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

« Rep. Burgess Introduces Genetic Diagnostic Testing Bill | Main | USPTO Releases Performance and Accountability Report for FY 2011 »

November 29, 2011

Comments

Kevin,

Stepan should be contrasted with In re Lovin (opinion written by Judge Dyk who was also on the Stepan panel). In Lovin, the Federal Circuit panel ruled that the applicant/appellant hadn't argued patentability separately for the dependent claims, even though the applicant/appellant had pointed out in their appeal brief, with respect those dependent claims, that no relevance of the references was apparent, and that the Examiner had not explained any relevance with respect to those dependent claims. See http://ipwatchdog.com/2011/10/20/having-it-both-ways/id=19898/ which discusses this problem in Lovin, as well as Kappos v. Hyatt. There is an effort underway to have Lovin considered by the en banc Federal Circuit.

Patent Docs finally gets on this 2 mo old case? Kev, I suspect you have too much of a life. Remember, there are things that get you on national television and things that do not. Keep your priorities straight man!

In any event, this was plainly a case where they should have simply remanded to the examiner and it is quite odd that they even took the thing up. I'd still say that a letter to the director would probably have sorted the whole thing out. Or, in the event that did not help, they could simply have me talk to him in person at the next large event. I wonder if a consulting position of that nature is prohibited by the office.

"with respect those dependent claims, that no relevance of the references was apparent,"

Stop ur lyin'. They said nothing of the sort in their brief that I recall. They said the examiner didn't explain well. They didn't go the extra mile to say something about no relevance being apparent.

"There is an effort underway to have Lovin considered by the en banc Federal Circuit. "

Which I support, so that Newman can assist in setting some former Oetikertards even more straight than they've been made by recent opinions.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 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