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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 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.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Otonomy, Inc. v. Auris Medical, AG (Fed. Cir. 2018) »

August 05, 2018

Comments

I will note here that the portion of the Berkheimer memo with advice concerning "taking Official Notice" is itself IN CONFLICT with the Memorandum For Taking Official Notice**.

The Berkheimer memo has a (weak) out in that it does provide that the mere assertion by an applicant against Official Notice means that the examiner MUST drop the Official Notice route and provide real (APA-demanded) evidentiary support.

But it is more than a bit disingenuous (and a trap for the unwary) to suggest that an examiner may take Official Notice improperly.

**It is not proper to take Official Notice of items to establish a "state of the art." While this has been geared to "state of the art" in terms of the traditional 102/103 factors, conventionality is ALSO a state of the art condition.

Sadly, this path by the Office merely means that my clients will have to pay extra for an additional examination cycle with examiners trying to "slip one by" only to then have to backtrack and do what they were supposed to do in the first instance when I challenge them.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2018

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