|
Jim_W
|
 |
« Reply #3210 on: 11-06-09 at 06:05 pm » |
|
Well, it gets harder after a certain age to learn
Not that much harder. Anyone smart enough to handle patent examining duties can handle conversational English. And besides, it's not really an option. It's a bona fide legal job in the united states. Prosecuting patents (and by extension, I presume, examining them) is the practice of law. It just happens to be protected from state bar regulation by the supremacy clause and congress' constitutionally enumerated IP powers. There's just no way around the necessity of communicating effectively in English. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
xephay
|
|
« Reply #3211 on: 11-06-09 at 07:28 pm » |
|
The issue is that the PTO should only hire examiners that have both the technical knowledge and also adequately-developed English communications skills for the job. I know, easier said than done.
There's just no way around the necessity of communicating effectively in English.
Y'all are preaching to the choir. For the "foreigners" out there: http://www.goenglish.com/PreachingToTheChoir.aspSpeaking of language, I heard this way back from some years of French in h.s. (in the U.S. of A.): "What do you call someone who speaks two languages?" "Bilingual." "Three languages?" "Trilingual." "One language?" "American." Sorry to be the barrier bearer of bad news, tech_spec (that you're not American).  OK, it's not funny. DDPM, you can take over. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Forrest Gump
|
|
« Reply #3212 on: 11-09-09 at 10:04 am » |
|
"a few thousand"? Out of some 6000+ examiners? No wonder the USPTO is in such a crisis!
And what's a "foreigner"? Don't you have to be an American to work at the USPTO? About a month ago the press was claiming "Americans" having won certain Nobel prizes despite those "Americans" having been born in Australia or China. Is the governor of Calif. a foreigner? How about the USPTO Director Kappos? And the Secretary of Commerce, Kappos's boss? Both have parents or grandparent who were immigrants.
There're several stereotyping opinions in the above that're not worth to time to respond, especially "count Monday" is coming.
 It is clear that you are playing coy on an issue that you, as an Examiner, haven't fully experienced. And please spare us all the political correctness sermon on "stereotyping." Stereotyping is problematic when an individual suffers a detriment based on a stereotype that isn't true in the case of that individual. When we aren't talking about an individual, but instead addressing a problem that exists across a large group of people, generalizations aren't only useful, they are necessary. A person without at least an above-average mastery of the English language has no business in a job that involves determining people's legal rights on the basis of very detailed interpretations of the English language. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Examinerguy
|
|
« Reply #3213 on: 11-09-09 at 04:16 pm » |
|
It is clear that you are playing coy on an issue that you, as an Examiner, haven't fully experienced. And please spare us all the political correctness sermon on "stereotyping." Stereotyping is problematic when an individual suffers a detriment based on a stereotype that isn't true in the case of that individual. When we aren't talking about an individual, but instead addressing a problem that exists across a large group of people, generalizations aren't only useful, they are necessary. A person without at least an above-average mastery of the English language has no business in a job that involves determining people's legal rights on the basis of very detailed interpretations of the English language. Great post. I hate being politically correct on an anonymous forum. Just tell us what you are thinking...it may be the only place you can anonymously do so. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pastandpresent
|
|
« Reply #3214 on: 11-09-09 at 04:29 pm » |
|
A person without at least an above-average mastery of the English language has no business in a job that involves determining people's legal rights on the basis of very detailed interpretations of the English language. Coming from an ivy league background, I speak English quite well and this statement is simply not true. A patent examiner determines people's legal rights on the basis of a very detailed interpretation of "an invention". If you have issues understanding a primary/junior examiner who speaks English as a second language, go hire or send a patent attorney with the same linguistic credentials. Examiners prosecute applications from all over the world (371 and PCT cases), and the USPTO need these patent examiners who speak Korean, Japanese, German, Russian, French to not only understand the inventor, but also the invention (i.e. looking over the certified foreign copies, verifying support in the original specification, and etc). Even though the USPTO requires applications to be published/submitted in English, we need these primaries/juniors to properly interpret translations, expedite prosecution (i.e. without constantly seeking help from the USPTO translators), and effectively argue with patent attorneys whom only argue from the translated specification and not the original foreign specification. In essence, "an above-average mastery of the English language" is not required, unless you are litigating.....  . |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 11-09-09 at 04:49 pm by pastandpresent »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bald & chained
|
|
« Reply #3215 on: 11-09-09 at 04:59 pm » |
|
