tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post2150938257862512225..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: Do examiners really need to follow the Berkheimer memo?Karen G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-21839633171649257122021-05-16T13:26:53.576-04:002021-05-16T13:26:53.576-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.MAXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06566708911478379498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-82490081523803705332019-12-22T00:01:55.089-05:002019-12-22T00:01:55.089-05:00This specific seems to be vital that will the woma...This specific seems to be vital that will the woman's, certainly as the new mother. <a href="https://imgur.com/a/M6zVMLx" rel="nofollow">https://imgur.com/a/M6zVMLx</a> <a href="http://xxi6kxf8ky.dip.jp" rel="nofollow">http://xxi6kxf8ky.dip.jp</a> <a href="https://imgur.com/a/4IERivI" rel="nofollow">https://imgur.com/a/4IERivI</a> <a href="https://imgur.com/a/KZU3MX0" rel="nofollow">https://imgur.com/a/KZU3MX0</a> <a href="https://imgur.com/a/l1hqMHT" rel="nofollow">https://imgur.com/a/l1hqMHT</a> <a href="https://imgur.com/a/SyUk4pr" rel="nofollow">https://imgur.com/a/SyUk4pr</a> <a href="https://imgur.com/a/MEUrdlo" rel="nofollow">https://imgur.com/a/MEUrdlo</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-41650687006128108642018-08-16T11:26:44.446-04:002018-08-16T11:26:44.446-04:00Why? The 101 jurisprudence punishes attempts to p...Why? The 101 jurisprudence punishes attempts to patent abstract ideas, not non-abstract computing components that just happen to be old. That's 102-land.Robert K Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13320641533825974319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-3722864691472048412018-08-09T18:24:53.570-04:002018-08-09T18:24:53.570-04:00"I know of at least one situation where this ..."I know of at least one situation where this is appropriate. If the independent claim consists entirely of generic, conventional computing components/activities, followed by a dependent claim that introduces an abstract idea. While conventional/generic computing elements do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea they are not themselves abstract."<br /><br />You got a cite for this?<br />An independent claim reciting only generic, conventional computing components/activities would still receive a 101 for reciting only generic, conventional computing components/activities on the basis that it recited only generic, conventional computing components/activities. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-3723411328555167662018-07-23T19:24:04.019-04:002018-07-23T19:24:04.019-04:00I know of at least one situation where this is app...I know of at least one situation where this is appropriate. If the independent claim consists entirely of generic, conventional computing components/activities, followed by a dependent claim that introduces an abstract idea. While conventional/generic computing elements do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea they are not themselves abstract. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-83519095625767769922018-06-06T18:16:30.804-04:002018-06-06T18:16:30.804-04:00I also wish to add that I recently received an Off...I also wish to add that I recently received an Office Action where the Examiner rejected a dependent claim under 101 but had not rejected the independent claim it depended from under 101.<br />And yes, the Examiner is a Primary. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-87853614397150510612018-06-06T18:08:02.814-04:002018-06-06T18:08:02.814-04:00Examiners follow guidance from PTO management, and...Examiners follow guidance from PTO management, and that guidance is most often complete BS. If you tell an Examiner that they did not determine the level of ordinary skill in the art, they respond that Examiners can be viewed as persons of ordinary skill in the art. When you ask where this comes from (MPEP, PTAB, Federal Circuit), they change the subject real fast.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-117242640973945322018-06-02T12:52:28.692-04:002018-06-02T12:52:28.692-04:00Actually the MAIN point you see the PTAB spit out,...Actually the MAIN point you see the PTAB spit out, time after time is "hey, if you don't like the Examiner NOT following the Guidelines, your only option is Petition, don't cry to us"<br /><br />Which is true, to a point, but then the same PTAB will hold your non-compliance with the Guidelines as evidence against you in an adverse finding. They have no shame.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18216273309183272389noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-56236268481559980332018-05-04T16:48:35.317-04:002018-05-04T16:48:35.317-04:00While there is no question that the PTAB is routin...While there is no question that the PTAB is routinely not persuaded by the type of arguments against weak 101 rejections discussed above, I wonder if Appellants that focus on the fact that the abstract idea test is a Judicially Created exception fair any better. <br /><br />At least in theory, only Article III judges should be able to identify unpatentable abstract ideas, as it is not based on a statue. Accordingly, an examiner within an administrative agency should not be allowed to identify abstract ideas without reference to specific judicially created law as a guide. When an examiner merely asserts that a claim is directed to an abstract idea without reference to analogy to case law, the examiner is essentially expanding the judicially created exception to patentability - this should not be tolerated by the board or the courts.GMShttp://www.slwip.comnoreply@blogger.com