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


  • "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


« Anyone Remember What These "New Rules" Are All About? | Main | ABA IP Section Seeks Inequitable Conduct Reform »

March 22, 2009



I stand by my prior comments: Judges Prost and Bryson are clueless about the authority of the PTO, the impact of these Rules substantively, and that the PTO intends these Rules to allow no flexibility for more than 2 continuations and one RCE per family. Ignoring the PTOs Comments on these Rules when issued as "non-binding" is completely naive about the PTO's expressed intention.

In my view, Prost and Bryson unfortunately suffered "precedential amnesia." Only Judge Rader understands the reality here. Hopefully the Federal Circuit will grant an en banc hearing and follow Rader's lead.


Before I forget, and as astutely pointed out on another blog, let's not forget the "Trojan Horse" in modified 37 CFR 1.104(a) to add "and other requirements" to
the phrase "the examination shall be complete with respect both to
compliance of the application or patent
under reexamination with the
applicable statutes and rules" which would allow the PTO to apply the requirements of the MPEP, even though the MPEP can and is modified without any "notice or comment" required by the APA.


Another thought to consider. Having gotten over my initial (and very emotional) reaction to Judges Prost and Bryson having “precedential amnesia”, the fact is with the continuation limitation portion of this Rule package blocked by even the Federal Circuit, the PTO has no choice but to modify this package to take that block into account, or else the package won’t be internally consistent, and thus highly vulnerable to further legal attack. That being said, you have to wonder whether the PTO has the energy (and the backing of the current Obama administration) to continue this fight if Tafas/GSK pursue this suit (likely) in district court, including renewing the other arguments that Cacheris chose not to address.

Any reissuing of these Rules (Cacheris may even block any attempt to reissue these Rules until the current Tafas/GSK suit is over), which the PTO dare not do without offering “comment and notice” to the public, would create another “firestorm” of comments where those commenting will be watching the PTO carefully as to how they cross the “t”s and dot the “i”. Any slip here by the PTO will certainly draw fire, including potential additional suits (now that blood has already been drawn) challenging the reissued Rules. That potentially means a drawn out battle taking years to resolve, which leaves you wondering whether the Obama administration would expend its political capital to let such “blood letting” occur for an issue that didn’t start on its watch. More significantly, given the current budget crisis facing the PTO (and of its own making by causing the allowance rate to dive to close to 40%), one must wonder whether the PTO has the resources to push these Rule packages much farther.

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2024

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