PTO Director Jon Dudas Announces Resignation

On January 12, 2009, Jon Dudas will complete four years as Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Prior to that, Director Dudas spent two years as the USPTO’s Deputy Director. Under his directorship, the PTO has focused on “Quality” and reducing pendency of applications. Successes including (1) hiring many more examiners and (2) boosting the PTO budget to $ 2 billion.  The electronic filing system for patents has turned out to be an excellent system that works well and is reliable.

In an internal USPTO e-mail, Director Dudas has announced that he will leave the USPTO in mid-January. 

88 thoughts on “PTO Director Jon Dudas Announces Resignation

  1. “Ladies/Gentlemen:
    I am a small business owner who appreciates the work performed by the patent attorney community. I am also fortunate to have procured patents over the past five years. However, over the past eight years (since inception of original applications) I can say without a doubt that the USPTO has become more small business friendly, the playing field has leveled, the examiners are more responsive and the process of procuring a patent is more fair (regardless of size). Until Dudas came in the place was an administrative nightmare still reeling from Clinton pilfering reserves (in a veiled disguise to prop up his surplus). Note I’m also a bleeding heart Democrat from Illinois. Still I recognize the dramatic results that Dudas has instituted and I believe the business community and the USPTO are better for it.
    Respectfully,
    Dan Topiary”

    Ok, now that is pure hilariousness. What does pds etc have to say about that? My guess is nothing. Where’s your armchair directoring now? Have a look at his website, which I’m guessing is his business, for some real lols.

    “The [application] fees are to reflect costs of examination. ”

    No they’re not, maintainence fees are subsidizing the application fees. By about 3/4 of the total cost iirc. If you want to pay a fee that reflects the job done then pay around 4k iirc. It may have been 2k, but either way it is more than 1k/500$.

    Considering the recession is on, let’s just call the 4k 5k and it’ll be cool k?

  2. “Does this mean that the other John (John Doll) will run the mess till Obama’s team gets somone good like Todd back in there??”

    Mr. Doll is, in large measure, responsible for the mess. Dudas was never anything more than a figure head. He had no idea what goes inside or outside the PTO before he got there. And still doesn’t, despite spending the past 4 years there.

    His sole qualification for the job was carrying some Congressman’s brief case and jacket back and forth from the office to a committee hearing room.

    So when he was made head of the PTO and heard an earful from applicants and the patent bar on the backlog and pendency, he asked John Doll, John Love, and Joe Rolla what the cause(s) of the problems was (were).

    They weren’t gonna fess up that their own incompetence and contempt for the law were the causes, so they told him, “It’s all the fault of applicants and attorneys filing low quality applications and coming to the PTO not ready to prosecute their applications.”

    Mr. Dudas, not knowing his a$$hole from his elbow about anything, said, “Oh, okay. It’s all their fault. That’s good. So what do we do?”

    The rest is history.

    IMO of course.

  3. Just amazing how the commissioners are at the PTO. Does this mean that the other John (John Doll) will run the mess till Obama’s team gets somone good like Todd back in there??

  4. >>if the USPTO ramps up the RCE and continuations fees such that it’s more cost effective to contest the finality of actions and appeal

    The USPTO fees should not be used for public policy. The fees are to reflect costs of examination. To artificially “ramp up” fees for continuations would find the USPTO back in court. How can the fees for a continuation be greater than the fees for a new application?

  5. step back, “there are strong corporate incentives in place for in-house to want to have plausible deniability”.

    Not if you enforce the expectation that it is the in-house atty’s responsibility if the out-house ever: (1) unnecessarily narrows scope; (2) uncarefully (i.e. not gently) distinguishes against applicant corp patents cited in the current app; (3) argues in such a way as to reflect badly on the applicant corp; (4) etc.

  6. Someone said:

    “I’ll be interested in our assessment of Director Dudas in 10 years, when we have some honest perspective. I think history will ultimately remember him as a hard-working and reformative figure, much like the current outgoing President.”

