Edward DuMont Nominated to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

The White House has announced the nomination of Edward (Ed) DuMont to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to replace Chief Judge Paul Michel who will be retiring May 31, 2010. The Senate must confirm the nomination along with the still-pending nomination of Judge O’Malley.

DuMont is a partner at WilmerHale and is an appellate specialist. He previously spent close to ten years at the Department of Justice primarily in the office of the Solicitor General and also worked in corporate transactions at Sullivan & Cromwell.

DuMont clerked for Judge Richard Posner on the Seventh Circuit in Chicago in the mid-1980′s and also spent a year in working as a lawyer at a firm in Thailand. DuMont holds a BA (history) from Yale and a JD from Stanford. He is originally from Northern California, but has worked on the East Coast for the past twenty years.

DuMont has worked on several patent appeals, often alongside former US Solicitor General Seth Waxman. Recent patent appeals including Tivo v. Echostar, Princo v. ITC (pending en banc rehearing), Airgo IP v. ArvinMeritor, Agfa Corp. v. Creo Prods., Purdue v. Endo, US Philips v. ITC.

The Federal Circuit courthouse at 717 Madison Place is less than a half-mile walk from DuMont’s current office on Pennsylvania Avenue. Like President Obama, DuMont is just shy of 50-years-old.

Although filling Chief Judge Michel’s spot, Mr. DuMont would not automatically become the next Chief Judge. Rather, that position will move to Judge Rader who is the next most-senior active judge who has not yet reached the age of 65.

131 thoughts on “Edward DuMont Nominated to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

  1. it would be to see the admissions applications as a foreign student…

    … which would change where he was born … how, exactly?

    Oook.

  2. “!, too, would like to see all the birth certificates Obama got in college.”

    No Mooney, er I mean INANE, it would be to see the admissions applications as a foreign student…

  3. like the obviously forged “Certificate of Live Birth” from Hawaii… printed in 1961 on a laser printer.

    LOL

  4. Open all those sealed documents from the college days.

    I, too, would like to see all the birth certificates Obama got in college.

    Frankly, I considered the issue settled once the people so heck-bent on discovering the “truth” published such an obviously forged Kenyan birth certificate and declared victory.

  5. I think what “IANACCE(BIPOOTV)” is trying to say by “Dinchamean firriner” is that “if its not Scottish its crap”

  6. “That raises questions”

    Yep, just like the refusal of Mr. O to actually settle the birth certificate issue once and for all raises questions.

    Open all those sealed documents from the college days.

  7. “Nope.

    Like I said: show me a couple hundred peer-reviewed papers from different labs around the world demonstrating that that average global temp has “peaked” and we’re entering a “cooling period” and then I’ll think about your script.”

    See? The brainwashing has taken a strong hold in this one…

  8. Just an observation: with CO2 increasing at a steady rate, year in an year out, we should expect a continuous increase in earth’s temperatures, on average, i.e., wiggling about a norm that is increasing.

    But nothing like that is in the actual data. In fact, there seems to be no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

    This raises questions.

  9. Dinchamean, “furriner”?

    I don’t know, do you Canadians still have an economy based entirely on beaver pelts?

    Apparently you don’t have a clew who Dr. Jones is,

    Older gentleman, jaunty hat, dog named Indiana?

  10. mm, “Like I said: show me a couple hundred peer-reviewed papers from different labs around the world demonstrating that that average global temp has “peaked” and we’re entering a “cooling period” and then I’ll think about your script.”

    Apparently you don’t have a clew who Dr. Jones is, or you’d realise how silly some of your comments are.

  11. Haven’t you read the recent BBC interviews with Dr. Jones?

    Nope.

    Like I said: show me a couple hundred peer-reviewed papers from different labs around the world demonstrating that that average global temp has “peaked” and we’re entering a “cooling period” and then I’ll think about your script.

    Your reliance on some interview with “Dr. Jones” suggests that you still don’t get it. Reminds me of how the creotards occasionally go off on Darwin’s alleged “deathbed renunciation”, as if that somehow changes the actual evidence. Science doesn’t work this way. Politics is another matter, and occasionally the two become intertwined. But it’s usually not terribly difficult to get a handle on the probable veracity of the testable (or tested) claims. The first step is to ask : how extraordinary is this claim? The answer to that question determines how extraordinary the evidence needs to be.

    The politics usually comes in where the scientific claim is not extraordinary (“cigarette smoking is not addictive”) but a powerful interest group is concerned about the implications of the claim.

  12. IDK why educated people tend to remain so ignorant on the issue of “global warming.” The gelogically recorded evidence of temperature change since the times of the dinosaurs unmistakably establishes that the temperature goes up in an exponential fashion and then suddenly plummets into an iceage. There is a 10 thousand year window of warmth, and a 60-70 thousand yeard window of ice-age. It is thought that the ocean currents, whcih are basically a slat water pump, wdistribute heat from the equater to other parts of the globe. Thus, once the ice caps melt, the salt in the ocens dilutes to the point that the pump shuts down, and the iceage occurs very quickly, resulting in warm, habitable equater with the rest of the earth frozen.

    We are nearing the end of our window of warmth. The sudden plummet in temperature could occur any day now, or maybe not for another 1000 years. The concern with hydrocarbons is that we might actually speed up the increase in temperature, causing the ice caps to melt sooner and the iceage to occur prematurely. If that has happened, it was nice knowing you.

    But the degree to which the temperature has increased has not mirrored the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps we’ll find out the answer tomorrow, or the next day, or the day after that. Meanwhile, I hear Venezuela is nice.

