The phrase “Patent Term Adjustment” elicits two divergent reactions from patent prosecution specialists. PTA is wonderful because it provides a strong counterbalance to USPTO delays. On the other hand, PTA rules are complicated and it is easy for a practitioner to unintentionally lose-time.
In general, the PTA is an attempt to retain a patent term of approximately 17–years from issuance. Under the rules, the statutory 20–year term is increased for certain PTO-related delays and is decreased for other Applicant-related delays.
Scott Kamholz of Foley Hoag has written a great guide to PTA entitled “Patent Term Adjustment for Fun and Profit.” The guide was originally published this Fall in IP Today, but is now available on Patently-O: File Attachment: PTA for Fun and Profit.pdf (147 KB).
Highlights of the article include:
- CIP’s are more likely than continuations to capture PTA;
- Extensions, non-compliant responses, and RCEs all decrease the PTA;
- Late filing of formal drawings decreases PTA;
- Written restrictions count as an office action — thus, consider making oral elections of species;
- Express Mail or Fax improves PTA;
- Terminal disclaimers are problematic;
- Examine the PAIR system for docketing errors;
- Appeal rejections;
- Do not file papers after allowance;
- Ask questions!
At some point, this may become moot as the PTO is considering simplifying the PTA.
Check it out:1. A method of testing a system for sending X to a subject, comprising the steps of: (a) setting up a policy to be used in testing the system; (b) setting up a plurality of representative subjects of said system; (c) causing said system to interact with said plurality of separate subjects of said system by sending X to said subjects; (d) verifying a compliance level with said policy by examining X sent to said subjects.Now try to believe that a someone in this thread asked what the ancient art of performing a test run of a method/device had to do with this claim. And the same person suggested that they needed “proof” that such methods were actually in the prior art. Try to believe it.Does anyone need any “actual evidence” of how intellectually dishonest the patent teabaggers are? Just read the thread. It’s all there in black and white. Wealthy, greedy, self-entitled dishonest know-nothing bottom feeders. That’s who’s benefitting from this broken system and that’s who doesn’t want to talk about junk claims.
Absolutely correct, Malcolm. Just reading the claim, one instantly sees the only possible novelty is applying a well known system quality test technique to a “recommender system” as that term is defined in the specification. But why is that not obvious?It is a crying shame that the PTO failed to provide even one reference to show a recommender system as defined in the specification. Instead they essentially ignored the limitation leading to grant.
t is a crying shame that the PTO failed to provide even one reference to show a recommender system”Recommender systems” were admitted prior art. There’s no need to for anyone to “prove” that. Rest assured that if this shameless applicant thought he was entitled to a patent on “recommender systems” he would have claimed it.More importantly, the identity of the “system” being tested has zero relation to the method, which is just the ancient common sensical way to test the function of a method/device. I would not be surprised if there is prior art showing that apes have used the method. Moreover, “compliance levels” aren’t unique to “recommender systems.” Any system can have a “compliance level.” And everybody knows this. But that’s one of the gaping failures in the USPTO’s procedures and weird computer-coddling culture, not the law. And the applicant surely knows this because he’s a patent attorney and he’s been through the process before. He’s been down the road all the way to the point where his junk patent got trashed in court and the defendant appealed to the Federal Circuit so that the law regarding when fees should be shifted could be clarified! But we shouldn’t be talking about any of that. It’s not part of the “approved process.”
The end cometh for bad-faith trolls? link to law360.com…Just wait till his posse grows!
Stumbled across this interesting thread:link to techdirt.com…Funniest part is this comment about one of the blogtrolls there:”your writing style falls neatly into place: Post insane s—t making sure to put the most insane bits in bold, italics, and all caps”Golly, that sounds familiar. Birds of a feather …Ultramercial is going to be a lot of fun, isn’t it? Exactly how is the Supreme Court going to tank that ridiculous piece of junk and still leave some meat on the bone for the “computer-implementers” to peck at?
techdirt…Consider the source – Nuff said.
