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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

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


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

« USPTO News Briefs | Main | USPTO 2018 Business Methods Partnership Meeting »

February 22, 2018

Comments

The burden of production related to no new matter already exists for amendments in prosecution and is a relatively low burden, satisfied by merely presenting with some minimal particularity the location in the application as filed that supports the amendment (reminder: in the US Sovereign, a ver batim support is not required).

As to:

"However, as the Office points out, a majority of judges in Aqua Products found that this statutory language was ambiguous"

Those judges were wrong - ambiguity cannot be created by the judges trying to change the law. Sham "ambiguity" does not count.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2018

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