  13. Here, re AGW, if in fact we are seeing a reversal of the heating trend (nothing proven, just something to consider given comments by Dr. Jones and others), there’s the little problem that people have not yet changed their behaviours overall.

    Generally when the market crashes, people haven’t changed their behavior overall. The same mob mentality and delicate balance between fear and greed is always there, and that same behavior is what causes the market to start going up again. If you take a step back, the market crash is but a blip in the constant march upward. The climate has its blips too, just like the stock market (and just like the weather), due to various factors that act on different timescales, and moderate randomness superimposing itself on our blatant destruction of the planet’s ecosystem. The temperature can’t keep going up forever, but it can keep trending up forever.

    Anyway, why am I paying attention to behavioUr analysis from some foreigner?

  14. IANAE, “The stock market is actually a pretty good analogy for the whole weather/climate thing. ”

    Except when you get to the heart of the matter. The stock market crashes big, for example, when too many people freak out and start short selling their securities. So the market goes down down down.

    Here, re AGW, if in fact we are seeing a reversal of the heating trend (nothing proven, just something to consider given comments by Dr. Jones and others), there’s the little problem that people have not yet changed their behaviours overall.

    If anything, we’re polluting at a higher rate than we were 20 years ago and dumping yet more and more CO2 into our atmosphere.

    That’s why I thought your analogy was cute and clever from the surface, but otherwise inapposite.

  15. I would have preferred a nominee with some patent prosecution background so he/she can better understand the effect that FedCir decisions have on patent practice.

  16. I.e., non-sequitur of the day award.

    The stock market is actually a pretty good analogy for the whole weather/climate thing. It has essentially random fluctuations every day, and you can’t really predict where it’s going a few days ahead or use the individual days to predict the long-term trend. Despite all that, the long-term trend is known to be up, and that trend is crystal clear once you study it on the appropriate timescale. And yet, every time we see any sharp or sustained movement against the long-term trend, crazy people go on TV and proclaim that it will never go up again.

    And then it goes up again.

  17. IANAE, “Because remember when the stock market’s long-term upward trend peaked and reversed a couple years ago? Remember how that completely and irreversibly stopped the upward trend, and refuted any possible claim that the upward trend had been caused by man?”

    Oh yez, because I, too, really wonder what exactly is the current price of black pekoe in the Forbidden City.

    I.e., non-sequitur of the day award.

    Congrats!

  18. MM, my comments were based on comments from the horse’s mouth, not from “ridiculous talking points and propoganda disseminated by Republicans on behalf of giant corporations”.

    Haven’t you read the recent BBC interviews with Dr. Jones? (Aside, speaking of demonization, what the “climate-gate” folks have tried to do to this guy is horrible. He seems like a really nice guy who maybe let irritability get the best of him a few times over a decade).

    And by “reading” the interviews, I mean actually reading them in their entireties, not merely reading the gloss-job the interviews were given by either the AGW or non-AGW camps.

  19. Until then: why would I be “disturbed” by ridiculous talking points and propoganda disseminated by Republicans on behalf of giant corporations?

    Because remember when the stock market’s long-term upward trend peaked and reversed a couple years ago? Remember how that completely and irreversibly stopped the upward trend, and refuted any possible claim that the upward trend had been caused by man?

    This is just like that.

  20. All the above said, it’s got to be at least a little disturbing to your average AGW proponent to find that the global climate (as measured in long-term global average temperatures) over the last 15-20 years appears to have peaked and possibly reversed

    When the consensus of the world’s climate experts is that global temperatures have “peaked” and we are entering a cooling period, I’ll believe it. Until then: why would I be “disturbed” by ridiculous talking points and propoganda disseminated by Republicans on behalf of giant corporations?

  21. IANAACCE(BIPOOTV),

    That’s why I have to keep on my toes and make sure that the AGW proponent has been properly indoctri…, um, taught that the pc acronym is ACC.

  22. Our Dear Dear Leader writes, “3. Call anyone who has serious doubt regarding climate change based on analysis of objective scientific data (heck, we have “climate change” every day) a “climate change denyer” to try to conjure up and co-opt the negative images associated with the Holocaust. ”

    While I don’t like the Holocaust-association-attempt either, I don’t think you can say you have climate change every day.

    Climate by definition is what you have over long periods of time. It’s fine to talk about the climate in So.Cal being generally warm and sunny. But on any given day, there may be weather in So.Cal which differs significantly from warm and sunny.

    All the above said, it’s got to be at least a little disturbing to your average AGW proponent to find that the global climate (as measured in long-term global average temperatures) over the last 15-20 years appears to have peaked and possibly reversed.

  23. Action points for brainwashed liberals:

    5. Call anyone who points out how crazy your discredited ideas are a “brainwashed liberal”.

    Oook.

  24. Action points for brainwashed liberals:

    1. Find a way to incorporate “teabagger” into a dialog with someone who disagrees with your radical agenda

    2. Call anyone questioning Obama’s qualifications to hold office under the “natural born citizen” clause a “looney” or a “birther”

    3. Call anyone who has serious doubt regarding climate change based on analysis of objective scientific data (heck, we have “climate change” every day) a “climate change denyer” to try to conjure up and co-opt the negative images associated with the Holocaust. For those in the climate change fear mongering business, don’t forget to delete any inconvenient data including emails showing culpability in the massive fraud

    4. Please look to Malcolm Mooney as a perfect example of what brainwashing can accomplish.

    thank you

  25. “I’m with Malcolm.”

