tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post163810071406821120..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: Patentee loses argument about "printed publication" in reexam appealKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-72140675389719286932011-04-05T12:48:18.589-04:002011-04-05T12:48:18.589-04:00>Being ExPR, the whole issue of the
>adequa...>Being ExPR, the whole issue of the <br />>adequacy/honesty of the declaration is very >important because you can't get at the guy <br />>ratting you out and poke hot bamboo shoots <br />>under his fingernails. <br /><br />True. Reexam does not offer the opportunity to depose the declarant. Not even inter partes offers such a mechanism. A big difference between reexam and litigation. <br /><br />I suppose the fact finder is supposed to take this into account when weighing the credibility of the declarant. The Board didn't comment on credibility here, so we don't know what they were thinking.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-48440113884417072592011-04-04T13:49:04.211-04:002011-04-04T13:49:04.211-04:00"As far as Anonymous chomping at the bit for ..."As far as Anonymous chomping at the bit for you to have a look at the Jung case, let me just give the ball a push and say it is a gawdawful opinion. The gist of which is that an applicant is not -- ink your thigh with this: NOT -- entitled to a clear and proper explanation of the reasons for a rejection before having to reply to the merits. <br /><br />I am appalled. Appalled, I tell you. But then, I appall quite easily."<br /><br />Oh dear, the chicken littles have roosted at this site now too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-15018873259885826902011-04-02T17:40:29.222-04:002011-04-02T17:40:29.222-04:00Karen, I am missing something.
Being ExPR, the ...Karen, I am missing something. <br /><br />Being ExPR, the whole issue of the adequacy/honesty of the declaration is very important because you can't get at the guy ratting you out and poke hot bamboo shoots under his fingernails. <br /><br />I don't see any discussion of ex v. inter partes on this issue.<br /><br />As far as Anonymous chomping at the bit for you to have a look at the Jung case, let me just give the ball a push and say it is a gawdawful opinion. The gist of which is that an applicant is not -- ink your thigh with this: NOT -- entitled to a clear and proper explanation of the reasons for a rejection before having to reply to the merits. <br /><br />I am appalled. Appalled, I tell you. But then, I appall quite easily.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-57483497252824943452011-03-30T20:47:53.340-04:002011-03-30T20:47:53.340-04:00Karen Karen Karen. When are you going to cover th...Karen Karen Karen. When are you going to cover the recent In Re Jung case? Come on, I can't wait!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-6094900138149327222011-03-29T12:34:35.345-04:002011-03-29T12:34:35.345-04:00"But non-patent literature is much more commo..."But non-patent literature is much more common in reexaminations, where the requester has reason to spend a lot of money on a literature search....And since an in-force patent is at stake, it's not surprising that the patentee digs really deep with its arguments,..."<br /><br />Illustrates what I always tell my clients - if your patent is worth anything then someone will want to infringe/invalidate and will spend the money digging for the prior art that you didn't find and/or the examiner didn't consider.<br /><br />Money spend up front is better than money spent later arguing against what the other party found.Bruce Horwitzhttp://ipdirections.techroadmap.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-66650015381181162822011-03-29T12:15:34.233-04:002011-03-29T12:15:34.233-04:00On an unrelated topic, the Fed. Cir. released the ...On an unrelated topic, the Fed. Cir. released the decision in Jung today. I reviewed the prosecution history of 10/770,072. It is the ultimate example of sh!tty advocacy. It should be taught in every law school as an example of precisely what NOT to do during prosecution. J. Linn absolutely rips the knucklehead who prosecuted this POS on pp. 15-16. He was too kind in my opinion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com