More incredible breaking news:Any information about a person (or a thing) can be used to “target” that person (or thing) with other information.It’s true. And it was always true. Computers didn’t change that fact. But for some strange reason people at the PTO like to pretend that information passing through a computer is different than information that doesn’t pass through a computer. Even more bizarre, this self-delusion is more extreme now in 2014 than it was in 1974, when computers are that much older.The USPTO needs to pull its head out of its collective ar se and institute clear common sense rules about how junk “computer-implemented” claims are examined and make sure that everyone — Examiners and so-called “stakeholders” — understand those rules. This will certainly cause many exploiters of the system to have a sad. But either the USPTO needs to do it now or the courts will do it for them. And that will make the same people just as sad, plus it will make some patent law professors sad. Maybe some of those patent law professors should consider actually taking a practical position on the subject instead of looking the other way and whining about “Federalism” while the patent system implodes.
Breaking news! This is huge. Get ready.Among the half a million or so patents that the USPTO is going to grant this year, there will be an incredible number of patents that are nothing but incompetently examined “computer-implemented” junk filed by “inventors” who did nothing but apply old concepts (e.g., performing “test runs”) to old computer programs (e.g., “recommendation software”), who never wrote a line of code that achieves what they claimed in any context, and whose intent is to take those junk patents and threaten people with them. The threats implicitly include loss of money spent in litigation and the possibility of obtaining discovery that will enable the filing of even more junk by the same self-identifying “inventors.”People will look at these patents and they will know, beyond any doubt, that the US patent system is broken. And they will talk about it. Online. And the people invested in exploiting the broken system will be sad about that and call the critics names and insult their intelligence (oh, and “downvote” their comments, LOL!). But they’ll never defend the junk patents on their merits because they know that it’s impossible to do so in the “real world” (i.e., outside of the broken patent system).
Was the applicant who filed this case (soon to be USPN 8,630,960) not aware of the concept of “troubleshooting” or “test runs to verify desired functionality”? That seems impossible. Was there prior art submitted or cited that discusses typical ways of trouble-shooting devices/methods? With or without “automation” (the term that is generically recited in the claim). I would certainly hope so. It’s difficult to imagine more relevant prior art to this piece of junk.This patent really deserves its own headline, as an example of just how broken and dysfunctional our patent system is: “PTO Grants Patent on ‘Automatic’ Testing of a Computer Program”.But I suppose we can just wait until this piece of garbage gets shopped around to mouthbreathing “licensees” who can’t tell the difference between unenforceable functionally claimed junk and an actual invention.
I couldn’t agree with you more — to the extent I understand the claim. All it requires is setting up dummy accounts to test a software system and that should be notorious in developing of any software system. The particular kind of software being tested here is “recommender.” But the principle is so well know that the only claim to invention here is to apply the well known to the particular case. There is nothing at all special about recommender systems that would make it non obvious to apply the general technique to the special case.It is literally unbelievable that such stuff is allowed.
Indeed, Ned, and well put. Too bad there aren’t more people out there with the integrity to call a spade a spade. It’s certainly not rocket science. It’s not even computer science.And if you read the briefs you’ll see that while the Examiner didn’t do as neat of a job as you just did, the basic point was made. And the basic point should be all that is needed to tank a piece of unbelievable junk like this. Instead, we get this know-nothing at the Board pretending that the Examiner needs to re-prove the law of gravity before he can tank a claim to a plumb line.Even sadder: an educated grown-up adult man thinks he invented something and deserves a patent. And he thinks we’re “jealous” of him because he got this junk out of the USPTO (only a half million more grants on the way this year! it’s so impressive belonging to that exclusive club — and it only costs thousands of dollars to join!).