    INANE you ARE Malcolm… one hand washes the other, remember?

    “objective critical thought…”

    Are you telling me that questioning the propaganda regarding Obama’s natural born citizen qualification is not an excellent example of independent critical thinking and objectivity? Quite the contrary.

    Go back to watching CNN “news” Mooney. Sorry to interrupt your mind meld session.

  26. Tom Brody: This blogging device does not provide for an italics feature.

    If a poster on a blog is not capable of understanding html terms, then it is likely that his opinion will in part be somewhat garbled, and that people who suffer will have need for patented pharmaceuticals or patented methods for diagnostics.

  27. Instead of calling this the blogging neutron bomb, we should call it the blogging wank bomb.

    Although I think the damage to the playground may be more excessive with the wanking.

  28. LaMotte graduated from high school in 1979. At that time, there is NO WAY that high school textbooks in biology mentioned anything about INTRONS or about REVERSE TRANSCRIPTION. No way, Jose.

    First of all, nice job of moving the goalpost. Very childish, but perhaps consistent with your excessive reliance on capitalization to make your non-points.

    Second of all: why would the terms have to have been in a textbook for a high school graduate — especially an intelligent high school graduate — to have been exposed to the terms in 1979?

  29. LaMotte graduated from high school in 1979. At that time, there is NO WAY that high school textbooks in biology mentioned anything about INTRONS or about REVERSE TRANSCRIPTION. No way, Jose.

  30. An attorney graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, but lacking any classes in elementary chemistry, or any classes in elementary biochemistry, would not be capable of understanding any of the terms that I recited.

    Doofus, I knew what an intron and reverse transcription was in high school. Stop wanking.

  31. I would suggest more thoughts on the first comment in this paper trail, namely: “Edward DuMont? I thought he was the 4th Musketeer.”

  32. Tom, that statutory quote does give one pause. Ordinarily, I would suggest that obviousness is primarily a question of fact, but in bio, it does appear that one needs to understand something of biology even to understand the statute.

    I would comment, the people who put all that technology into the statute were deluded.

  33. It is sometimes said that the law is not technology specific. But this is not the case. Please read 35 USC 103. A judge from the Federal Circuit can be trained to understand these terms with, perhaps, an 80-hour crash course in biology. However, where a judge lacking an 80-hour crash course in biology who listends to arguments, and who contributes to an opinion before the Federal Circuit, the result can be expected to be garbled and wrong. The ultimate victims would be sick people in need of patented diagnostic methods, and patented pharmaceuticals.

    This statute contains the following language:

    (“3) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term “biotechnological process” means- (A) a process of genetically altering or otherwise inducing a single- or multi-celled organism to-(i) express an exogenous nucleotide sequence,(ii) inhibit, eliminate, augment, or alter expression of an endogenous nucleotide sequence, or (iii) express a specific physiological characteristic not naturally associated with said organism; (B) cell fusion procedures yielding a cell line that expresses a specific protein, such as a monoclonal antibody . . .”

  34. The magic word is CONTEXT. Understanding a term occurs when a person is able to answer questions about the CONTEXT of the word, that is, the environment of use of the word. Above, I provided the example of “introns.” An “intron” is a segment of DNA that is one type of DNA that is often put in the category of “junk DNA.” A person cannot be said to understand this vocabulary word (intron), where he or she is merely capable of stating this: “Intron means intervening sequence. Intron is junk DNA that occurs inside a gen.” No, no, no. Understanding a vocabulary word means more than this. Understanding the vocabulary word “intron” means that a person can describe how introns influence gene regulation, how introns influence gene processing, how introns make life difficult for molecular biologist. I have worked directly with a VICE PRESIDENT OF MARKETING having no science background. I have worked directly with a CORPORATE ATTORNEY VICE PRESIDENT. Therefore, I have concrete examples of non-scientists who are willing to talk “science talk.” In the case of one of these persons, the person understood what he was talking about, and, in fact, I recommended that his name be included in the list of INVENTORS on my patent application. But in the other case, the person’s attempt to “talk science” really made no sense.

  35. But Tom, this is where respect for the lower court findings of fact come in. The real issue for the circuit court should be getting the law right. Typically, this would have nothing at all to do with understanding particular technology.

    If you disagree, please explain.

  36. An attorney graduating Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School, but lacking any classes in elementary chemistry, or any classes in elementary biochemistry, would not be capable of understanding any of the terms that I recited. Now, the definition of “understanding” is a field unto itself. The writer most associated with trying to put a finger on what “understanding” is, is Ludwig Wittgenstein. In fact, the next issue of JPTOS will contain an article by me, on Ludwig Wittgenstein and patent law. At any rate, a working definition to “understanding” is as follows. A person who understands the term “intron” will be able to provide comments on how introns are related to various things, for example, how introns are related to GENE REGULATION, how introns are related to DNA REPAIR, how introns are related to the KINETICS OF MESSAGE PROCESSING. This is what I mean when I state that the candidate would be incapable of understanding these vocabulary words. I would estimate that there are around one hundred words in electronics, that any humanities trained judge can learn over the course of a couple of years. I would estimate that there are around one hundred words in biotechnology, that any humanities trained judge can learn over the course of a couple of years. But a judge coming in cold (to repeat, coming in cold without any prior exposure to INTRONS, and to the various contexts of what is an INTRON), to an appeals case that concerns INTRONS, would be an incompetant.