    I think someone forgot their sanity pill. Just because you are grossly incompetent and wreck the nation of the PTO we will somehow change our minds in ten years? Not a chance!

  7. Ladies/Gentlemen:
    I am a small business owner who appreciates the work performed by the patent attorney community. I am also fortunate to have procured patents over the past five years. However, over the past eight years (since inception of original applications) I can say without a doubt that the USPTO has become more small business friendly, the playing field has leveled, the examiners are more responsive and the process of procuring a patent is more fair (regardless of size). Until Dudas came in the place was an administrative nightmare still reeling from Clinton pilfering reserves (in a veiled disguise to prop up his surplus). Note I’m also a bleeding heart Democrat from Illinois. Still I recognize the dramatic results that Dudas has instituted and I believe the business community and the USPTO are better for it.
    Respectfully,
    Dan
    Topiary
    http://www.personalpro.com

  8. Mr. Bob,

    Most imporantly, Mr. Dudas attempted to enact an putatively ultra vires rule package. And he allowed his agency to project a certain hubris and overt hostility to the patent bar and the applicants that are his customers. In an OJ sense, he may have simply loved himself too much…

    I don’t know who you are, but many here proposed the solution that we now have. As someone who appears to know nothing about the patent business, maybe you need to shut your yap instead.

  9. Lowly, I’m not jesting, but I suppose you are. I’m surely ignorant but I rely on others in the thread to educate me. Take a law firm with thousands of employees. Why would you put an equity partner, a shareholder, a top lawyer, to work as its CEO? Isn’t a CEO a professional manager? Or have I completely misunderstood the role of the USPTO Commissioner? Tell me, please.

  10. Wow, if these comments are any reflection of the average PTO worker or outside patent lawyer, then who knew the industry was composed of such . . . bitter whiners. Most of you folks need a shrink, not a new director. What, Dudas is most guilty of what? Trying too hard? Actually being earnest and sincere? Working hard? Walking the talk and having the gall to interact with everyone and eat with the commoners?

    Please, instead of lobbing bombs at a departing director, maybe stop your crying. If nothing else, before you complain about something, at least come up with a solution. Otherwise, shut your yap.

    –BV

  11. “Really? Lowly, can you be serious? I’m astonished that you think that is the pre-eminent qualification for being the Commissioner. Readers, has there ever been an instance, anywhere in the world outside the USA, of a patent attorney being the Head of the national Patent Office?”

    Dost thou jest with me, good sir? I challenge thee to a duel!

  12. Really? Lowly, can you be serious? I’m astonished that you think that is the pre-eminent qualification for being the Commissioner. Readers, has there ever been an instance, anywhere in the world outside the USA, of a patent attorney being the Head of the national Patent Office?

  13. I truly hope Obama puts an actual patent attorney (you know, someone with a registration number who has actually drafted and prosecuted a patent or two) in charge of the PTO.

  14. USPTO is nice, but note the number of vacancies that will be showing up in the Fed. Cir.

    More room for for O-cademics, like Rai and Lemely.

  15. I am so pleased to see this era pass. Please let’s get Todd Dickinson back. I am so tired of patentable inventions getting rejected, rejected, rejected. On the bio side, every examiner now seems to believe that pretty much everything is now completely predictable. All the business-method and software patent bashers please confine yourselves to those areas and leave bio/pharma alone!

  16. E6k wrote: “They’re unwritten, that’s the bad news lol. Nothing new about that. They were talking about amending the MPEP sections a bit, but I haven’t checked if they did it yet.”

    Would you mind briefly summarizing the unwritten rules? I probably spend about 30% of my time dealing with B.S. restriction requirements. This is time that the client unfairly has to pay for simply because of the examiner’s abuse of restriction requirements. I would love to hear what the unwritten rules say, even if I can’t actually use the unwritten rules in an argument.

  17. Rumpole (in-house) writes:

    “At any rate, you ought to be cautious when it comes to “biting the hand that feeds you”, particularly in our present economic environment.”

    Well thank goodness we live in America, land of the “free” and home of the “brave”.

