Examiner SlimThugS USPTO Rap

Workplace Caution – Link has Audio Profanity

Examiner SlimThugS has an amazingly bad – but funny – USPTO Rap with video posted to YouTube. The song is titled “Dangerous” and includes lots of profanity (repeated use of mf’n). Some classic lines include:

“This attorney, he stepped up to me. He tried to knock down my 103. But you aint gonna amend past me; Cause I shot him back with a 102(b).”

“Using databases west and east everybody knows I’m the database beast. You think you can get a patent with those claims. Girl you better think twice, those claims are so lame.”

“I just found a 102(b) prior art, and now the beat down is gonna start. … I hit them with the 102(b), yeah”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PBVG4a3wNI

pic-10.jpg

41 thoughts on “Examiner SlimThugS USPTO Rap

  1. “He still works ‘at’ the PTO, but as of late 2007 he is a public searcher.”

    Funny. So he’s lower on the totem pole than an examiner. He’s real dangerous.

    LOL

  2. SlimThugS’s identity is circulating. Apparently this video was made a few years ago. He was a patent examiner in the June ’06 academy class (AU2615). He still works “at” the PTO, but as of late 2007 he is a public searcher.

  3. Lazy work and hindsight perspective – SlimThugS says it all.

    Right on, “BentwaterBlitzers.”

    “An examiner” – trust me, nobody compares you to a real judge, Federal or otherwise.

  4. Dear Professor Crouch,

    My bunny and I thought about it,
    and we have concluded
    it is nice to see you lighten up some.

    Maybe you could also allow us commenters a slightly large vocabulary?

  5. My pet rabbit is right.

    This is no place for foul language. I oughtta’ know.

    This is a professional blog (©¿®)™

  6. Professor Crouch,

    I am shocked, SHOCKED, that you would post such a link.

    You betta’ go wash out your mouth with brown soap!

  7. I suppose the next question is whether we have some talented patent attorneys/agents out there who can spit some back talk right back at our “dangerous” examiner home boy.

    Yo yo Mr. Dangerous examiner dude,
    Yo ranting is irrational and down right crude,
    Not only does your 102b not stick,
    But rhyming and jiving is definitely not your shtick.

    102 smack down is easy when the claims you don’t read,
    However proper claim construction is what we need.
    You see them first through eleventh means?
    Yo 102b is not worth a hill of beans
    Not only can’t it read on the first and second,
    But your 102b skips right over to eleven.
    Next time read the claims and weep
    Then put your reject stamp away for the big sleep
    This invention is novel and bold
    Yo 102b is useless and old

    Yeah yeah
    Yeah yeah
    Who’s dangerous now?
    Who bought the farm and its dang cow?

    Yeah yeah
    Yeah yeah

  8. Hmm, I never get iambic pentameter, and I am a lady. Step up Examiners in the signal processing groups.

    And you know how some things are so bad they are funny? This rap video was much worse.

  9. Ugh. Couldn’t even finish watchin’ (or listening to) dat ting.

    Hey, wait a minute! Is that … could that be … our ol’ bud Jon “the PTO wrecker” Doll behind those sunglasses?

  10. “Thanks for making innovation more expensive.”

    Innovation – Free since the wheel

    Stopping others from innovating – expensive if you can’t do it right.

  11. “Too funny.”

    I can’t watch the video at work so I could tell how bad it was. But, I still commend him for making it even though he is obviously more talented at smacking down your claims than he is at musical arts.

  12. Fire him and see how “dangerous” he is. This confirms the rejection office is back in practice. Thanks for making innovation more expensive. You are truly a piece of work!

  13. “This demands a counter rap video from the attorney’s standpoint!”

    No, it doesn’t. It demands the legalization of euthanasia. If it hurts to be untalented and clueless, this guy is suffering horribly.

  14. 6 at 3:28 PM:

    “Man me and some coworkers were thinking about making this exact thing with a different AU just 2 weeks ago!

    SlimThugS you tha man!”

    After others point out how weak the video is, 6 at 10:15 PM:

    “But seriously, man that did pretty much suck”

    Too funny.

  15. “If it’s blatantly unpatentable, I go with the expressive literary route, myself. If you get an OA with obviousness statements written as limericks, haikus, alliterations, or in iambic pentameter, then it may be from me.”

    I tend to do this too. Iambic pentameter gets them every time, especially the ladies.

  16. Looks like your typical high IQ patent examiner, can quote the statute, doesn’t understand the first thing about the art…. …and cites the reference as 102 anyway, when it doesn’t meet the statutory requirements for a 102.

    Dangerous ? You bet.

  17. This demands a counter rap video from the attorney’s standpoint! “Yo 102b’s so lame you see, cause ya misread the citation, put yo glasses on see!”

  18. “That’s hilarious. I would, at the very least, point it out. I’ve been known to insert a bit of humor into my arguments, although I admit it probably goes unnoticed by the legions of Patels and Nguyens working at the pto :o”

    I don’t think I know any patels, but now nguyens on the other hand… but then again, most of them are americanized youngsters same as me.

    “”Dangerous…..Why didn’t he find[cite?] the 102(b) on the first action?”"

    I believe he’s saying that the attorney amended backwards from a 103 into a 102. Happens all the time.

    But seriously, man that did pretty much suck, I had such high hopes too. I’m going to have to try my hand at making one. The CERN rap was my inspiration for bringing it up the other day with my buds. Their rap is awesome.

  19. “If it’s blatantly unpatentable, I go with the expressive literary route, myself. If you get an OA with obviousness statements written as limericks, haikus, alliterations, or in iambic pentameter, then it may be from me.

    I’ve never had an attorney point it out or attempt to dance back with one of his own, though. :(”

    That’s hilarious. I would, at the very least, point it out. I’ve been known to insert a bit of humor into my arguments, although I admit it probably goes unnoticed by the legions of Patels and Nguyens working at the pto :o

  20. “Dangerous…..Why didn’t he find[cite?] the 102(b) on the first action?”

    Some examiners like to string them along for a couple RCEs for easy counts while sitting on the good art. Highly unprofessional, IMO.

    If it’s blatantly unpatentable, I go with the expressive literary route, myself. If you get an OA with obviousness statements written as limericks, haikus, alliterations, or in iambic pentameter, then it may be from me.

    I’ve never had an attorney point it out or attempt to dance back with one of his own, though. :(

    In retrospect, I suppose I appear as one of those jerk Fed judges who write decisions in raps and whatnot.

  21. Proof positive of the high quality of the examiner corps at the USPTO. I might have liked it if it had actually been funny, or if 3/4 of it didn’t repeat the words “dangerous.”

    Now for a really funny legal rap, check out Notorious B.O.A.L.T.’s CivPro rap at link to youtube.com

  22. Now I know how my grandfatherly SPE felt when I was adding Stones and Dylan lyrics to my rejections in the 70′s.

  23. Man me and some coworkers were thinking about making this exact thing with a different AU just 2 weeks ago!

    SlimThugS you tha man!

Comments are closed.