  37. Seems clear to me Ned.

    Tom, perhaps you need to drive ina few more cirlces in order for Ned to understand.

  38. This is about the comment about the Federal Circuit respecting the findings of fact, regarding the lower courts and the PTO. This is one of the few intelligent comments on this particular discussions. But regarding the fact that Learned Hand was great at patent law, but was no patent attorney, please note that in Learned Hand’s time, the state of the art of chemistry, physics, biology, computer science, was relatively primitive, and did NOT contain very many vocabulary words. Remember, patent law more than any other profession known to mankind, depends on the proper interpretation of words. If a judge on the Federal Circuit is not capable of understanding the term “intron” or “reverse transcription” or “phosphorylation” or “hysteresis plot” or “epitope,” then it is likely that the opinion will in part be somewhat garbled, and that people with needs for patented pharmaceuticals or patented methods for diagnostics, will suffer.

  39. This a comment on the notion that a judge may or may not be a scientific expert. Pauline Newman and Judge Lourie are genuine scientific experts because they have a Ph.D., and because of post-graduate scientific work. However, other judges having an undergraduate background in science are careful to refrain from asserting that they are “experts.” I liked the following quote from Judge Mayer, and I agree with it (the following writing is from one of my articles in Virginia Journal of Law and Technology):

    Conversely, in a concurring opinion in Fromson v. Anitec Printing Plates, Inc.,149 Judge Mayer stated that the court should refrain from applying its own background in interpreting technical terms and should defer to the specification: “I ‘know’ what
    anodization means from my own undergraduate studies and experiments . . . [b]ut, I am
    neither an expert in the field nor one of ordinary skill in the art despite how much I think I ‘know’ about a process I once studied. Nor do my colleagues on this court . . . possess
    such expertise, and even if they did, they would have to defer to the record in the
    case.”

  40. Personally, it is better that patent attorneys and others skilled in technology not be appointed to the court. This way, they will more likely respect the findings of fact by the lower courts and the PTO.

    What matters most are good legal minds. Learned Hand was no patent attorney, but he was great in patent law.

  41. “Tom, for what it’s worth, the more “scientific experts” there are on the Federal Circuit, the less patents will be upheld.”

    That’s why I recommend either of these two guys. Every patent would be upheld as divine intervention!
    link to youtube.com

  42. RWA Heck, making someone look like a looney has worked against you Mooney right here on this board (of course it didn’t take much – and you helped a lot).

    Keep smoking, CaveMan.

  43. On her radio show, Dr. Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant
    Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus
    18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

    The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a
    US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It’s funny, as well
    as informative:

    Dear Dr. Laura:

    Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law.

    I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
    knowledge with as many people as I can.

    When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example,
    I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an
    abomination … End of debate. Its in the Bible – end of argument!

    I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
    elements of God’s Laws and how best to follow them.

    1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
    female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A
    friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not
    Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

    2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
    Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
    price for her?

    3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in
    her period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem
    is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

    4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates
    a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev. 1:9. The problem is, my
    neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I
    smite them?

    5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
    35:2. Clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally
    obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

    6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
    abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
    homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there
    ‘degrees’ of abomination?

    7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
    have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
    glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wriggle
    room here?

    8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the
    hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden
    by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

    9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig
    makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

    10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
    different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing
    garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester
    blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
    necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town
    together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them
    to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who
    sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

    I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
    considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

    Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

    Your adoring fan.
    James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
    Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
    University of Virginia

  44. My bad…i’m informed the Goracle was a divinity school dropout before he re-invented himself as a climate specialist and critical thinker worthy of the CAFC.

  45. IANAE,

    i don’t want greed-motivated reason, because reason would be forever at the mercy of greed-motivated ignorance. It’s not really reason unless you’ve reasoned your way there.

    Didn’t Adam Smith say something about this? Or was that Gordon Gecko?

    aww, RWA
    Try to make anyone with a valid question … look like a looney.
    This is such a well liked tactic that your pal NAL created a nickname for it – the Neutron Bomb of blogging. Leaves the playground all nice and neat.

    And as I corrected Malcolm, you need to stay current with the PC – it’s “climate change” emergency, not “global warming” emergency.

  46. “I’m with Malcolm. If you can’t show some evidence of objective critical thought, you shouldn’t be anywhere near science, particularly not with decision-making power.”

    Didn’t the Goracle get a Masters degree in Theology from Vanderbilt? Is he a double-heretic?

  47. Try to make anyone with a valid question about Obama’s agenda and qualifications look like a looney.

    And what would that “valid question” be, exactly? Whether Hawaii is part of Kenya? Whether measures should be taken against the possible election of non-Christian presidents?

    Remember when you couldn’t question the president’s agenda or qualifications at all, because if you did the terrorists would win? Good thing that particular president was eminently qualified and had the country’s best interests at heart.

    I’m with Malcolm. If you can’t show some evidence of objective critical thought, you shouldn’t be anywhere near science, particularly not with decision-making power.

  48. “Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim trying to destroy America yuk, yuk” (emphasis added)

    Right out of the DNC handbook. Try to make anyone with a valid question about Obama’s agenda and qualifications look like a looney.

    Heck, making someone look like a looney has worked against you Mooney right here on this board (of course it didn’t take much – and you helped a lot). Unfortunately, it isn’t working in connection with people who are at least are open to considering the possibility of the above perfectly plausible scenario. After all, stranger things have happened – like three feet of snow in DC during the so called “global warming” emergency.

