TataBoxInhibitor
Full Member
Posts: 456
|
 |
Re: Form of Responding - need help
« Reply #5 on: Sep 1st, 2006, 1:26pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on Sep 1st, 2006, 12:03pm, Isaac wrote:
If your argument is that the Examiner is wrong about the identified groups of inventions being patentably distinct, you might well be best served by electing without traversal. You really cannot effectively respond to the argument without arguing away claim scope.
If the Examiner has failed meet the criteria for restriction by doing something like not identifying generic claims, not providing a rationale for why examination of the claims is an undue burden, then traversal is more likley be a reasonable choice.
I'll also note that there are plenty of anecdotes around that suggest that arguments over even weakest of restriction requirements won't be successful.
|
|
Isaac,
I am not sure that "the examination of claims is an undue burden" has any role in a restriction requirement argument in the context of design applications. They are given one claim, so there shouldnt be any burden. I am sure you were just referring to restriction requirements in general though.
|
Forums
Help
Search
Members
Calendar
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print
Author
IP Logged