    But since you put it that way, Yes massa, I’s ain’t gonna be a ‘plaining no more. The current system makes us the bestest nation in the world and it’s gotta stay as it is. Ain’t no use in dreamin of a better world.

  18. “Has the P.T.O. changed the rules so that examiner’s can no longer issue certain types of restriction requirements? Where can I find these new rules? ”

    They’re unwritten, that’s the bad news lol. Nothing new about that. They were talking about amending the MPEP sections a bit, but I haven’t checked if they did it yet.

    “There is usually nothing an applicant can do about it unless he wants to admit his claims are obvious.”

    Let’s be honest, sometimes you may as well. And remember, it is not admitting they are obvious, it is admitting they are obvious over one another. Which really should come into play more often because if you have the “overall” broad claim, anyone in their right mind also has the more narrow idea.

    “The patenting process in the US has become a scam weighted heavily in favor of large entities and only weakens American competitiveness in a global market. ”

    Thing is… wasn’t it always? Be honest.

  19. And that Nisi Prius nuisance, who just now is rather rife,
    The Judicial humorist — I’ve got him on the list!
    All funny fellows, comic men, and clowns of private life —
    They’d none of ‘em be missed — they’d none of ‘em be missed.
    And apologetic statesmen of a compromising kind,
    Such as — What d’ye call him — Thing’em-bob, and likewise — Never-mind,
    And ‘St— ‘st— ‘st— and What’s-his-name, and also You-know-who —
    The task of filling up the blanks I’d rather leave to you.
    But it really doesn’t matter whom you put upon the list,
    For they’d none of ‘em be missed — they’d none of ‘em be missed!

    (from the Mikaido, by Gilbert and Sullivan)

  20. “…let us also hope that neither Prof. Lemley nor Prof. Rai is let anywhere near the PTO.”

    Here, here.

    It boggles my mind that someone without a PTO registration number can call themselves a “patent expert.”

    link to law.duke.edu

    If I really, really like flying a lot, but don’t have a pilot’s license can I call myself a “flying expert?”

  21. This is my opinion… as a former in-house counsel for a large company and now a sole practitioner, the leadership of the USPTO is to blame for what has occurred. The political environment in DC is such that appearances matter more than actuality. Thus, the ill advised rule packages, etc intending to show the “problem” is not with the USPTO but those practitioners who grind the system to a halt. In short, the leadership of the USPTO is afraid to make a mistake and issue a bad patent and incur the wrath of the Fortune 500 at the expense of thousands of patent apps that should have been allowed but weren’t due to the inability of small inventors to pay for repeatedly seeking patent protection for their inventions but being wrongfully denied. The patenting process in the US has become a scam weighted heavily in favor of large entities and only weakens American competitiveness in a global market. Congratulations Mr. Dudas for presiding over your achievements.

  22. E6K wrote: “The good news for you is that the policy has now been officially decided that we cannot make such restrictions, so you’ll probably see less of them. And you can win a petition pretty easily.”

    Has the P.T.O. changed the rules so that examiner’s can no longer issue certain types of restriction requirements? Where can I find these new rules?

    Most of the restriction requirements issued by examiner’s are complete crap, especially many of the species restriction requirements. The examiner’s improperly use them as a tool to reduce their work load. There is usually nothing an applicant can do about it unless he wants to admit his claims are obvious. Has the examiner’s ability to issue restriction requirements recently been limited somehow?

  23. “Dudas is at least that much of a man.”

    LOL. I remember after the new rules were announced, he posed under that ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner with his awesome codpiece.

  24. “Dudas is at least that much of a man.”

    6, I know you’ve been srsly crushing on Dudas since you saw him doing diamond push-ups or whatever in the PTO gym, but can we keep the thread comments/fanboi-ism focused on his professional life?

  25. “I wonder if Mr. Dudas completely ignores what his wife has to say at home as well?”

    Dudas is at least that much of a man. Are you trying to imply there is some sort of a chance that he DOES NOT completely ignore what his wife has to say at home? BLASPHEMY! What is your reg no old timer?