  49. Even the most apparently gullible people can sometimes be shaken out of their stupor,

    Only by appealing to their greed, it seems. Like the various Congresspersons who were vocally against responding to the census until it was pointed out that such conduct might cost them the very existence of their seat.

    I don’t want greed-motivated reason, because reason would be forever at the mercy of greed-motivated ignorance. It’s not really reason unless you’ve reasoned your way there.

  50. EG Again, let’s agree to disagree and stick to the what this thread is supposed to be about, the nomination of DuMont to fill Michel’s soon to be vacant seat.

    Well, we got onto the subject because of the alleged lack of scientific expertise of Mr. DuMont and its alleged ramifications for the Federal Circuit, should he be appointed. Let’s put it this way: if you “believe” that the earth is 6,000 years old and the evolution of life on earth is “just a theory” then you aren’t qualified to sit on the Federal Circuit (nor are you qualified for any job where the ability to weigh evidence and evaluate credibility is a necessary skill). This would be a perfectly fair question to ask Mr. DuMont or any judicial nominee, just as it would be perfectly fair to ask them if they believe that humans landed on the moon or that Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim trying to destroy America. Of course, our “liberal” media would have a field day documenting the “outrage” over the 6,000 year old earth question because, we would be informed, the question “can be perceived” as an “attack” on the “moral foundation of the country”.

    Nevertheless, it would be an opportunity for our country to grow up and perhaps educate itself. Even the most apparently gullible people can sometimes be shaken out of their stupor, as this recent article revealed:

    But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”

    Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

    Others could not explain the contradiction.

    “That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”

    link to nytimes.com

  51. secular progressive dogma

    You misspelled “facts” there.

    Not that your needlessly wordy and polarizing term for it comes off as “demonizing” or anything, just FYI.

    Peace.

  52. “with respect to the Bible at least, you are not exercising critical thought, no matter how capable you are of critical thinking.”

    Lionel,

    Let’s just say I disagree with your view (which you certainly have the right to express) and leave it at that. Neither of us is going to convince the other on this point.

    As far as “demonization” that’s how it comes across to me. Basically, if you don’t accept secular progressive dogma as absolutely correct, your opinion doesn’t matter and is trivialized. Again, let’s agree to disagree and stick to the what this thread is supposed to be about, the nomination of DuMont to fill Michel’s soon to be vacant seat.

  53. Since we do not have specialized patent courts in this country anyway, why not open up the appeals process to include additional circuits, and leave it to the Supreme Court to sort things out? The current system places too many burdens on too few judges with too little background in the sciences to make for good (patent) case law.

  54. ” Malcolm,

    you might have to switch to one of your sock puppets, no one (else) pays attention to the Malcolm one (heck even RWA follows me around now like a little puppy – you want him back?)

    Posted by: ping | Apr 15, 2010 at 09:36 PM

    (heck even RWA follows me around now like a little puppy – you want him back?)

    Enjoy. ;)

    Posted by: Malcolm Mooney | Apr 16, 2010 at 12:39 AM”

    One snarky little hand washes the other. Here endeth the lesson.

  55. I don’t think anything I said was demonizing.

    It’s another one of those irregular verbs.

    I debate
    You demonize
    They violate my First Amendment rights by expressing their opinions about my opinion

  56. Isaac Newton was living in a period of relative ignorance. The Earth may have been 6000 years old as far as he was concerned. Now we have a better (far from complete) understanding of the universe that precludes the Earth being 6000 years old.

    However, to be more precise, I should have said with respect to the Bible at least, you are not exercising critical thought, no matter how capable you are of critical thinking.

  57. “I’m sorry, but if you believe the events in the Old Testament actually happened then your critical thinking skills are lacking.”

    Lionel,

    Let’s not go down that path, please. My “critical thinking skills” are just fine and I still believe the Bible is the Holy Word of God (just like many, many other scientists or those got degrees in science). That’s my “belief,” but I’m certainly not going to impose that “belief” on you or anyone else.

    Also, I think everyone would agree that Sir Isaac Newton was one of the greatest physicists of all time, yet he had a profound belief in the truth of the Bible. Are you going to say Newton’s “critical thinking skills” are “lacking”? Again, let’s debate, not “demonize.”

  58. With regard to DuMont I would prefer a person with more patent experience, scientific background or not. If anyone has information on the cases he was apparently “involved” with, please post.

  59. What I don not understand is Creationism is not a science. It doesn’t even necessarily conflict with Evolutionary theory, which is science. You want to believe there is a creator fine. However, the best explanation for the world around us, and the only explanation for the diversity and complexity we see currently, is Evolution.

    Unless you truly believe the Earth is 6000 years old, in which case I feel sorry for you.

  60. “A comment about on par with those who treat what the Bible says as a myth (which it isn’t).”

    I’m sorry, but if you believe the events in the Old Testament actually happened then your critical thinking skills are lacking.

  61. Malcolm,

    you might have to switch to one of your sock puppets, no one (else) pays attention to the Malcolm one (heck even RWA follows me around now like a little puppy – you want him back?)

  62. But regarding the present candidate, I one might hesitate to expect an optimal or even reasonable level of competence in any area of patent law, except for simple mechanical devices and simple medical devices.

    I think you said that already. Like ten times. In this thread alone.

