Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

We are looking for moderators.  Message the admin if interested.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 10:44 pm 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by lazyexaminer
I agree with snapshot, I also know plenty, and I'll leave it at that.

 2 
 on: Today at 10:22 pm 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by snapshot
I know plenty.  Like that it is pointless to continue this conversation with you.

 3 
 on: Today at 10:01 pm 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by steelie
That is complete and utter BS.
There was an examiner on this forum just last week, saying the same thing. Wondering whether he/she should quit because he/she couldn't do quality work at the higher GS level.

You don't seem to know much.

 4 
 on: Today at 09:39 pm 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by snapshot
That is complete and utter BS.

 5 
 on: Today at 09:15 pm 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by steelie
if you are barely scraping by, avoiding getting fired as your goal, you are unlikely to be well suited for the position.

It's the other way around.

It's the examiners doing bonuses/overtime/PAP "outstanding" that are less likely to make it long term as an examiner.

These examiner face "burn out" and hatred of the job.

When I first started my mentor told me stories how GS-13 is when "quality examiners" quit. At that GS level, it becomes so overwhelming for them to keep up the high quality work that they could do at lower GS levels, their stress increases, they have to work a lot of VOT (voluntary non-paid overtime), and eventually it becomes too much for them, and they have to leave.

The solution he told me was to become a "marginal employee",  which I totally embraced.

 6 
 on: Today at 06:31 pm 
Started by JTripodo - Last post by fewyearsin
How you are still at the PTO boggles the mind, steelie.
no OT, no bonuses, 95% , had oral, and written warnings, burn vacation to make production, and used "red zone" a few times

that's what it takes to do high quality work, and still make it a reasonable job

That's not how the job is supposed to work, really.
That's not really how any job is supposed to work.  Attorneys that barely hit their billable targets, or who miss them by just enough to not get fired, are not in good shape.  Similarly with just about any job, if you are barely scraping by, avoiding getting fired as your goal, you are unlikely to be well suited for the position.

That said, only steelie knows steelie's unique circumstances, and maybe examining is the best job for steelie, even if it isn't a great job for steelie.  Or maybe steelie is genuinely turning out some of the most amazing examining work and selflessly devoting nights and weekends to the task.

 7 
 on: Today at 03:58 pm 
Started by CharlesJones - Last post by CharlesJones
I am somewhat confused by your description of the situation. You say it's a 102 rejection, but that the Examiner acknowledges it has "some elements that were previously separate". It sounds like you have a slam dunk on the 102. Or are you asking for how to resolve an inevitable 103 rejection?

It was a 102 rejection.  But in the course of the phone interview, during discussion, as I explained the distinctions, the Examiner's responses morphed into what you call "an inevitable 103 rejection." As I 102 rejection, it's weak, and once I amend it will be weaker. But the Examiner will aim for a 103. What he calls A1 and A2, and I call A vs. B, he might say is A vs. [capital alpha], and he's going to insist they belong in the same general category. That will likely entail a 103 rejection. So yes, I want to anticipate that kind of possible reply with good, extended arguments, already in my initial reply.

Another option is to amend, making a little clearer the distinction between A and B; make the briefest of arguments in my comments for why they are distinct;  wait for the likely 103; and then reply in detail.  Either way, I want to be prepared with citations/case law: I want some concrete arguments/examples, in the context of some specific invention(s), that two elements which are arguably and reasonably somewhat similar (cousins?) are *more arguably* not the same element for patent purposes.

FWIW, I've had the good fortune of mainly doing application drafting for some time, not so much Office Actions. (And I like drafting rather than OAs.) So I am rather rusty on good arguments in some arenas. Again, any specific examples, citations, cases and so on are really appreciated.

 8 
 on: Today at 02:54 pm 
Started by Beginner123 - Last post by MYK
Actually, it was MLK who pointed out that an "assignment of rights" would also be a good solution.  I should have included that in my original post.
Er, well, I was asking, not suggesting. :)

And please, we're all friends here, you can just call me The King. :)

 9 
 on: Today at 02:07 pm 
Started by Beginner123 - Last post by artchain
Actually, it was MLK who pointed out that an "assignment of rights" would also be a good solution.  I should have included that in my original post. 

If you want to learn more about IP, following this forum - particularly the copyright and trademark sections - is a good way to see real world issues discussed.

I'd recommend picking up a book on copyright law.  NOLO press has some good general books.  There are also some books specifically about copyright law and the arts, available on Amazon. 

You may still run into complicated questions that require you to consult with an attorney, but with a little study you can reach a point where you understand all the simple rules, and you are able to understand basic contracts and licenses.


 10 
 on: Today at 01:35 pm 
Started by CharlesJones - Last post by steelie
It sounds like the examiner is using MPEP 2144.04 ...

MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale [R-11.2013]

IV. CHANGES IN SIZE, SHAPE, OR SEQUENCE OF ADDING INGREDIENTS
V. MAKING PORTABLE, INTEGRAL, SEPARABLE, ADJUSTABLE, OR CONTINUOUS

For software/generic hardware claims, I have seen SPEs with QAS people tell examiners to not make those case law rejections and to find art that teaches it instead, because these old case laws are about "physical elements", and it's uncertain whether these decisions should be extended to "abstract elements". 

You could question the SPE what the TC QAS policy is regarding these old case laws for software/generic hardware.

Don't forget, in view of "Alice", software/generic hardware is considered abstract.

Also, you could also positively amend with the benefit of why you scale.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10


Footer

www.intelproplaw.com

Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

www.intelproplaw.com

Page created in 0.202 seconds with 18 queries.