tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post6089253552822868534..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: BPAI reverses § 101 rejection of computer readable medium as "inoperative"Karen G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-35478155740087901332011-05-27T13:11:11.977-04:002011-05-27T13:11:11.977-04:00"I was just making fun of 6. Sorry for the co..."I was just making fun of 6. Sorry for the confusion. "<br /><br />You did such a good job of it, I thought you were 6. Sorry for the confusion.TINLA IANYLhttp://yahoo.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-81529611371451322822011-05-26T14:10:27.380-04:002011-05-26T14:10:27.380-04:00"Lulz, yeah that happens like all the time.&q..."Lulz, yeah that happens like all the time."<br /><br />I'm sure you can find a decision that reversed the rejections on those grounds issued within the last 2 weeks or so. I don't remember the serial number off hand, but I'm sure your superior searching skills will find it in no time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-37208731511701112232011-05-26T13:56:40.655-04:002011-05-26T13:56:40.655-04:00"Said the rejections were based on speculatio..."Said the rejections were based on speculation, unfounded assumptions, and hindsight. Boy, that's gotta sting, huh?""<br /><br />Lulz, yeah that happens like all the time.<br /><br />"They don't know nothing anyway.""<br /><br />Now now, they say "they don't know ANYTHING anyway".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-9532910845727190432011-05-26T09:59:01.771-04:002011-05-26T09:59:01.771-04:00"By signing off on the non-final and final Of..."By signing off on the non-final and final Office Actions, the SPE is facing embarassment at the failure to recognize this nonsense early on."<br /><br />Huh? None of these SPE's is "facing embarrassment" for signing off on anything. Who are they going to be embarrassed by? Their fellow SPE's? The TC Directors? Not a chance. They all sign off on total garbage for one reason and one reason only: it's easy and there are zero consequences for it. What, you think a bunch of SPE's and/or TC Directors are sitting around on their lunch two hour and one of them says to another, "Hey, Bob, I saw the Board reversed that case you sent up two and a half years ago. Said the rejections were based on speculation, unfounded assumptions, and hindsight. Boy, that's gotta sting, huh?"<br /><br />Puh-leeze. None of them give a sh!t what the Board says about their rejections. Their whole attitude is, "Well, we didn't allow it, the Board did. They don't know nothing anyway."<br /><br />"The attitude is that it is better for the BPAI to provide the Examiner and his/her bosses with some cover, most likely in the belief that if the BPAI doesn't support the Examiner's reasoning, the BPAI will substitute their own rationales for the rejections."<br /><br />This is why the BPAI backlog has, just from October 1, 2010 through April 30, 2011, gone from 19,000 to 22,500. <br /><br />I agree you should call them on crap early and often. Just don't be surprised when you're filing your brief and docketing a three year call up in your docketing system to see if the decision has been issued.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-12057312242185495582011-05-26T07:38:17.922-04:002011-05-26T07:38:17.922-04:00>if you get to the SPEs/TC Directors early on, ...>if you get to the SPEs/TC Directors early on, <br />>they won't have painted themselves too badly <br />>into a corner by letting just the first Office <br />>Action slip through.<br /><br />Yeah, makes sense. Perhaps part of a larger philosophy of calling the PTO on crap early and often to try to prevent it from snowballing.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-8649324580765951832011-05-25T19:50:51.087-04:002011-05-25T19:50:51.087-04:00My point in the above post is that if you get to t...My point in the above post is that if you get to the SPEs/TC Directors early on, they won't have painted themselves too badly into a corner by letting just the first Office Action slip through. This allows them leeway to "reconsider" the rejections and decide that the rejections should be withdrawn.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-598785716045417272011-05-25T19:48:55.424-04:002011-05-25T19:48:55.424-04:00"However, this case went to appeal, which tel..."However, this case went to appeal, which tells us that a conference of Examiners signed off on it. Apparently none of them thought it was crappy enough to reopen prosecution to withdraw the rejection."<br /><br />True, but most SPEs and TC Directors who came up during the 2001-2008 years developed a circle the wagons mentality when it reaches the point of the pre-appeal conference. By signing off on the non-final and final Office Actions, the SPE is facing embarassment at the failure to recognize this nonsense early on. The attitude is that it is better for the BPAI to provide the Examiner and his/her bosses with some cover, most likely in the belief that if the BPAI doesn't support the Examiner's reasoning, the BPAI will substitute their own rationales for the rejections.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-71548062105616869712011-05-25T16:50:45.388-04:002011-05-25T16:50:45.388-04:00"However, this case went to appeal, which tel..."However, this case went to appeal, which tells us that a conference of Examiners signed off on it. Apparently none of them thought it was crappy enough to reopen prosecution to withdraw the rejection."<br /><br />All of the conferees should be publicly horse whipped. The SPE and the TC Director should be fired for the shenanigans that have gone on post reversal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-87253738996496312052011-05-25T16:19:15.538-04:002011-05-25T16:19:15.538-04:00>bring crap like this to the attention of the