  63. An ideal candidate for the Federal Circuit would be a candidate with a Ph.D. in CHEMICAL ENGINEERING. A woman or man with a Ph.D. in CHEMICAL ENGINEERING, plus some years of hands-on experience, will know enough chemistry to make reasonable decisions relating to patents in chemistry and biotechnology. Also, a person with a Ph.D. in CHEMICAL ENGINEERING will likely have enough background in ELECTRONICS to make reasonable decisions in matters relating to computers, software, and electronic devices. But regarding the present candidate, I one might hesitate to expect an optimal or even reasonable level of competence in any area of patent law, except for simple mechanical devices and simple medical devices. The issue here is vocabulary words. How can a person whose English vocabulary lacks words such as, transcription factor, isoelectric point, ionic bond, doping, germanium, calcium flux, and “pi orbital” be expected to represent the needs of countless inventors, mostly from the U.S. and from Japan?

  64. Tom, for what it’s worth, the more “scientific experts” there are on the Federal Circuit, the less patents will be upheld. Not sure if this matters to you. Doesn’t really matter to me, but I know it means the world to some people.

  65. That’s a good one. It is like that illusion where you’re looking a drawing, and the drawing keeps switching between a DUCK and a RABBIT. Is it an “Intelligent Design Patent,” which is a utility patent that claims a machine that stimulates or controls evolution. Or is it an ordinary Design Patent that is intelligent, in contrast to a Design Patent that was drafted or drawn in a careless manner, e.g., without an adequate prior art search?

  66. “Can we please stop talking about CREATIONISM and about “intelligent design.”

    Tom,

    Point well taken. I’ve spoken my piece, it’s time to move on.

  67. “Do you really want to trust the availability to these drugs to a judge on the Federal Circuit who does not know the difference between a diode and a capacitor?”

    How would Mr. DuMont’s knowing the difference between a diode and a capacitor help him to make decisions about the availability of drugs?

  68. Tom: Patents to sports equipment, and patents to “One-click purchasing” do not require much more than $100,000 of investment, as far as engineering and research is concerned.

    “Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.”

    Tom: It is a fact that research, development, and clinical testing of drugs often costs well over $500 million dollars. It is a fact that this research, develpment, and clinical testing, hinges on having a valid patent.

    It is also a fact that the bulk of that research has nothing to do with inventing the drug or obtaining the patent. It is done after the invention is completed and the application filed, and is for the most part done to ensure public safety and regulatory approval of the product.

    Whether the drug companies only do it so they can profit from a patent is immaterial. It doesn’t make them any more deserving of the patent, and it doesn’t affect the Federal Circuit’s determination of whether they are entitled to their patent.

    Tom: Do you really want to trust the availability to these drugs to a judge on the Federal Circuit who does not know the difference between a diode and a capacitor?

    Do you think the guy who invented the drug knows the difference between a diode and a capacitor?

    How about this: Whatever technology you’re pleading before him, you pretend he’s really really experienced in some completely unrelated technology. Just like most of the judges will be, most of the time, no matter what case is before them. Which is why there are experts to explain these technical details to the court, and why the facts are supposed to get sorted out long before the Federal Circuit even has jurisdiction.

  69. Can we please stop talking about CREATIONISM and about “intelligent design.” This is a blog about a court nominee. In my opinion, an issue is this.

    All patents cover one or another technology. Patents to sports equipment, and patents to “One-click purchasing” do not require much more than $100,000 of investment, as far as engineering and research is concerned. Also, patent to sports equipment, and patents to “One-click purchasing” have no relevance to your survival, when you wake up one morning to discover that you have multiple sclerosis, or when you find yourself crouching on the floor with severe chest pains.

    It is a fact that research, development, and clinical testing of drugs often costs well over $500 million dollars. It is a fact that this research, develpment, and clinical testing, hinges on having a valid patent.

    Do you really want to trust the availability to these drugs to a judge on the Federal Circuit who does not know the difference between a diode and a capacitor?

    Do you really want to trust the availability of drugs for, e.g., multiple sclerosis, cancer, and atherosclerosis, to a judge who is only capable of “winging it” or of “playing it by ear,” when it comes time for him to review documents that contain words, such as: GLYCOSYLATION, DNA SEQUENCE MOTIFS, MEMBRANE RECEPTORS, METHYL GROUPS, or DENDRITIC CELLS?

  70. EG That’s a pretty tall accusation to make. Where’s your proof/evidence for this statement? How do you know that “creationists” are spending “millions of dollars spreading lies about science and scientists?”

    Which part are you confused about? The millions of dollars, or the spreading of lies about science and scientists? Hardly a “tall accusation” either way.

    Perhaps you’ve heard of Dover v. Kitzmiller? The clowns at the Discovery Institute were all over the TV and newspaper a few years ago, predicting “the end of evolutionary biology,” promoting creationist textbooks, accusing the world’s biologists of engaging in gigantic fraud to promote a “secularist agenda,” etc. etc. And some of them still show up on Fox News to recite their drivel. You think all that is done without money? Think again. The Dominionists are pumping them with cash all the time.

    The term “lies” implies the one making the statement knows its untrue. What if those allegedly “spreading lies” actually believe its true?

    And what if it is shown that there is no rational basis for a person who is not mentally ill to maintain that belief? Or if evidence exists showing that the alleged “believer” is saying the opposite thing behind closed doors? What is that called? I think it’s called “lying” and that’s what I am talking about here.

    Our media occasionally falls into its bad habit of pretending that there are two equally compelling sides to every dispute but there isn’t. One one hand you have virtually every credible scientist in the world looking at the evidence and reaching a consensus understanding of the only reasonable explanation, and on the other hand you have a handful of charlatans and legions of uninformed rubes whose sole purpose in life is to turn the United States (or at least their hometown) into a theocracy, by any means necessary.

