comes to enforcing a patent, it is in your client's best interest to make the examiner-- and the exchange with the examiner-- look as professional and complete as possible. The real problem with incompetent examiners isn't that it makes our lives as prosecutors more difficult. Rather, incompetent examiners makes the patents that we get for our clients less valuable. <br /><br />As for the "responses that suck" that you point out-- yes-- they are extreme examples-- but not the only ways that the prosecuting attorney effectively carries the burden of proof.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-38916551261178213972012-02-29T09:06:55.410-05:002012-02-29T09:06:55.410-05:00LOL. You must be an examiner.
Nobody is suggesti...LOL. You must be an examiner.<br /><br />Nobody is suggesting that applicant's response should be, "You can't prove my claims are unpatentable." <br /><br />I've been practicing for 13 years and have yet to see a rejection that was "substantively proper but failed on procedural grounds." The examiner either meets his/her burden or not. <br /><br />As for "bald assertions" I also never suggested that such are a proper response. Rule 111 requires that applicant point out the errors in the rejection/objection. That's what should be done.<br /><br />What I'm talking about is garbage rejections like, "The reference doesn't disclose feature X, but applicant hasn't explained or presented any evidence as to why feature X is critical, therefore it's obvious" and then reading responses from supposedly competent practitioners going on for pages as to why feature X is critical. Or rejections like, "The reference doesn't disclose feature X, but it was held in In re BoilerplatecaselawfromtheMPEPthatthe examinersneverreadandwillneverreadandwouldn'tunderstanditifhe/shedidreadit that feature X is obvious" and then reading page after page of why the "benefits and advantages that lie at the heart of novelty of the claimed invention" render feature X non-obvious.<br /><br />Responses like that suck. Practitioners that respond like that suck. They should find another line of work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-22724188382912919372012-02-29T05:10:46.102-05:002012-02-29T05:10:46.102-05:00As for attorneys carrying the burden-- office acti...As for attorneys carrying the burden-- office actions are often easy to prove wrong. It doesn't take much time to clip and paste text into a response, increasing the likelihood of allowance and making it look to a jury like there was a substantive exchange between applicants and the Examiner. <br /><br />Bald "you can't prove it" assertions often sound like the kid in elementary school that no one liked. They leave open the possibility that the rejection was substantively proper but failed on procedural grounds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-36786841937297770292012-02-24T17:24:16.453-05:002012-02-24T17:24:16.453-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-13109014601530908342012-02-24T17:21:18.210-05:002012-02-24T17:21:18.210-05:00"The Examiner in the case specifically disagr..."The Examiner in the case specifically disagreed with you here. "<br /><br />Yeah I know karen, I chalk it up to him being a tard. Which, in fact was where this all started. The rejection that needed to be made was ez to make, he just didn't feel like doing it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-69074793827715876862012-02-24T17:16:33.200-05:002012-02-24T17:16:33.200-05:00Meh, idk, thereabouts. And yeah, it's not bad...Meh, idk, thereabouts. And yeah, it's not bad for "doing nothing".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-17548909823674068912012-02-24T16:56:08.551-05:002012-02-24T16:56:08.551-05:00Unfortunately, I have to agree. I can't stand...Unfortunately, I have to agree. I can't stand these practitioners who think they have to "prove" their claims are patentable. Total idiots. Make it so much harder for those of us who know what we're doing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-76495978735683640052012-02-24T16:54:26.584-05:002012-02-24T16:54:26.584-05:00You make $80k? Not bad for doing nothing.