  26. jir — you are posting on the wrong blog; this is a patent blog. There are many other political blogs who would love your input.

  27. “And I don’t quite know what to do about it, except for the in-house watchers to be smarter. … I’m in-house, so I have every incentive to drive things to a conclusion as quickly as possible – it’s my budget!”

    That’s really the key: shunning invoice-centered tunnel vision for a broad perspective that assesses cost per resolution/conclusion.

    “But then – when we amend a lot of words by very few concepts to really get the claims where they were intended to be (e.g. instead of relying on a term of art, spell out the implications of the term of art in the claim – NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE, just a lot of words) – we get goofy refusals to examine because of “restriction by previous presentation” Good grief.”

    I received one of those meritless “election by original presentation” office actions after we filed an RCE. Even with the RCE and the counts that came with it, the examiner was unwilling to do the work.

  28. Fascinating how these discussions travel far and wide. From Dudas’resignation to lazy in-house counsel. Didn’t see that one coming.
    “Step back”: As for “lazy in-house counsel”, I have a full prosecution docket along with my other departmental responsibilities. I only outsource prosecution where I am not comfortable with the technology. So,when I hire counsel for $400/hr. to respond to an OA, I expect that counsel will be able to file a competent Response with little substantive input from me, other than inventor’s input on technical matters.
    Perhaps, this goes with outside counsel’s usual concerns to CYA also,as in I was only following orders.
    At any rate, you ought to be cautious when it comes to “biting the hand that feeds you”, particularly in our present economic environment.

  29. If you think being a patent lawyer or an inventor is hell, try an examiner’s role. Our whole family has been waiting for a change for more than 25 years. We are not holding our breath.

  30. Wow, Mr. Dudas’ unpopularity is unprecendented! But I guess that is to be expected when you mangle our patent system while completely IGNORING the comments of the patent bar for four years. I wonder if Mr. Dudas completely ignores what his wife has to say at home as well?

    What else pisses me off is the USPTO’s self serving BS, such as the following statement (which still appears on the UPSTO home page), “For the first time the USPTO met 100 percent of its Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) goals” Sure, if “error rate” is only based on type II errors and you completely IGNORE type I errors, which are probably at their highest rate in the USPTO’s history. This is a major cause of the backlog.

    And thanks to Mr. Boundy (among others) for all of your hard work.

  31. “e.g. instead of relying on a term of art, spell out the implications of the term of art in the claim – NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE, just a lot of words”

    This is about as disingenuous as a statement could possibly ever be made. You know as well as I do that tying the term down the way you did with “a lot of words” probably made a combo/subcombo. The good news for you is that the policy has now been officially decided that we cannot make such restrictions, so you’ll probably see less of them. And you can win a petition pretty easily.

    As to the “lot of words” being added with no substance, I had an amendment I worked on just the other day. Here is how it went.

    1. A method for making a bicycle comprising: providing a frame [u] made of titanium [/u]
    providing a seat
    providing …

    Just a lot of words they added there right? No substance. They actually had the ba lls to assert in their response that there was no substantive change made to the claim so it should be entered after final. Let me guess, the full argument would have gone: A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that by “frame” the claim meant the titanium frame used in the spec. Hilarious. Funniest thing was, my bicycle in my reference was made of titanium aluminum alloy. I should have waited to point that out until after they filed the RCE though :( Now they just made some deps stating it must be made almost all out of titanium and a few other things since I told them that AF.

  32. “except for the in-house watchers to be smarter.”

    David Boundy,

    You could have added to that: “and for the in-house counsel to not be lazy and to substantively participate in prosecution strategy choices”.

    However, there are strong corporate incentives in place for in-house to want to have plausible deniability as to every possible negative outcome and thus to have a hands-off policy except when it comes to the one number: the billed hours.

    So round and round we go.

  33. Oh…and as for QTD, perhaps he can do some good with the AIPLA. He may be able to do more from outside the system than hamstrung by government employment limitations. One thing for sure; there is an attack on patent eligibility that is not very useful for our economy. While John Dudas may be going, there is a long line to follow. Perhaps we should find a way to open a dialogue and then publicize things if they get no where?