    Someone upthread said that Obama is “clueless about science.” Really? I’ll reserve judgment for now, maybe until one of Obama’s appointees starts telling NASA that they should only refer to the Big Bang as the “Big Bang theory” because “it’s not a proven fact, just an opinion.” Remember that? And you remember what happened to that Bush appointee? That’s right: fired because he lied on his resume about graduating from Texas A&M (he was a journalism school drop-out).

  71. RWA,

    You’re correct, I did mean “sparring.” Thanks.

    IANAE,

    Cool down, you’re taking this much too seriously. Where you get the idea I’m “bitter” escapes me. Again, peace.

  72. I believe it would be sparring….

    “sparing” would be as in “Hey ping, how about sparing us the misery of having to read your stewpid song lyrics…”

  73. My, my I must be getting under your skin.

    You got the law wrong on a law blog. Kind of a sore point for me.

    “intellectual sparing”

    That’s exactly how I would describe it. Sparing.

    I wouldn’t go bragging about your thick intellectual skin either, if you’re still bitter about reason getting a fair trial 90 years ago to “stifle freedom of thought”.

    I also think Malcolm is perfectly capable of defending himself.

    Of course he is. But you’re so fond of free expression of one’s beliefs that I figured I’d give it a try to see what all the fuss is about. It’s a bit overrated, I think.

  74. IANAE,

    My, my I must be getting under your skin. And my intellectual “skin” is as tough an alligator, so I don’t mind some intellectual “sparing.”

    Malcolm can express whatever opinion he wants to. I was just engaging in some in some “intellectual sparing” with him to provide me with proof/evidence for the statement he made, just like Drummond did with Brady in “Inherit the Wind.” I also think Malcolm is perfectly capable of defending himself.

    Again, peace.

  75. at least be tolerant of them which is what our 1st Amendment is all about.

    Check again. The First Amendment is all about the government being tolerant of your wacky ideas, but it’s also all about people like Malcolm having the freedom to tell you that your wacky ideas are full of it.

    If you want to go around imposing your opinions on other people’s facts, you’d better develop a thick skin, because there are still people out there who know the difference. Except maybe in Kansas and Texas.

    You are free to believe whatever you want, and yet the turtle moves.

  76. “Tolerance for creationists who spend millions of dollars spreading lies about science and scientists?”

    Malcolm,

    That’s a pretty tall accusation to make. Where’s your proof/evidence for this statement? How do you know that “creationists” are spending “millions of dollars spreading lies about science and scientists?”

    The term “lies” implies the one making the statement knows its untrue. What if those allegedly “spreading lies” actually believe its true? Doesn’t that make their statement a “belief” (even if it turns out to be incorrect) instead of a “lie”? What if they’re correct and what’s your proof/evidence that they’re not correct?

    Tennessee was terribly wrong to do what they did in 1922 in the Scopes Monkey trial in trying to stifle freedom of thought. But you’re not helping your cause by suggesting the same for those who believe in “creationism.” Again, you don’t have to accept views you don’t agree with, but at least be tolerant of them which is what our 1st Amendment is all about.

  77. IANAE,

    OK, neither side is blameless in “demonizing” the other. Why don’t we both agree to end the “name calling” and just debate the issues relevant to this thread. We’ve now digressed way too far. Peace.

  78. Like, Malcolm, you also seem to feel the need to “demonize” views that you don’t accept.

    Good thing people who believe in the bible never do that. Nobody would expect that.

  79. Ping,

    I must regretably agree with you that the Bible and the Torah have unfortunately been used that way by some (not all) in the past who should know better. But that was never the original or correct intent of the Bible or the Torah.

  80. it’s completely unenforceable.

    And we all thought the Claims and Continuation Rules was extravagantly pursued – how many thousands of years have the Torah and the Bible been pursued as enforcing mechanisms? How much blood shed in their cause?

    (I’d include another book, but the wrath of Jihad is just too darn scary).

  81. IANAE,

    I pity you too. Like, Malcolm, you also seem to feel the need to “demonize” views that you don’t accept. Again, I not asking for acceptance, just tolerance of views by others.

  82. Malcolm,

    I truly pity you. So uncomfortable with the views of others that you feel the need to “demonize” them.

  83. Tolerance for creationists who spend millions of dollars spreading lies about science and scientists?

    No, I don’t think so.

    Talk about innovation-killer. The patent teabaggers whine about US innovation going down the toilet, and then defend the most well-funded and organized promoters of anti-scientific thinking on the planet. Go figure.

  84. What is it then?

    Material misrepresentation with intent to deceive.

    Maybe that’s why it’s completely unenforceable.

  85. “A comment about on par with those who treat what the Bible says as a myth (which it isn’t).”

    It isn’t? What is it then?

  86. “Unlike, say, all those “engineers” who brag about their credentials while defending “intelligent design” creationism.”

    Malcolm,

    A comment about on par with those who treat what the Bible says as a myth (which it isn’t). Please have some tolerance. I try to, even with what you say and believe.

  87. MM:>>LOL. Unlike, say, all those “engineers” who >>brag about their credentials while >>defending “intelligent design” creationism or >>denying global warming.

    Well that was certainly relevant to patent law.

    (cough)

  88. I suspect there is a political element here that causes hysteria (in response to any action of the current president),

    Ya think?

  89. He should have a science background. Even with a science background it is very hard to understand patents. A history major is just too easy to snow.