Now th...You make $80k? Not bad for doing nothing.<br /><br />Now that I know what you make, if I was being honest I would say it's more like 12+ times.<br /><br />LOLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-30880141032607136692012-02-24T16:37:21.903-05:002012-02-24T16:37:21.903-05:00"I guess we have to do your job for you. &quo..."I guess we have to do your job for you. "<br /><br />See, I told you they were strong at carrying the burden. They really don't mind most of the time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-90933969050331936752012-02-24T16:30:05.433-05:002012-02-24T16:30:05.433-05:00"I guess we have to do your job for you. Than..."I guess we have to do your job for you. Thankfully we're making 10 times what they pay you, "<br /><br />You make 800k+? Be honest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-77162062251891434622012-02-24T16:28:48.239-05:002012-02-24T16:28:48.239-05:00IdkIdkAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-6658041320286135772012-02-24T16:26:36.311-05:002012-02-24T16:26:36.311-05:00Indeed so.
(lol)Indeed so. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br />(lol)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-78050905949702327602012-02-24T16:22:34.828-05:002012-02-24T16:22:34.828-05:00Except I'm also "personally knowledgable&...Except I'm also "personally knowledgable" of the fact that it was commonly knowledge that they were for sale as all my buddies got one too except for a few that didn't register for SS and who had to buy their own. <br /><br />But regardless, in re your other comment, yes, it is beyond lolable to argue about such things. Thankfully I rarely have to deal with idiots such as yourself and others in my arts. <br /><br />" But I don't buy that you remember that the finger pads on that razor from 1998 were located 20% from the end of the handle. "<br /><br />I STILL OWN THE RAZOR. I HAVE IT IN MY APT. Jes us. What is to "remember"? I can look at it. <br /><br />As to the 20%, you leave that OUT of the official notice Karen. The examiner takes official notice that the mach 3 razor itself was on sale, you need make no mention of any 20% nonsense in the actual facts introduced to the record. If the attorney thinks the Mach 3 does not show 20% then they may thus argue. <br /><br />Also note that I believe in this case the examiner was stating that the little mach 3 decal area was a finger pad as opposed to only the designated finger pads being finger pads. <br /><br />"But rather because the Mach 3 may have gone through any number of design changes in it's lifetime. "<br /><br />Which is why you can look up one of their commercials, or I would if I wasn't on such a tight youtube leash atm. <br /><br />"So we have no idea whether the particular Mach 3 depicted in Wikipedia is or is not prior art. "<br /><br />Except it happens to be the one in the commercials, the one in my bathroom, and the one that is still for sale in your local drugstore, depicted in many many patents etc. etc. on for eternity enough "evidence" to convince even the most tarded of jurors of the fact that the rozenkrack ref was showing a mach 3 (aka the most popular razor at the time rozenkrack filed). <br /><br />Like I said, what you attorneytards will argue is most lolable. And as much as I'd love to sit and lol @ u all day, I need a counterdoodle today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-81032657756791999442012-02-24T16:15:35.669-05:002012-02-24T16:15:35.669-05:00Does the PTO allow moonlighting?Does the PTO allow moonlighting?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-33499458221731097852012-02-24T16:08:14.491-05:002012-02-24T16:08:14.491-05:00Chase ambulances?Chase ambulances?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-58353362261558152012012-02-24T15:59:58.114-05:002012-02-24T15:59:58.114-05:00"Or get on the board,..."