...>bring crap like this to the attention of the <br />>Examiner's supervisors<br /><br />This might work in situations where the supervisor is unaware of the rejection. So it doesn't hurt to consider a phone call or a petition, when appropriate. <br /><br />However, this case went to appeal, which tells us that a conference of Examiners signed off on it. Apparently none of them thought it was crappy enough to reopen prosecution to withdraw the rejection.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-59779789238103603612011-05-25T16:15:45.538-04:002011-05-25T16:15:45.538-04:00It's always best to review incoming Office Act...It's always best to review incoming Office Actions ASAP in order to bring crap like this to the attention of the Examiner's supervisors within a month of the mailing date. Filing a petition to invoke supervisory review is something that can be done in parallel with responding to the OA and, hopefully, be decided before the need to file a Notice of Appeal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-2485644349967329062011-05-25T14:31:47.686-04:002011-05-25T14:31:47.686-04:00"The wire was shipped overseas on ice, and th..."The wire was shipped overseas on ice, and the data successfully read out. Apparently, we have very short memories if we think wires can't be storage mediums."<br /><br />Cite please.<br /><br />A couple things, please find me the material that can be made into a superconductor with "ice." So called "high-temperature superconductors" are defined as being superconductive at temperatures greater than -196 Celsius (or 77K).<br /><br />Also, assuming you have such an enabled configuration, you've transformed what was once considered a transmission medium into a storage medium. Also, the 101 rejection based upon the invention being "inoperative" is still toast.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-57692757795734364662011-05-25T12:50:09.920-04:002011-05-25T12:50:09.920-04:00I was just making fun of 6. Sorry for the confusi...I was just making fun of 6. Sorry for the confusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-51337200399862299612011-05-25T12:11:25.444-04:002011-05-25T12:11:25.444-04:00"Yeah, but when all the electrons fall out of..."Yeah, but when all the electrons fall out of the wire, isn't the data lost?"<br /><br />When RAM is no longer powered, the electrons also "fall out" and the DATA is lost. Are you saying that you do not consider RAM to be a storage medium?TINLA IANYLhttp://yahoo.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-61852232476007805862011-05-25T12:10:44.426-04:002011-05-25T12:10:44.426-04:00>we have very short memories if we think wires ...>we have very short memories if we think wires <br />>can't be storage mediums.<br /><br />But what about *reasonable* claim construction. Does a POSITA understand "computer readable storage medium" to encompass wire? <br /><br />As a software developer, I'm pretty sure I would have said that position was ridiculous. <br /><br />Of course, you gotta look to see if the Applicant defined the term in the spec. And this particular case, the spec says "computer readable medium includes wire". Even so, the BPAI found that the spec taught wire was non-storage, and reversed the 101 rejection on this basis. <br /><br />Absent any discussion of wires being CRM in the spec, do we really think a POSITA understands CRM to include wires?Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-90462595981727385262011-05-25T11:45:26.626-04:002011-05-25T11:45:26.626-04:00"Apparently, we have very short memories if w..."Apparently, we have very short memories if we think wires can't be storage mediums."<br /><br />Yeah, but when all the electrons fall out of the wire, isn't the data lost?<br /><br />LulzAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-46661954355011079262011-05-25T11:27:17.064-04:002011-05-25T11:27:17.064-04:00The point about any transmission medium necessaril...The point about any transmission medium necessarily storing the data for at least long enough to transmit it is certainly true. However, I recall from law school that one of the reasons courts originally found propagating waves to be patent eligible subject matter under the manufacture category is because a demonstration was conducted in which a data wave was propagated in a loop of superconducting wire. The wire was shipped overseas on ice, and the data successfully read out. Apparently, we have very short memories if we think wires can't be storage mediums.TINLA IANYLhttp://yahoo.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-58892010967682867632011-05-24T21:36:58.723-04:002011-05-24T21:36:58.723-04:00Actually I take that back, I've never really e...Actually I take that back, I've never really even messed with an "inoperative" device. I pretty much only ever see devices that are impossible to make. And those are what gets a 112 1st enablement. Although, come to think of it, you still have to have enabled one of skill to be able to use your device. So, idk, maybe a 112 1st would work on an "inoperative" device as well. I'd have to look into that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-87186246919217443482011-05-24T21:30:46.853-04:002011-05-24T21:30:46.853-04:00"Do you think it was 6?"
