tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post8597990217174068332..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: Board reverses 101 rejection of a method claim reciting particular machine componentsKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-32584218376847371612016-04-23T17:05:08.225-04:002016-04-23T17:05:08.225-04:00I've seen more than one decision disappear fro...<i>I've seen more than one decision disappear from the PTAB FOIA index.</i><br />I've seen plenty (of mine) that never made into the database -- and they didn't include non-publication requests. It is difficult to decide whether it is intentional or the result of incompetence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-84098794078170960262016-04-19T12:54:21.911-04:002016-04-19T12:54:21.911-04:00None of the guidelines were followed. Not even th...None of the guidelines were followed. Not even the October, 2005 guidelines. The rejection is literally jibberish, or in the late (!) J. Scalia, gobbledygook.AAA JJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-63715067586633395912016-04-18T17:41:03.695-04:002016-04-18T17:41:03.695-04:00I have an Examiner stating the following: "th...I have an Examiner stating the following: "the inquiry is to whether the computer components add something which is significantly more than the abstract idea itself." Has anyone ever heard of this? <br /><br />It was my understanding the following was the analysis: whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itselfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-30049209613920337752016-04-18T16:33:42.984-04:002016-04-18T16:33:42.984-04:00I noticed the Krampe decision doesn't show up ...I noticed the Krampe decision doesn't show up in a search of the PTAB FOIA decision database -- though the direct URL does work. <br /><br />Turns out the Krampe application was filed with a non-publication request, so the decision should not have been published on the PTAB site. I've seen more than one decision disappear from the PTAB FOIA index.Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-65665539326586017362016-04-18T16:09:05.069-04:002016-04-18T16:09:05.069-04:00>another fine example of 101 rejection where ex...>another fine example of 101 rejection where examiner made <br />>no attempt whatsoever to follow the guidelines on 101 rejections.<br /><br /><br />I note the Examiner's Answer was mailed only a month or so after the Alice decision. The Guidelines in effect at that point were the PTO's Bilski Interim Guidance memo, basically listing various eligible/ineligible factors to be weighed. <br /><br />Is that your criticism ... that the Bilski guidance wasn't followed?<br />Karen G. Hazzahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-74376429488799036992016-04-15T09:02:15.574-04:002016-04-15T09:02:15.574-04:00And another fine example of a 101 rejection where ...And another fine example of a 101 rejection where the examiner made no attempt whatsoever to follow the guidelines on 101 rejections. Just totally made up bullsh!t from the examiner. And I'm sure Mr. Millin whispering in his ear. Heckuva job, Vince. Now do everybody a favor and take the retirement package and get the f#ck out of the way of applicants trying to get a legally competent examination of their application. It's the least you could after a career of sitting on your a$$ and collecting a check for doing nothing.AAA JJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-77682315754748796092016-04-15T08:59:36.423-04:002016-04-15T08:59:36.423-04:00Another example of the totally sh!tty work product...Another example of the totally sh!tty work product from "appeals specialist" Vince Millin. What a completely useless POS this guy is. A legal ignoramus. A lazy, useless obstruction in the process collecting a GS-15 salary for doing absolutely nothing. A total disgrace.AAA JJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-89395413362145093502016-04-14T16:16:42.725-04:002016-04-14T16:16:42.725-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Robert K Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13320641533825974319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-42403208096177835992016-04-14T16:16:08.830-04:002016-04-14T16:16:08.830-04:00Hm. Show me an ex parte appeal decision that affi...Hm. Show me an ex parte appeal decision that affirmatively states that claims are patentable, and I'll show you a panel that didn't read the draft of the decision carefully. It's not the job of the Board to "find the claims eligible"; they merely reverse or affirm the examiner on the evidence and reasoning of record, or enter new grounds of rejection where new reasoning for such can be presented.Robert K Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13320641533825974319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-31797266445770537862016-04-14T14:53:39.873-04:002016-04-14T14:53:39.873-04:00An interesting point here is that this decision (l...An interesting point here is that this decision (like that in Ex parte Etchegoyen) does not find the claims eligible; it merely states that the record does not establish a prima facie case. It will be worth seeing whether the examiner drops the rejection or tries to rehabilitate it with more detailed articulation.Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01227735202572137380noreply@blogger.com