A person without at least an above-average mastery of the English language has no business in a job that involves determining people's legal rights on the basis of very detailed interpretations of the English language. Coming from an ivy league background, I speak English quite well and this statement is simply not true. A patent examiner determines people's legal rights on the basis of a very detailed interpretation of "an invention". If you have issues understanding a primary/junior examiner who speaks English as a second language, go hire or send a patent attorney with the same linguistic credentials. Examiners prosecute applications from all over the world (371 and PCT cases), and the USPTO need these patent examiners who speak Korean, Japanese, German, Russian, French to not only understand the inventor, but also the invention (i.e. looking over the certified foreign copies, verifying support in the original specification, and etc). Even though the USPTO requires applications to be published/submitted in English, we need these primaries/juniors to properly interpret translations, expedite prosecution (i.e. without constantly seeking help from the USPTO translators), and effectively argue with patent attorneys whom only argue from the translated specification and not the original foreign specification. In essence, "an above-average mastery of the English language" is not required, unless you are litigating..... . There is so much wrong with the above post by pastandpresent that I am once again forced to conclude that he is an elaborate flame. Well done sir, I chucked, especially after reading the part about verifying support in the original foreign specification. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pastandpresent
|
|
« Reply #3216 on: 11-09-09 at 05:03 pm » |
|
The sophistry once again. You attorneys are simply rubbish. You just can't handle that an Examiner is superior to you attorneys.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
bald & chained
|
|
« Reply #3217 on: 11-09-09 at 05:19 pm » |
|
The sophistry once again. You attorneys are simply rubbish. You just can't handle that an Examiner is superior to you attorneys.
yes, but we make more $$$ and are generally better looking. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
dablueman
|
|
« Reply #3218 on: 11-09-09 at 05:33 pm » |
|
Even though the USPTO requires applications to be published/submitted in English, we need these primaries/juniors to properly interpret translations, expedite prosecution (i.e. without constantly seeking help from the USPTO translators), and effectively argue with patent attorneys whom only argue from the translated specification and not the original foreign specification. In essence, "an above-average mastery of the English language" is not required, unless you are litigating..... . Why would I need help from a USPTO translator to translate a certified English translation? If it's an English translation, and I can't find the limitation, then it's not there until the applicant convinces me otherwise. If it is in the Certified translation, but not in the original, then that's the applicant's problem during litigation, not mine. It's that simple. It is FAR more important to have an above average mastery of the English language in order to discern the many nuances of English that affect interpretation of the claims, then it is to read foreign documents in their native language. ...and are generally better looking.
Choked on my pop (or soda if you're a southerner) when I read that. Hilarious. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Forrest Gump
|
|
« Reply #3219 on: 11-09-09 at 05:41 pm » |
|
There is so much wrong with the above post by pastandpresent that I am once again forced to conclude that he is an elaborate flame. Well done sir, I chucked, especially after reading the part about verifying support in the original foreign specification.
Yep. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Examinerguy
|
|
« Reply #3220 on: 11-09-09 at 06:26 pm » |
|
The sophistry once again. You attorneys are simply rubbish. You just can't handle that an Examiner is superior to you attorneys.
yes, but we make more $$$ and are generally better looking. I hate that you are right. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mk1023
|
|
« Reply #3221 on: 11-09-09 at 08:57 pm » |
|
Choked on my pop (or soda if you're a southerner) when I read that. Hilarious.
Southerners say coke. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jim_W
|
|
« Reply #3222 on: 11-09-09 at 10:11 pm » |
|
Bravo to pastandpresent for an above average troll. I briefly considered raging.
6/10
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
DogDayPM 9er9er9er
|
|
« Reply #3223 on: 11-09-09 at 10:15 pm » |
|
Coming from an ivy league background, I speak English quite well ...
...argue with patent attorneys whom only argue from the translated specification ....
« Last Edit: Today at 04:49 pm by pastandpresent »
Hmmm.... izzit just me or would that post look better if it got at least one more Ivy League Edit....? Not that I want to be the barrier  of bad news or anything. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Any and all disclaimers you may see on this forum used by members more experienced and/or smarter than I, are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
|
|
|
|
lukertin
|
|
« Reply #3224 on: 11-10-09 at 09:02 am » |
|
Coming from an ivy league background, I speak English quite well ...
...argue with patent attorneys whom only argue from the translated specification ....
« Last Edit: Today at 04:49 pm by pastandpresent »
Hmmm.... izzit just me or would that post look better if it got at least one more Ivy League Edit....? Not that I want to be the barrier of bad news or anything. LOL ripped |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If I were a lawyer you should sue me for malpractice.
|
|
|
|
