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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

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

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


  • "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.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« Eisai to Buy MGI PHARMA | Main | Patent Profile: Morphotek Announces Issuance of Patent for Genetically Altered Antibodies »

December 12, 2007



I applaud the IPO's effort to have the AQS requirement flushed from the Patent Reform Legislation. The fact that the "A" stands for Applicant immediately tells you why this is completely misguided. In fact, AQS's are nothing more than ESDs (the Documents of Doom) in disquise. Again, I hope all of this Patent Reform Legislation (including the AQS's) simply sinks with no survivors. Nothing in this Legislation directly addresses what is wrong with the USPTO examination process (i.e, a process mismanaged by the current USPTO hierarchy).

The comments to this entry are closed.

March 2023

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