Funny how you (again) wish to portray patents as ‘laws’ when the law actually states that patents are property.”unreadable and incomprehensible”… is that why you so ‘easily’ just want to sniff and go?Why are you trying to deceive people?”foam at the mouth, spew insults, and attempt to bury any criticism under a sea of unintelligible gibberish”… sort of like Malcolm when pressed to give a few simple answers to questions that he really should know, given the soapbox that he wants to always climb up on.So Malcolm, why are you so afraid to answer the simple questions at the heart of this issue? Why all the dust-kicking, name-calling, dodging, smokescreens, and evasion? Why not just answer the questions?
you (again) wish to portray patents as ‘laws’ when the law actually states that patents are property.It’s not about “wishing” to “portray” anything. As a practical matter, each patent claim is a law that applies to everyone (except the patentee and people “forgiven” by the patetee). It’s silly to pretend otherwise. But go right ahead. We can use the laughs.
“we”..?Malcolm, did you actually go to law school?
Did you finish mowing Nick’s lawn already, TB?
you (again) wish to portray patents as ‘laws’ when the law actually states that patents are property.,”Property” doesn’t describe what people can’t legally do. Laws do that. And so do patent claims.Pretending otherwise doesn’t help you, TB. You and Eric really need to work on your script. Maybe you should hire a professional “public relations” team.
All of property’s bundle of sticks are enforced at law.You really do svck at this.Notwithstanding the Oh so very Carroll treatment you wish to use.(hmmm, maybe I should have put property in quotes – like Malcolm – so that any old Carroll version could be claimed…)
All of property’s bundle of sticks are enforced at lawMaybe, for a change, you should try licking the goalpost while you move it. Wait until it gets below freezing, though.
Pretty funny coming from the guy who refuses to address just ‘what’ and ‘where’ the goalpost is in the whole software debate at a first principles level.No surprise the reason he does not address those simple questions is that he wants to engage in the very activity he accuses others of doing: moving goalposts and thus obfuscating what should be a discussion on the merits of the law itself.
function of fees
how so?
People get their sht in condition for allowance so much faster at just around this time, corresponding to the increased fees. When people get their stuff going less office delay even has a chance of occurring.
Sorry 6, but the applicant delay and the office delay are not related as you suggest.In fact, they are expressly unrelated. You need to understand the PTA regs much better.
I’m not talking about “applicant delay” being “related” to office delay. I’m talking about “applicant getting claims into condition for allowance” sooner. The case issues (see the rising issuance rate) and there is no chance for further delay in the case.
You clearly do not understand how PTA works 6.
Jes us chri st on sale, how do you not understand that if the application gets resolved through allowance (or abandonment tangentially) then there is no more opportunity for there to be any more PTA added on than there already was? If the applications get allowed faster then examiners (or the office as a whole) don’t even get the opportunity to cause delay. If you can’t understand something that simplistic then I’m not going to further explain it.
How about the assertion of yours that it is the applicants acting in order to ‘speed things up’ to avoid fees? (emphasis added)Seriously 6 – you made up an unfounded point and just winged it. I merely called you on your making something up. It goes without saying that less PTA means a faster process to resolution, but that is NOT what your assertion was.You kind of gave up on logic when you stopped considering law school, didn’t you?
Apparently my original response got lost. So here, let me be brief.Do you remember the thread where you had an epiphany and realized, and eventually exclaimed, that you, out of all the members on the board had simply misinterpreted what someone on the interbuts was saying in a meaningless thread on the interbuts? Because I faved that life changing experience that you had in that thread. Every time you assert that that someone is changing their position mid-explanation when they’re trying to explain something known only to themselves to you I’m simply going to reference that thread. It is possible for you, as a person, to misunderstand things people say on the interbuts. Get used to it already.
Sure, it is possible.But let’s look at the track record here, 6. That type of thing happens so rarely with me that you felt compelled to fav the day. With you, that happens so often that it is simply part of the ‘character’ that you habitually suicide.
” That type of thing happens so rarely with me”That you know of. You’re literally not competent enough to understand when it is happening without someone holding your hand through it.