Lulz, I'd ..."Do you think it was 6?"<br /><br />Lulz, I'd give a 112 1st enablement on an "inoperative" device. Even so, I don't think that is what is going on in this case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-4821649982216527812011-05-24T20:56:00.165-04:002011-05-24T20:56:00.165-04:00The examiner probably did all this on paid overtim...The examiner probably did all this on paid overtime!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-70611077473805544162011-05-24T14:00:07.307-04:002011-05-24T14:00:07.307-04:00"So, even though the 'storage' time i..."So, even though the 'storage' time in the wire or cable is very small - it does indeed exist - just ask a satellite engineer transmitting a signal through space!!"<br /><br />Point them to In re Nuitjen -- I'll let you figure out where. Also, discuss the standard of claim construction, which is broadest reasonable interpretation, not broadest convoluted interpretation.<br /><br />Cables, space, propagating signals per se, etc. are examples of transmission mediums, which are distinct from storage mediums. Whereas "storage" holds something, a propagating signal is "devoid of any semblance of permanence."<br /><br />Of course, I'm boring the rabble with claim cosntructions and case law. It is far easier to swallow these contrived claim interpretations than to actually argue them.<br /><br />Silly example, but a good one. I walk down the hallway -- thereby occupying it for some brief period of time. The fact that I was in the hallway for that brief period of time does not transorm the hallway into a storage closet.<br /><br />Reasonable claim constructions people -- reasonable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-35971505530129219912011-05-24T13:53:51.249-04:002011-05-24T13:53:51.249-04:00"The same thing happened to me, but at the pr..."The same thing happened to me, but at the pre-BPAI-decision stage, where only a SPE's signature is required - twice in a row."<br /><br />This has happened to me some many times I've lost count.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-2167009426651534042011-05-24T13:48:51.850-04:002011-05-24T13:48:51.850-04:00Chapter 1000 is a good place to start. Not exactl...Chapter 1000 is a good place to start. Not exactly on point, but gets you heading in the right direction. See, for example, MPEP 1003.<br /><br />In this particular app, see MPEP 1214.07.<br /><br />I wouldn't waste time on the TC Director. That fact that sh!t like this is going down in his TC without his knowledge is disgraceful. The only way a TC Director is going to put a stop to nonsense like this is if there is a consequence for him/her. If he got a phone call from Stoll or Kappos asking him to explain what the h#ll is going on in 10/915,174, do you think any SPE in his TC is ever again going to pull these shenanigans? I doubt it. That TC Director would let it be known to all the sh!tty little cockroaches in his/her TC that if they pull crxp like this, they're gonna feel some pain come review time. <br /><br />Not going to change any of this garbage over at the PTO with polite phone calls like, "Excuse me, TC Director, but I have a teensy weensy problem with a case in your TC. Could you maybe possibly take a moment out of your busy day of doing absolutely nothing and let me know what I can do to get the a$$holes who work for you to obey the law? Thank you so much for your time today." <br /><br />You gotta get these bxstards in trouble. Lots of trouble. Or they're gonna fxck your clients and you at will.<br /><br />A partner at a previous firm gave me some great advise: There's two kinds of people in this world - fxckers and fxckees. Don't be a fxckee.<br /><br />Words to live by.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-10430610506042048292011-05-24T13:30:26.343-04:002011-05-24T13:30:26.343-04:00Where in the MPEP can I learn about these signatur...Where in the MPEP can I learn about these signature requirements?Robert K Snoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-77633186859839001482011-05-24T12:55:38.780-04:002011-05-24T12:55:38.780-04:00The same thing happened to me, but at the pre-BPAI...The same thing happened to me, but at the pre-BPAI-decision stage, where only a SPE's signature is required - twice in a row.<br /><br />Here, I would call the TC Director straight. It's his/her signature that's missing. In my experience, examiners and SPEs have little respect for the signature requirements.Kipnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-41953633078168864042011-05-24T12:32:20.128-04:002011-05-24T12:32:20.128-04:00I'd be on the phone with Mr. Kappos today if I...I'd be on the phone with Mr. Kappos today if I was representing the applicant. <br /><br />These examiners and SPE's are all cockroaches. They'll scurry around in the dark doing their dirtiest work, and run and hide as soon as you shine a light on them.<br /><br />Absolutely unforgiveable for applicant's rep not to point out the missing TC Director approval in the response to the re-opened prosecution. Sh!tty advocacy without a doubt.<br /><br />I would dispense with the petition and start making phone calls. Immediately.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com