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


« PTAB Update -- Is "Broadest Reasonable Interpretation" the Appropriate Standard? | Main | President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Lee (Fed. Cir. 2014) »

October 28, 2014


I've got $10 that says the PTO screws this up.

I very much hope not. We should see the revised guidance in November and it is believed from what was said at the AIPLA meeting that the USPTO staff are well aware that the present guidance needs making narrower.

However, publishing the new guidance as a draft and revising it in accordance with public comments would be an efficient and democratic process. Delivering new guidance from on high and inviting a repetition of the present lengthy process would be fundamentally autocratic. It is greatly to be hoped that the USPTO will adopt the democratic route, with perhaps a proviso that the revised guidance will apply in the interim until the version to be adopted is finally settled.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 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 30 31