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.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« PTAB Decides CRISPR Interference -- No interference-in-fact | Main | PTAB Decides CRISPR Interference in Favor of Broad Institute -- Their Reasoning »

February 15, 2017

Comments

Hey Michael,

Glad to see that the Federal Circuit continues to hold PTAB's "feet to fire" in terms of having substantial evidence to support its obviousness rulings, especially in IPRs. And your comment that patent examiners also need to have their respective "feet held to the fire" for such obviousness determinations in ex parte examination is astute, as well as correct.

I am really coming to love the words "opinion by Judge Taranto." This is a man who understands the role of administrative law in patent proceedings.

I could not agree with the final paragraph of this posting and the comments of EG more!

When was the last time that anyone saw an examiner actually walk through the Graham Factors, or establish exactly who constitutes a "Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art" - down to the level that might be found in a court case?

Is it "fair" to expect this level of (actual) examination from the examiners of the USPTO?

Would such effort even be possible, given the internal metrics that, as it may appear, drive towards a less thorough (and therefor more shoddy) examination, rather than a more "quality" examination under the laws that control actual patent validity?

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2017

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