« on: 05-16-13 at 01:31 pm »
Yeah, that's enough of that. Banned.
New registrations are now permitted.
.... I am going to hunt you down. ... Am I going to jail for this?
1 While Chief Judge Rader is correct to note that no single opinion issued today commands a majority, seven of the ten members, a majority, of this en banc court have agreed that the method and computer-readable medium claims before us fail to recite patent-eligible subject matter. In addition, eight judges, a majority, have concluded that the particular method, medium, and system claims at issue in this case should rise or fall together in the § 101 analysis.
At the same time, the new Office Action should have addressed changes to the claims. If the claims weren't changed, the new Office Action might have been adequate without addressing specific arguments.
"Adequate" in what sense? Do you mean the Examiner met his legal burden? Or that the OP probably has enough info to move forward another round? That is, adequate, even if it would be *helpful* for the Examiner to address the last round of arguments.
To me "adequate" equates to the examiner feeling that he/she has already made a rejection that covers the amended claim and doesn't see the need to elaborate on it any more.
The three months certification thing is when there has already been an action on the merits and you don't want to pay the IDS fee for references known for less than three months.
Do I have the right to see everything in my HR file?
If you have an idea related to your work and your employer thinks it is not worthwhile, they will probably agree to quitclaim any ownership rights they may have in it
Is this a lawful action?
Also, you may want to have a conversation with your client about timing on future projects... ...nearly all costs sunk and just pre-launch is a bad time to start thinking about FTO.
Oh, I've seen it, too. And I'm continually baffled by this attitude from people who are supposed to be the service providers to the innovative.
When one's practice is being out-innovated by a government agency...well...
What you seem to be going after is that the prior art, when it says it produced this widget, is incorrect. So what the prior art has described must be an inoperable widget, or the prior art didn't actually have possession of the widget.
One word + "for". In fact, the Guidelines don't mention a single example that invokes 112p6 without following that formula.