Re: Re: Question for "in the know"
[ The Intellectual Property Law Server ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Patent Forum ] [ FAQ ]
Posted by M. Arthur Auslander on April 03, 2003 at 20:36:47:
In Reply to: Re: Question for "in the know" posted by in the know on April 02, 2003 at 06:07:46:
: You're referring to US 5,193,056 to Data Processing System for Hub and Spoke Financial Services Configuration" : The specific patent above was invalidated due to an Examiner error. This happens, fact of life. : Just from what I know, business methods is a VERY tough area to find prior art for because its such a new field. Examiners have rely ALOT on non patent literature and it is quite impossible to evalaute everything out there. All I could say is that Examiners evaluating Business methods applications are doing the best that they can. Established arts have a huge collection of patent prior art than an examiner can pull from. New technology is harder to examine because quality and rejections go hand in hand. Applicants want to know that the patent they recieve will not be overturned. I guess this is a canned response, ya know? Examiners do the best they can with the limited amount of time and resources they have per case. Hope this kinda sorta helps... : : What's your view on how the USPTO is handling business method patents since State Street? Dear Question, The best answer is to be gotten for a Patent Lawyer you can trust, in term of what the disclosusre is. M. Arthur Auslander Auslander & Thomas-Intellectual Property Law Since 1909 3008 Johnson Ave., New York, NY 10463 7185430266, aus@auslander.com ELAINE's Workshop® E arly L egal A dvice I s N ot E xpensive™ Reality Check®
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
|