LOL – sure 6, keep on believing that. Given my ‘adoring fans,’ I am more than sure that they would promptly inform me of any such errors.In other words, you are again making things up whole-cloth.
You presume that they care about the instant topic of the day or you. And you also presume that they themselves are competent enough to do so.
It’s actually much simpler – I know that you are making this up.”Nobody has enough time for that.”LOL – says the guy who vomits all over the blog and yet cannot give just a few simple answers.Happens to be the same guy that vomited 30,000 plus words of mewling QQ post Myriad , when all he had to do was say three little words.Way to be inconsistent yet again.
Making what up you ta rd? I made up that it was a function of fees. Following along with the discussion we had about the fees leading to quicker allowances just the other day. Yes, I “made that up”. Je sus f uck you’re dum.
LOL – 6, you never established the relationship between fees and shortened overall prosecution time – you failed at logic because you merely applied the rather non-surprising second half of what you first posted, that is, only the shortened time aspect will lead to shorter PTA – you failed to logically tie in the front end, that fees were somehow a driver of that shortened time aspect.Pay attention.
Go d dammit you’re so dum I’m just going to stop talking to you. You’re obviously off in right field and refuse to come in from there no matter what is said. You’ve already admitted that the thing I care about is not controversial, yet you think I care about something else (the shortened TIME), that I don’t, and blab on and on endlessly about it. Good day ta rd.
6, It is a simple matter of A, B, and C.Your logic faltered at the A to B link.You seem to want to rest on the completely uninteresting and “no duh” link of B to C.A) your “applicants are responding to fees.”B) There is shorter office processing timeC) There is lower PTAYou have established NO link between A and B, which is the crux of your initial post. I have merely pointed out that you made up that connection and have offered no support.
As now noted over at PatentDocs, the Office is now getting better at B).Of course the view on PTA is also a matter of which deck chairs the Office is focusing on. A point not clearly made is that the Office’s program on clearing out the excessively long items (those that may even have different patent term rules – i.e., pre-June 8, 1995 filed applications) and the drop in such grants ‘may’ have a sizable impact in any gross calculations.As to ‘which deck chairs,’ it is interesting to note that “The total number of pending applications also decreased, dropping from 1,157,147 in FY 2012 to 1,148,823 in FY 2013.”Hooray. at a rate of reducing the overall by 8,324 per year we will have the backlog licked in 138 years.
“Hooray. at a rate of reducing the overall by 8,324 per year we will have the backlog licked in 138 years.”Your target for the total number of pending applications is zero?
lol – good point.What would be a good target of pending applications? Half a mil?With that aim, our wait is reduced to a mere 78 years.Thanks Leopold !
“What would be a good target of pending applications? Half a mil?”That’s a good question. It seems to me that the PTA targets give us an idea. Right now, the total is about 1.9 times the annual rate of new filings. That suggests they have 2 years worth of backlog – that sounds pretty good to me.Looking at unexamined applications, the backlog is less than 1.1 times last year’s new filings. That suggests the PTO should have its first-action pendency under control pretty soon.Given that the number of new filings continues to grow, it seems to me that the PTO’s progress is pretty impressive, if judged solely by these aggregate numbers.
Not sure what you mean by 2 years worth of backlog.Also not sure if you are accounting for more than one deck chair level (your comment about first-action deck chair does not belong in this conversation of the overall level – in fact, that merely leads to a type of game playing and deck chair moving). Focusing on first action is not enough.
“Not sure what you mean by 2 years worth of backlog.””Backlog days” is a commonly used performance indicator – it’s defined as the total backlog divided by the average rate at which you’re closing items. It gives you a rough idea of how long it would take to clear everything in the queue if work stopped coming in, and also gives you a good idea of what the average pendency should be. Here, the PTO is closing 600K+ applications per year; hence, they have 2 years of backlog.” Focusing on first action is not enough.”I never said it was. All I did was suggest that we could look at TWO parameters that tell us about PTO progress in handling backlog, instead of just the one that you called out. Focusing on first actions is obviously not sufficient, but it’s pretty important.