  34. Perhaps less glee and more focus on service is a better place to focus. While the floor of “Johns” will inevitably shift, nothing will happen as long as promotion is from within and those that seek to help both applicant’s and examiners are decried. Whatever happened to those “practice specialists” that helped communication and cleared the space so that something tangible could happen in a prosecution? Right now, examiners are so scared of issuing anything that might be near the line and no one is helping define difficult issues that the system is as stuck as the economy. Perhaps it is time to look back at what worked and what didn’t/doesn’t. Celebration without some constructive path for the future may feel good but will not help innovation or the economy.

  35. I concur with SF – the “more smaller replies to OA” budget watches do create perverse incentives for outside counsel. And I don’t quite know what to do about it, except for the in-house watchers to be smarter.

    I’m in-house, so I have every incentive to drive things to a conclusion as quickly as possible – it’s my budget! But then – when we amend a lot of words by very few concepts to really get the claims where they were intended to be (e.g. instead of relying on a term of art, spell out the implications of the term of art in the claim – NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE, just a lot of words) – we get goofy refusals to examine because of “restriction by previous presentation” Good grief.

  36. “I’m surprised by the negative treatment of Director Dudas.”

    Media Bias,

    I don’t know where you get your information on Dudas’ performance at the PTO, but whatever it is, it’s naive and uninformed by what those in the know know. What Dudas has posted about his performance at the PTO would definitely not survice O’Reilly’s No Spin Zone. The Dudas PTO administration has unnecessarily frustrated and angered (that’s an understatement) the patent prosecution bar and patent applicants), has done nothing to improve the morale of the Examining Corps (see GAO assessment that is in direct conflict with the spin put on this by the Dudas PTO administration), has sought to impose draconian, extremely expensive, ill-advised, and poorly considered Rules without following appropriate laws or procedures (see comments by Dave Boundy, Ron Katzelson and Richard Belzer which have carefully, bravely and “eye-openingly” documented the egregious violations by the the Dudas PTO administration in this regard), and generally created an environment that would dismantle the U.S patent system and potentially put the U.S. at a global competitive disadvantage. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

  37. You all are under the wrong impression.

    Dudas leaving is like the Queen of England retiring/abdicating/dieing. It would have very little real effect on the day-to-day working Parliament and the PM.

    The people who are REALLY responsible for the various rules packages, “quality initiatives” (i.e., 2nd pair of eyes), and other policies that have skrewed things up so much the last few years was NOT Dudas (who was mostly a figurehead & apparently believed his advisers & underlings).
    The REAL people behind these policies are John Doll & Joe Rolla. The ideas all came from them & they are the ones who have pushed to get them implemented. Ask people who have been around a while @ the office & they can confirm this.

    Until they leave the PTO, or we get someone strong & knowledgeable in charge, things will not improve.

  38. I didn’t start at the PTO until 2007, but I have to at least give Dudas credit for increasing examiner $$$.

    If I was in my current position (GS12/03) when Dudas started (2004), I’d be making $68274. Now the salary for my position is $84244. I also got an 4x$8650 recruitment bonus. Combine all that with OT and a lack of accountability and this job isn’t that bad.

  39. I’ll be interested in our assessment of Director Dudas in 10 years, when we have some honest perspective. I think history will ultimately remember him as a hard-working and reformative figure, much like the current outgoing President.

    Posted by: Media Bias |

    You don’t need 10 years – we’re living it. – Bush PTO, Bush FTC, Bush Justice, Bush SEC – “get them thar trial lawyers,” give the international corps what they want – has systematically gutted US entrepreneurship, the US industrial base, and it’s technology advantages. 2 best reforms to get the US economy going? abolish reexamination, abolish de novo (result oriented) claim construction. Get real about the hidden subsidies foreigner countries give their mfg base – and bring anti-dumping actions.

  40. “Several quality metrics have improved dramatically under his watch. He’s effectively stirred the pot on several reform measures.”

