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


« Supreme Court Fails to Grant Certiorari in Monsanto Co. v. McFarling | Main | Patent Profile: Proteologics Announces Issuance of POSH siRNA Patent »

January 08, 2008


Like alot of these ideas, but hate the idea of 78(f). No offense, but the person proposing that must not be in house. At a large corp the number of relationships between deals, inventors, filings and subsidiaries making doing a rule 78 report nearly impossible and the amount gained would seem to be limited. If a corp is abusing the system and filing many nearly idetical aps those corps should be dealt with on a corp by corp, attorney by attorney basis.

It would be good to prepare and keep a list of all these proposals for later. But expecting them to be considered or especially adopted by the PTO now is a pipe dream. Many of these same proposals have already been suggested and rejected/ignored by the current PTO hierarchy. We simply need to hope and pray that the GSK/Tafas suits stalls the current Rules mess until 2009 and the next administration comes in who will hopefully listen to the private patent sector, as well as put in a Director/Deputy Director who really meets the qualifications under 35 USC 3.

"Encourage examiners to conduct telephonic interviews to expedite prosecution rather than mail out repetitious Office actions. "

Only if the entirety of those phone interviews is recorded/transcribed and made publically available.

FYI, Kevin -- see my comment in the most recent article.

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