Of course that other parameter is important – I did not say otherwise (there is a PTA guarantee tied to it as well).That being said, my post still stands. I was talking about the overall picture, and I also will advise (again) that one must be careful of the moving the deckchairs problem by focusing on that second parameter that I was not discussing.Your “backlog days” is interesting but flawed. First, work will not stop coming in and it is clear error to base any measure on such a premise. Second, my calculations already take into effect any work in AND the changed throughput by looking at that whopping drop of 8,324 per year. That is the driver for reducing the current backlog to whatever level you deem reasonable. I randomly choose a level of half a million. You get to that level in 78 years, all else being equal. It is not too difficult to compute the number of years to reach any level. I don’t think your calculations of “2 years” (which is 1.2 MILLION applications in backlog) is going to be accepted by too many people. Do you?
“Your “backlog days” is interesting but flawed.”A lot of people find it to be useful. If you don’t, then don’t use it.”I don’t think your calculations of “2 years” (which is 1.2 MILLION applications in backlog) is going to be accepted by too many people. Do you?”No, I don’t think that level of backlog is low enough, if that’s what you’re asking. But, you can’t look at the absolute number all by itself. If applications could actually be examined and disposed of in a matter of a few days then the target total backlog should be as close to zero as you can get it. But, if we accept that the active part of the process is going to take an average of two years (that’s about the duration suggested by the PTA parameters), to account for all the back-and-forth, then it’s not feasible to get the total backlog lower than one-year’s worth of applications, or 600K+, assuming a reasonably symmetric distribution on the active processing durations. (That’s the level of backlog at which each new application is being picked up immediately and the average application is half-way through the active process – this is the best you can do without shrinking the active processing duration). In reality, the distribution of processing times is going to have a longer tail on the right-hand side, which means that the minimum total backlog is necessarily going to be somewhere greater than 600K+. Plus, the minimum feasible level will also grow along with the growth in new applications, which shows no signs of abating. Thus, it’s not possible to get to your one-half-million figure unless you shrink the duration of the active examination phase, by quite a bit, or reduce the rate of new filings. Does the PTO have a lot of work to do? Of course. But the trends for these numbers are actually pretty good. I’m more concerned with whether these things are actually being examined properly.
“In reality, the distribution of processing times is going to have a longer tail on the right-hand side, which means that the minimum total backlog is necessarily going to be somewhere greater than 600K+.”I might have that backwards – somebody who’s done some queuing theory more recently than me might want to correct me on that score. Still, I don’t think 500,000 is likely a feasible target, especially with the filing rate still growing.
78 years is NOT pretty good no matter how you try to look at it.And again, if you don’t like my half mil target, please provide one that you think is reasonable (and will be reasonably accepted).
“78 years is NOT pretty good no matter how you try to look at it.”Actually, hitting an impossible target in 78 years sounds like a remarkable achievement to me. You’re obviously harder to impress.
And you tend to the pedantic. An ongoing backlog (full load including incoming less completions) of half a mil better not be impossible.
LOL. And global warming better not be real.
…global warming……or Climate Change?You need to update your PC manual.
they would promptly inform me of any such errorsNobody has enough time for that.
Dennis – my PTA notice for SN 10/856,030 (which will issue next week as 8,630,960) is listed as 3079 days – this is the longest I’ve ever received in my practice and the highest I’ve ever seen anywhere – curious if you know of longer numbers than that??
http://www.freepatentsonline.c…1. A method of testing a recommender system, which recommender is used for recommending items of interest to subscribers of an online content service provider, the method comprising the steps of: (a) setting up a policy to be used in testing the recommender system; (b) setting up a plurality of separate proxy accounts at the online content service provider; (c) causing said recommender system to interact with said plurality of separate proxy accounts and generate a plurality of separate recommendations for a plurality of corresponding items; (d) verifying a compliance level with said policy by examining said separate recommendations.Oh, lookie! Someone discovered how to test something! I wonder if he also discovered how to “cut and paste”. Because he’s really pretty good at it.Is there a better poster child for our broken patent system? I kinda doubt it.
