The Intellectual Property Forum

I have not seen problems where there is an express claim of "benefit" or "priority"  However, I HAVE had the displeasure of seeing someone say "related to", which is not sufficient under 120.

A good first step to ensure no problems is to check PAIR "continuity data" during pendency, as well as a BIB data sheet generated during examination.

step 1: apply to take patent bar

Well said Isaac.

I was tryiing to respond while watching GOP debate and Game 6, which was somewhat futile in all aspects.

salaries these days are also very misleading the legal field.

Those TOP salaries are oftentimes based on 2000 billable hours.  NOTE: that's billable, and not necessarily actual hours worked, which is often times more for new associates.

But I agree with the previous poster.  All things being equal, from an economic standpoint and the circumstances described, you would be foolish to pursue law school

I think SoCal pretty much nailed it.  Although doing some diligence to learn about the "inventive" process can include chiming in an IP message board, they're is a lot more that you can and should do.

That said, in regard to your main question: no, you do not need a patent attorney -- you can do everything yourself.

Hhhmm, well, while there are likely undertones of complaining, my initial inquiry was to the legitimacy of the advisory action based on "amendments require new search".

So to me, this thread is not about complaning, but instead getting some more insight -- a very applicable aspect of the forum.

My $0.02.

In the end we all have a job to do.  There are easily and readily discernable differences between Examiner's that do a "good" job and those that don't.  However, it is of course the case that what a "good" job is is highly subjective.  To me, an Examiner that does a "good" job is not one that is 150% over the count quota for the month, every month.  The PTO would tell you otherwise -- by in large, that's 80%-90% of their job rating.

Quote from: OMG IP on 06-10-11 at 07:12 am

THe problem I have with this is the following:

I can unamend the claims, and re-submit the response, making arguments for IC1, with the old arguments for DC2.  If I get an office action that DC2 is allowable if re-written in independent form, how is that doing a good job?

If you do that and examiner indicates DC2 to be allowable, then you save your client money (from not filing RCE or appeal) but your client wastes time. It's a trade-off that you and your client need to decide what's the best option.

Honestly, can you really blame the examiner when all the examiner is doing is following the procedure/policy that the pto put in place? Maybe attorneys and agents who don't like the system should start thinking about joining pto and change the entire system that works better that the current system.

"If you don't like something, change it....." - by Angelou, Maya.

well, I think if you re-read the thread, my general inclination is to not fight the system after final.  It's essentially fruitless.  My error, I guess, is assuming the Examiner would be on board with saving a step -- a silly assumption on my part, given the count system driver.

no, it was not near that complicated.  It was straight up same art for IC 1 and DC 2.

Lesson learned: 1) don't bother with after final responses (which is the creed I normally follow); and 2) if you do anything after final, don't make any amendments period.