Getting paid ..."Or get on the board,..."<br /><br />Getting paid to reverse examinertards has to be the easiest, sweetest money ever made. Writing 60 decisions a year? What would I do with the other 364 days?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-39581505021607675482012-02-24T15:55:29.905-05:002012-02-24T15:55:29.905-05:00>because there "isn't enough
>evid...>because there "isn't enough <br />>evidence" that the razor drawn in <br />>the picture is an exact replica of <br />>the device irl with one extra blade. <br /><br />I get the feeling you're suggesting that it's just silly for attorneys to argue about little things like whether or not there is enough evidence, or whether the evidence is really evidence. <br /><br />To the contrary, I see arguing about these little things as a big part of an attorney's job.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-26148857110283013452012-02-24T15:52:51.039-05:002012-02-24T15:52:51.039-05:00>Nearly every single piece, if not
>every s...>Nearly every single piece, if not <br />>every single piece, of the Mach 3 is <br />>illustrated in the patent. Down to <br />>the smallest dimensions. It even <br />>appears depicted more or less exactly <br />>to scale. <br /><br />The Examiner in the case specifically disagreed with you here. <br /><br />In fact that's where all this started ... <br /><br />o The Applicant said "reference doesn't show finger pads at the end, but in the middle" <br />o Examiner responded with "nah, the drawings in the patent are incorrect, the patent is really a Mach 3, and in a Mach 3 the pads are at the end not the middle."Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-33868634625542729052012-02-24T15:46:30.534-05:002012-02-24T15:46:30.534-05:00"In any event, I will leave it up to you tard..."In any event, I will leave it up to you tards to decide if there is enough evidencelol..."<br /><br />That's kind of the examinertard's job to do before sending out a rejection. But as none of you understand evidence, what it is, how to evaluate it, etc., I guess we have to do your job for you. Thankfully we're making 10 times what they pay you, so I guess we can manage, although it would be nice to get paid for doing absolutely nothing like you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-57466719840497259752012-02-24T15:37:10.507-05:002012-02-24T15:37:10.507-05:00Actually, looking at the reference:
6,276,061
ht...Actually, looking at the reference:<br /><br />6,276,061<br /><br />http://www.google.com/patents?id=zwoHAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false<br /><br />One can understand why the examiner said it was a mach 3. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillette_Mach3<br /><br />Nearly every single piece, if not every single piece, of the Mach 3 is illustrated in the patent. Down to the smallest dimensions. It even appears depicted more or less exactly to scale. <br /><br />If you want a reference showing the product being offered for sale it is easy to google their commercials, they're on the youtube and show the product as in the wiki.<br /><br />In any event, I will leave it up to you tards to decide if there is enough evidencelol just shown in about 5 minutes and the Rozenkranc<br />patent illustrates a Mach 3 down to the tiniest detail. Or, if you prefer, he illustrates a Mach 3 with a small modification to assist in sideburn shaving by putting in a new "trim" blade 13. <br /><br /><br />You attorneytards, always good for a lol. If you dumarses want to give people a patent on something old then you need to come work at the office so you can personally hand them their patent on the old thing because there "isn't enough evidence" that the razor drawn in the picture is an exact replica of the device irl with one extra blade. Or get on the board, and do as this tard-board did. Or maybe this board simply didn't have a picture of a Mach 3 handy and thus were totally clueless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-68404434552682261092012-02-24T15:34:39.590-05:002012-02-24T15:34:39.590-05:00From the examiner's LinkedIn profile:
"I...From the examiner's LinkedIn profile:<br /><br />"I am a Mechanical Engineer with extensive training in patent law. I have had more than five years of intense training and experience dealing with all aspects of patent law while at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office."<br /><br />Extensive training? By whom? The PTO? Lulz and lulz and lulz ad infinitum.<br /><br />All aspects of patent law? So sections 102, 103, and 112 are all there is to patent law? <br /><br />Yet another "I'm not an attorney, but I play one at the PTO" examiner.<br /><br />Good grief.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-34655746804955163212012-02-24T15:30:48.345-05:002012-02-24T15:30:48.345-05:00>Have you ever looked at the patent markings
&...>Have you ever looked at the patent markings <br />>on any of Gillette's packaging? There's like <br />>20+ patent numbers. <br /><br />To me, the question of patent marking is relevant only to the statement made by the *Applicant* (paraphrased) that Rosenkranz is not a Mach 3.<br /><br />I don't think anyone [on the record or in this thread] suggested that marking of a product is relevant to determining whether or not the product is prior art. <br /><br />>And again, there's ZERO evidence that the <br />>commercial embodiment of the Mach 3 is >prior art to the application.<br /><br />Agreed. And it would have been smart for the Applicant to make exactly that argument.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-75213109335774018042012-02-24T15:26:43.945-05:002012-02-24T15:26:43.945-05:00Willful, gleeful, invincible ignorance is the hall...Willful, gleeful, invincible ignorance is the hallmark of the examinertard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com