Regardless of the merit of your arguments MM, you do seem jealous. It drips out of your posts. I feel jealous and contemptuous of Wall Street traders who made a fortune bringing down our economy and suffered no consequences. They now live the good life and buy off our government to stay out of prison where they belong. But, in the case of Wall Street, I think the facts are clearly on my side. In this case, I wish you would try to make more factual arguments. The biggest problem with your arguments is hindsight. And, if these inventions are so obvious and silly, then why aren’t they rejected over known art? Where is the art? Why do they stand up in Fed. Dist. Ct. and the PTO against validity challenges. Etc. And, then you just pull out 101 and try to explode them all without answering any of the questions I’ve raised. In Alice, for example, we get statements like, this has been known for 300 years, but we can’t find any references so we are going to use 101 ’cause we don’t like you.To rational actors, you appear to be a bad actor in this play.
you do seem jealousRight. And you seem jealous of me! It drips out of your posts. You’re part of my “whiny fan club”. Blah blah blah.
What’s to be jealous of? It’s not like he’s actually inventing. You can be jealous of people inventing. But you can also be pissed that our patent system has devolved into nothing but an extortion racket related to doing new stuff on a computer. I think that’s what you’re mistaking for jealousy brosefus.I have to say I’m not jealous of wall street types that screwed everyone over to make a buck. Contemptuous surely. Not jealous of their money at all. If I wanted to make huge dollars dishonestly it isn’t terribly hard to imagine how to do so.
this poor MM guy seems really starved for attention and he tries to fill some kind of emotional hole by attacking other people: YES all the Examiners in the PTO MUST be incompetent b/c they gave Mr. Gross a patent, YES all the appeal Board judges must be on drugs because the confirmed the patent! For fragile brained people like him reality is too painful so they manufacture a fantasy world where they can become legends in their own mind
I thought he said that it was technically possible for you to have drawn a competent examiner and a board that wasn’t on crack.
its also “technically” possible that MM may something intelligent in the near future about the merits of a matter instead of his personal biases, but the odds seem long that too – I had 14 decisions this year from the PTAB, 11 of them in my favor finding error in the rejections – I guess that has nothing to do with the merits, its just that – according to MM – the whole Board – every PANEL – is apparently on crack, all the time LOL
its also “technically” possible that MM may something intelligent in the near future about the merits of a matterI make intelligent comments about the merits of matters all the time. Let’s talk more about the merits of the claim I posted upthread.The concept of testing the function of a method or device by performing a test run under simulated or actual conditions and then evaluating the results of that test run against a set of parameters is ancient.That’s an intelligent comment. It’s also banal, elementary stuff that a typical high school kid could tell you.You took that concept and tacked on “using a computer.” That’s also old. And then you simply applied that to “recommendation systems”. Why in the world would anyone not expect the ancient testing concept referred to above to apply to any endeavor? And why in the world should the generically recited (and old) concept of “automating” a process (e.g., testing) with “a computer” make any difference for patenting purposes?So there you go. Now what, Nick? Are you going to pretend that my comment isn’t “intelligent”?
“I make intelligent comments about the merits of matters all the time”Still waiting:Do you recognize the controlling law regarding exceptions to the printed matter doctrine?What is it and what does it mean (especially in regards to your vapid assertions against software patents)?Why have you not been clear about the Grand Hall experiment? How does an ‘old box’ gain a new function without being changed? Make sure you address the controlling law of Alappat when you give your ‘intelligent comments.’Why do you prevaricate and accuse others of that which you do on such an incessant basis?.You want to know what else is ancient? Electrons, protons, neutrons, elements and the methods of configuring those items.
