Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[George White]

I have not fought a restriction before.  The statute (121) says to make a restriction the inventions must be independent AND distinct. How did this get turned into independent OR distinct?  Separately, I think I can avoid the restriction by amending only the preamble of some claims - I realize that means I had a too wordy, sub-optimal preamble to start with. Might that fly and if I am amending would that be considered with traverse? Or something else. 

--George

[NJ Patent1]

George: Great question!  Really.   By "magic" as far as I know.  The Office explains the "logic" of its interpretation - subject to Chevron deference? - in the MPEP. Just deal with it  , or file lots of petitions.  To the disappointment of patentatt, I've given up on such. 

[JimIvey]

The statute (121) says to make a restriction the inventions must be independent AND distinct. How did this get turned into independent OR distinct? 

That's Patenglish as spoken by the PTO.  See also "obvious" -- in English, it's a smack yourself on the forehead no-brainer; in Patenglish, it means "possible."  A while back, they issued a request for comments on ways to streamline continuation practice or ("and"?) to reduce the backlog.  One of the suggestions was to interpret the law correctly -- i.e., interpret "and" as "and" instead of "or".  They duly considered the suggestion but, in the end, decided interpreting the law correctly wouldn't help.

So, there ya go...

[NJ Patent1]

George:  In afterthought i left something out. As a practical matter, you can indeed amend the claims of right.  But to be "responsive", you must make a "provisional" election of invention, with traverse. 

[George White]

Thanks all
--George