    Please indicate (i) exactly what those “quality metrics” are; (ii) what those quality metrics were prior to Dudas; and (iii) what those quality metrics are today.

    Shouldn’t be difficult?

  41. On another note, how is it news that Dudas is “resigning” if he would be losing his job on the 20th anyway when the new administration takes over? I’m a bit confused…

  42. I’m surprised by the negative treatment of Director Dudas. His administration has been one of the most active and ambitious administrations to come through the USPTO. Several quality metrics have improved dramatically under his watch. He’s effectively stirred the pot on several reform measures.

    I’ll be interested in our assessment of Director Dudas in 10 years, when we have some honest perspective. I think history will ultimately remember him as a hard-working and reformative figure, much like the current outgoing President.

  43. Spot on, bultrey re “jir.”
    jir: Aren’t there more relevant blogs for your brilliant political commentary and insights?
    As for the Director’s departure:” The Camptown ladies sing this song, Doo-da, Doo-da…”

  44. jir — what does anything you posted have to do with this news? But if you want to play that game,for every “inexperienced” appointee you throw out there, I’ll toss you two incompetent buffoons on their way out.

  45. Will the new PTO boss have any patent experience?

    Obama will name Leon Panetta to head the CIA. With no hands-on intelligence experience, he will take control of the agency most directly responsible for hunting senior Al Qaeda leaders around the globe. Sleep tight.

    We also will now have comedian AL Franken in the Senate, and possibly Caroline Kennedy in the Senate with no experience.

    Of course, the left said that Gov. Palin with all kinds of executive experience wasn’t qualified to be Vice-President (VPs really don’t that much anyway).

  46. Hallelujah.

    And now let us also hope that neither Prof. Lemley nor Prof. Rai is let anywhere near the PTO. Perhaps saner heads will prevail and Todd Dickinson will come back. There’s no place like home, there’s no place like home …

  47. I’d say good riddance, but then sometimes it’s the (incompetent) devil you know versus the one in the wings.

  48. I wonder if the next Director will be doing a little remodelling in the Hall of Inventors…

    Also, did I miss something while hard at work? Was there a decision in Tafas V. Dudas? If not, I’m guessing the outcome is not going to be flattering for Mr. Dudas (and correspondingly to those who supported him on the brief).

  49. Mooney writes:

    “…blah, blah, blah dog crap blah, blah…”

    Well, nothing has changed around here. Back to some real work.

  50. Mr. Boundy wrote, “The PTO’s problem is that (a) examiners are not given enough time to do a good solid first action, and (b) the compensation system provides the wrong incentives. So prosecution drags on and on.”

    The compensation system on the prosecution side also provides the wrong incentives, that is, prosecutors have less incentive to insist the examiners do a good solid first action.

    Why? The bill reviewers at the clients demand smaller office-action-response budgets. Attorneys respond by writing incremental amendments with minimal arguments (e.g., “this new element is not shown”) that fail to call the examiners on their office action’s flaws, but come in under the budget (even with the added RCE fees). Prosecution takes three to four times as long and is three to four times the expense, but (for some reason lost on me) there’s no sticker shock since it comes in multiple bills over a year and half.

    Adequate incentives can be given at the prosecution end, if the clients push back or if the USPTO ramps up the RCE and continuations fees such that it’s more cost effective to contest the finality of actions and appeal rather than incrementally amend and punt.

  51. Mr. Darling understates the irony. One of the two things that the PTO “focused” on got immensely worse (pendency) by any measure, and the other got worse by any measure that considers both Type I and Type II errors.

    The PTO’s problem is that (a) examiners are not given enough time to do a good solid first action, and (b) the compensation system provides the wrong incentives. So prosecution drags on and on.

    That’s not examiners’ fault, that’s management’s fault.

  52. MM, We don’t need PAIR text searchable. We just need every application and patent to be linked to it’s file wrapper for “real time” access to the current claims/reason for allowance/applicant arguments/IDS. And we need this in every database that has access to patents (PTO website, EAST, Delphion, etc.).