I’m pretty sure that Nick doesn’t need your, um, “assistance” here, TB. Go get your prescription checked. You can lick Nick’s buttons clean some other time.
Nothing at all to do with Nick, Malcolm, I am seriously looking for answers from you.That you think this has anything to do with Nick only shows that you have an odd obsession about avoiding giving actual answers (although you continuously claim – clearly falsely – otherwise).Still waiting.These are very straight forward questions, Malcolm. You have spent far more time and energy avoiding them then it would take to simply give some intellectually honest answers (we can explore exactly why you do not give intellectually honest answers later).Even easier to note is that you actually have volunteered and admission as to knowing the controlling law regarding the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine – but you oddly insist on being coy about that.(and I am afraid that I have no idea what your colloquialism of “licking buttons” means, but I am pretty sure that you would NEVER use that in a courtroom).
Malcolm, I am seriously looking for answers from you.You are a certified nutcase.
And that is a non-responsive evasion – yet again.But we both knew that, right?Why don’t you just answer the questions?
Anon why do you care so much about this brosefus? There is a case before the supremes that is going to help us all out on this matter so why not just wait until it comes out and then continue your daily trolling for “answers”?
You don’t get it at all, do you 6?It isn’t that Malcolm wants a different legal system in place, it is how he goes about posting here. The answers I seek (no need for parentheticals – I really do seek his answers) are based on the law as it is today. Malcolm knows this – although he likes to pretend otherwise. add: Any reasonable person should wonder why Malcolm spends so much time and energy NOT answering the very simple questions that I have posited, simple questions that go to the heart of the matter. Any reasonable person should question the tactics of spin, obfuscation, outright blatant 1ies, his notorious “Accuse-Others” tactic and other pure FUD (his attempts to denigrate the asker of the questions, while still running from the questions) that flows so heavily from Malcolm, when an intellectually honest conversation would not try to run from the questions I have put front and center.The point of the matter is that if Malcolm were to post with respect for the law, and simply post to advocate a change in the law, as that is what he is really doing, he would not only be more effective, but he would be posting with intellectual honesty. It is the utter lack of intellectual honesty, coupled with his high and mighty preachiness that is so fun to take down.I mean seriously, look at how often he accuses others of the very things that he does. He is morally bankrupt, and yet cannot figure out that such impugns the positions that he wants to advocate for. It’s downright hilarious that he is so utterly clueless.It’s also fun to be right at his expense.The nonsense he spouts simply cannot be sustained with any knowledge and appreciation of reality and the law.
Malcolm wants a different legal system in placeRight. I want one that actually works, with competent people applying the existing laws in a sensible fashion.But you like the status quo because it allows you and your bottom-feeding friends to claim junk and troll it.
“applying the existing law”You still have not answered the simple question as to whether or not you know what is the controlling law regarding the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine. In other words, it is clear that you don’t know what you really want. (or you do, but you insist on dissembling).Either way, svcks to be you.
Nick only shows that you have an odd obsession about avoiding giving actual answersI’m not aware of Nick asking me any questions that I haven’t answered directly. But do keep up your pathological lying. It’s what you do best.I’m the last person on earth Nick wants to have a conversation with about patent law with particular attention to Nick’s patents and Nick’s behavior. Nick knows that. And so do you.
LOL- way to incorrectly parse that sentence Malcolm.More of your stellar English as a First Language skills, or are you being purposefully obtuse?Maybe you just need to stop hyperventilating and read a little slower.Funny too, you (again) don’t seem able to get to the actual questions. More time and effort from you in running away from those simple questions…add: you say that you want the existing laws applied – yet you are unwilling to answer my very simple question about those same existing laws…
I had 14 decisions this year from the PTAB, 11 of them in my favor finding error in the rejections,That has nothing to do with my intelligence, Nick. The fact that you think so does suggest (again) that you are rather full of yourself.