« on: 07-18-11 at 01:10 pm »
Probably when the government starts defaulting on "guaranteed" student loans.
New registrations are now permitted.
Sorry karen, and thank you for your reply, as my reply was a bit misleading. I was not trying to quote the actual standard for reduction to practice. However, upon going down the path of "what is" R2P awhile back, what I gleaned, speaking very generally, was that R2P boiled down to what one of skill would know. In other words, somewhere in the case law the standard is read in view of one of skill in the art. I am going by memory, but that seems to be what I recall. I.e., there's no clear answer or bright line test. It definitely is not a direction anyone should go on purpose, that's for sure. But if it's all ya got, then it's all ya got.
Of course, it suffices to say that if you do not have enablement, you do not have patentability. Two different things (enablement and R2P), but surely interrelated.
You're quite right, OMG, and my reply to you read more harshly than I intended. I agree that evaluating compliance with R2P involves evaluating what a POSITA knows.
It appears 2 days after my comment first posted Blue state IP attorney/agents are either too busy filing patent applications, have not been granted 6 let alone 3, 4 or 5 mechanical patents in last year or do not follow this blog?You forget another possibility: that your phrasing, however humorous, is indicative of a high-maintenance client.
BTW, am puzzled why state of residence can matter. State law will have no impact except in the ethical rules governing the attorney's practice. Patent law is federal, all the way. And if it is the political orientation of the attorney which is at issue, that can hardly be told from the attorney's location. Would an attorney whose views are liberal and who votes liberal but lives and practices in a "red" state be preferred over one whose views are conservative and votes conservative but lives and practices in a "blue" state?