E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Webinar on AIA and Patent Prosecution | Main | Coalition of University TTOs File Amicus Brief in Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp. »

July 07, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ca1469e201910421a308970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference USPTO Files Reply Brief in Exelixis v. Rea:

Comments

"...the USPTO brief notes that the District Court in Exelixis II "explained[ that] an RCE adds time to the processing of the application but delay after the filing of an RCE 'emanates solely from an applicant's original failure to file an application fit for a notice of allowance.'"

Thanks for the laugh, Don. Someone should make the USPTO solicitor who wrote this brief (as well as the Judge) try to prosecute an app before his own office. Apparently neither of them have heard of the PTAB, either. If they had, they realize that its very existence is predicated on the understanding that examination corps is fallible.

Does anyone give legal credence to the argument of "solely from an applicant's original failure to file an application fit for a notice of allowance" ?

Anyone?

Last I checked, there is no basis in law that an application must be filed that is 'fit for a notice of allowance,' with zero time for examination - of the give and take of such.

This is not even a colorable argument, and I wonder if the attorney submitting this argument to the court should not be sanctioned for making a frivolous statement.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31