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.

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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Patent Profile: Senomyx Announces Issuance of "Sweet and Savory" Patents | Main | USPTO News: "New Route" Created between USPTO and JPO »

January 25, 2008

Comments

Kevin,

Section 123, along with the applicant quality submission (AQS) document, is the most draconian and awful part of this legisiation, at least as far as patent prosecution goes. It completely changes the burden of examination, and wrongly so. That the current Director of the USPTO is the architect speaks volumes as to why Section 123 is ill-advised, poorly thought through, and just plan bad. Congress should instead be listening, for example, to NIPRA's "on target" and just critcism of this monster, not the current Director of the USPTO who continues to show he knows absolutely nothing about patent prosecuton or how to manage the USPTO operation in general.

Lets invade Germany, grab the EPO, bring it here, and dump the PTO there. Perhaps no-one will notice.

Dear Anon:

How ironic would it be if the only thing that "saves" U.S. patent practice is the culmination of current efforts to share patent examining responsibilities between the USPTO and offices like the EPO. We may not have to invade; analogous to the practice of using the EPO as the International Searching Authority in PCT practice (rather than the USPTO), we may get to the point where the only reasonable patent examination is done abroad. Which would be tragic.

Thanks for the comment.

Anon,

What a brilliant thought, I almost fell over laughing when I read your comment!

Crazy thought here, but seeing where things might be heading a crazy thought might be in order: the OED is composed of PTO lifers who have no real world experience in working opposite the PTO. For the PTO to remove my license amounts to a criminal sanction, since it would deprive me of my livelihood. Ergo, constitutionally (you know it's a crazy idea when the constitution gets invoked) I need to be tried by a jury of my peers - i.e., other patent practitioners, not PTO lifers. so maybe when we all write our senators and tell them to dump these misguided search provisions, we should also tell them to add an amendment that would move OED tribunals from the hands of PTO personnel to the hands of other practitioners (just like lawyers are disciplined by other lawyers).

Of course, if another practitioner had time to sit on such a tribunal, I'd wonder about his competence...

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 2020

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