    I hypothesize that the reason it is down all the time is that info providers are trying to do this already with clever software to circumvent ReCaptcha.

  53. “Hmmm … MM bashes information technology as obvious “doo doo” yet seems to recognize its value.”

    There’s no contradiction.

    I’d pay someone to grind a stump out of my yard because it’s a valuable service and a long felt need. But if I did the job myself and you sued me for patent infringement I’d wrap your patent around some dog crap, set it on your porch, light it on fire, and ring the doorbell.

  54. “Regardless … as to the news at hand … let’s pop open some Champagne to celebrate the end of a era.”

    This calls for more than mere champagne, PDS. This calls for a single malt scotch followed by a visit to a gentleman’s club :D

  55. …along with those many thousands of silent employee shouts of joy and thanks emanating to the heavens from Alexandria…

    The PTO, and all who deal & work with it, would have been far, far better off had there been no director and deputy at all during the six expensive, painful, horrid years Mr. Dudas has disgraced those positions.

    May he hang his head in shame on the last day he walks out those hallowed world innovation doors.

  56. “The new director needs to figure out a way to make PAIR text searchable (at least), and to allow the automatic generation of patent family trees.”

    Hmmm … MM bashes information technology as obvious “doo doo” yet seems to recognize its value. Since, according to MM, everything related to information technology is so obvious, I guess MM will soon tell us how he thinks these needs can be provided for.

    Regardless … as to the news at hand … let’s pop open some Champagne to celebrate the end of a era.

  57. “And we can only hope and pray that we get someone truly “qualified” under 35 USC 3(a) to replace him.”

    I.e. 6k.

    Send in your nominations to Arti asap!

  58. “Orwellian Newspeak at its finest.”

    JohnD,

    Couldn’t have said it better myself. I only wish his departure could have come (much) sooner (and for the moment we’re likely stuck with the other John D which isn’t an improvement). And we can only hope and pray that we get someone truly “qualified” under 35 USC 3(a) to replace him.

  59. “The electronic filing system for patents has turned out to be an excellent system that works well and is reliable.”

    The new director needs to figure out a way to make PAIR text searchable (at least), and to allow the automatic generation of patent family trees.

  60. Did his new examiner hiring match the attrition, retirements and firings? If not then he actually came out behind because now they have to train all those newbies, eating into PTO funds. As to quality, if they don’t have a written manual about what it means in practice, then Pal was fired arbitrarily and capriciously.

  61. I think he is following that blonde that worked with him to ????? Lets hope Obama gets his appointments to their positions right .. and that the “Enabling Economic Recovery Through Innovation” on Jan 12 in DC accomplishes something.

  62. While we’re all thrilled to see Dudas go, be careful what you wish for.

    Remember, two of Obama’s closest IP advisors are law professors who wrote the amicus brief supporting the PTO at the CAFC.

    I’ve seen nothing that would indicate a new director would change current PTO policy.

    I can only hope I’m wrong!

  63. Itchy: Hi, Poochie. You look like you’ve got something to say. Do you?
    Poochie: Yes, I certainly do! [badly dubbed voice] I have to go now. My planet needs me.
    [Note: Poochie died on the way back to his home planet]
    Krusty: POOCHIE’S DEAD!!!!
    Kids: YAAAAAYYYYY!!!!!

    That is exactly how I feel right now.

  64. “Under his directorship, the PTO has focused on ‘Quality’ and reducing pendency of applications. Successes including (1) hiring many more examiners and (2) boosting the PTO budget to $ 2 billion.”

    So “accomplishing” two things completely unrelated to the two things you “focused” on is a success?

    Orwellian Newspeak at its finest.

  65. That just made my day. I hope he performs as ineptly in private practice as he did at the USPTO and is subsequently fired.

  66. D, it wasn’t an email as far as I know. It was in the USPTO weekly. A

    nd no, it doesn’t say where he’ll be heading, but you could probably go to the auditorium on Mon afternoon and ask him yourself.

  67. Quite a list of “successes” – increasing the budget and hiring more people.

    Wow.

    Very underwhelming.

Comments are closed.