Motivation for combining the element is the sole purpose of the element...

[JimIvey]

Interesting. Hadn't thought of it this way. So even if examination gets better (from an Applicant's point of view) as a result of Kappos influence and directives, there will be a substantial lag in the Kappos effect at the BPAI. Or, put another way, we've yet to even feel the impact of the Dudas effect at the BPAI.

I've had a few conversations with examiners -- both new and experienced (and no longer at the PTO).  I know a little about the author the that BPAI decision I referred to above and I understand he is (was) a Dudas darling.  I also hear that new examiners often want to allow a case (or at least have reached the conclusion that some claims ought to be allowed) but some (and I emphasize, just some) are constrained by an SPE who refuses to allow anything.  Some new examiners are pressured by their SPE into pushing rejections that they think are not proper.

The Dudas influence appears to be mostly in primaries, SPEs, and moving into the BPAI -- as far as I can tell.  It will eventually be flushed out.  Can't happen too soon in my opinion.  Soon, I'll probably drop my strategy of appealing early and often.

FWIW, I'm somewhat encouraged by new examiners.  While it may take an extra non-final OA or 2, I'm seeing good rejections -- stuff that actually makes me amend the claims.  Gives me some faith in the future of the system.

Regards.

[dab2d]

I can say for a fact that I know what Jim said to be true. There is a situation I am aware of where the Jr Ex got a ding by the Quality review people for maintaining a rejection forced by the SPE.

[JimIvey]

I can say for a fact that I know what Jim said to be true. There is a situation I am aware of where the Jr Ex got a ding by the Quality review people for maintaining a rejection forced by the SPE.

That seems to confirm what I've heard about Quality Assurance there now -- reviewing more than just allowances.  For most of the Dudas tenure there, allowances were carefully scrutinized but rejections generally weren't reviewed at all by anyone above the SPE level.

In addition, from what I've heard, the SPE will get the "ding", not the Jr. examiner.

Regards.

[Simpletown]

Let's change the hypothetical a bit.  Imagine the invention was a USB thumb drive in the handle of a tire iron.  I'm sure you'd get a rejection for obviousness because, as we all know, one would be motivated to have data stored in a tire iron -- better than a dumb, old tire iron with no data storage capacity, right?  Except that we don't know that.  A USB thumb drive is intended to be light and portable.  A tire iron is designed to be seldom used, strong, and durable.  Combining the two defeats all those purposes.  Who wants a tire iron hanging from their key-chain?  Who wants to toss a car jack on top of a USB thumb drive in the trunk of their car?

I saw this and remembered this post. They present the all new USB Swiss army knife.

http://www.amazon.com/Swissbit-Swiss-Flash-Drive-401313/dp/B000BS5RS6

I await the the newest tire irons.

[dab2d]

Ha

[patentatt]

I can say for a fact that I know what Jim said to be true. There is a situation I am aware of where the Jr Ex got a ding by the Quality review people for maintaining a rejection forced by the SPE.

That seems to confirm what I've heard about Quality Assurance there now -- reviewing more than just allowances.  For most of the Dudas tenure there, allowances were carefully scrutinized but rejections generally weren't reviewed at all by anyone above the SPE level.

In addition, from what I've heard, the SPE will get the "ding", not the Jr. examiner.

Regards.

Is there a document at POPA or USPTO.GOV detailing how examiners and SPEs are reviewed for performance / possible termination / quality review, etc.?

I've seen a couple documents along those lines, but I am not sure which ones are current / definitive, etc.  Some documents seem to be merely "proposed."  Others seem to describe a system for evaluating entire art units or TCs based on a random selection of applications without (necessarily?) examiner-specific feedback.  I'm also looking for details on the quality assurance program, and whether/how it is different from the examiner's annual or other performance review.

Specifically, I've been looking for an official document showing that examiner performance is reviewed not just for bad allowances but (now) also for bad rejections.

[NJ Patent1]

I'm interested in that question too.  BTW, tire irons and USBs?  I don't get past "non-analogous art"  It doesn't work often but, per CAFC, is alive and well (if it drives the desired outcome).