    LOL. Unlike, say, all those “engineers” who brag about their credentials while defending “intelligent design” creationism or denying global warming.

  90. Mr. Dumont would be acceptable to any circuit court and that is why he would be good for this court.

    I have been giving the structure to of the Federal Circuit a little more thought. In addition to not having panel decisions binding on future panels, so that the law could “better” develop with nuances of the particular case at times suggesting a better or more nuanced rule, I also think that the Federal Circuit should be entirely composed of judges from circuit courts of general jurisdiction sitting for relatively short tenures. The combination of the two should attenuate what I perceive to be a major fault of the Federal Circuit:

    Their panel decision often rule broadly, far beyond the facts of the case at hand. I think this is because some judges feel strongly about certain issues. Having judges sit from general jurisdiction circuits would break this tendency. Cases would be decided narrowly on the issue before the court. Agendas would be a thing of the past.

  91. What is soon-to-be Chief Judge Rader’s scientific background? Oh, right, none.

    From the above comments, I’d think you’d all be calling for Rader’s resignation. I suspect there is a political element here that causes hysteria (in response to any action of the current president), but I recommend you all just relax. Your points will be that much better taken.

  92. I share the sentiment with many of the other people on this blog. Another patent attorney on the Federal Circuit would be a great asset. The technology in current patents is quite complex and I think even for someone with a science degree the technology is not that easy to understand. For instance, I think it would hard for a biotechie like me to understand a complex electrical patent.

  93. unfortunately, the Federal Circuit, while the exclusive court of redress for patent appeals, does not exclusively do patents. Therefore, while we practitioners tend to see the Federal Circuit as our own private court, which to some extent it is, there is a large, more than 60%, non-patent component to the court’s docket.

  94. That should be bachelor’s degree in history, government and economics 1926 (Harvard). Law degree from Columbia, 1929.

  95. I take it that most of these negative comments are coming from people who’ve never worked on a Federal Circuit appeal.

  96. The IPO web site says that duMont “has been involved in several patent appeals.” I wonder what they mean by “involved.”

  97. Tom,

    I’m with you, Newman is one of the best ever on the Federal Circuit. That she’s a chemist undergrad like I was doesn’t hurt either.

    Howard Markey was certainly the best Chief Judge the Federal Circuit had. We could sure use someone like him now as Chief Judge.

  98. Thank you, “Night Writer.” I agree with your comment regarding the correlation been scientific background and good judges. Judge Newman had a background in CHEMISTRY and also a background in PATENT LAW. (What a novel idea, to have a patent attorney sit on the Federal Circuit.)

    Here is the background about Newman. Born in New York, New York, Newman received a B.A. from Vassar College in 1947, an M.A. from Columbia University in 1948, a Ph.D. in chemistry from Yale University in 1952 and an LL.B. from New York University School of Law in 1958. She worked as a research scientist for American Cyanamid from 1951 to 1954.

    From 1954 to 1984, Newman worked for FMC Corp., for fifteen years (1954-1969) as a patent attorney and in-house counsel, and for another fifteen years (1969-1984) as director of the Patent, Trademark and Licensing Department.

    From 1961 to 1962 Newman also worked for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as a science policy specialist in the Department of Natural Resources

  99. I wonder if the Federal Claims bar wails and moans every time someone is put on the Federal Circuit who has no experience with government contracts, takings, or taxation. Or if the veterans bar pitches a fit when someone is appointed with no experience at the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Or if the government employment bar starts writing angry letters when yet again, no one from the Merit Systems Protection Board has been bumped up to the Federal Circuit. Seems to me we should be grateful that the nominee is, as far as everyone is reporting, smart and reasonable. He’ll figure out the rest.

  100. But how much more desirable is it at DC level, where the facts are supposed to be found?

    Maybe we’ll finally start seeing a little more deference to the trial courts on “questions of law” of fact.

  101. Why not appoint judges that have backgrounds that are similar to the judges on the fed. cir. that have been or are good judges.

    That would be Newman and Rich. The two have been by far the best judges on the federal circuit. Why are we appointing judges that do not have backgrounds similar to Newman’s and Rich’s? Why oh why.

  102. He should have a science background. Even with a science background it is very hard to understand patents. A history major is just too easy to snow.

  103. Is not the first priority to get science and engineering knowledge infused into those who handle patent infringement cases

    Tied for first Maxie. Tied with having xaminers with actual knowledge of science and engineering infused with knowledge of language and law.

    Hey, a boy can dream, can’t he?

  104. Who cares? The patent system is effectively dead. We have a president and congress who are clueless about science and the need to induce investment in new technology that patents have always provided.

    So here’s a Chicago guy connected no doubt to Obama and surely a true believer in all the PC crap with a soft BS degree from our leading Left wing “school” –Yale.

    Best of all, this scientific illiterate lives within the absurd 50 mile zone reserved for CAFC judges to be.

    Yup, more from our Imperial City. All we need is Gibbons to come back and write “The Rise and Fall of the American Empire”. Rome lasted for centuries; we’ve managed to blow it in 70 years!

    Dennis, you run the best patent e-newsletter. Are you going to call this outrage for what it is or just continue to suck up to the power-brokers in DC?

  105. Tom,

    I’m with you. I’m very skeptical of this nominee’s background: A history major, with no evidence of subject matter experience that the Federal Circuit handles, including an apparently complete lack of background in the area of science/technology that forms a huge portion of the Federal Circuit’s subject matter jurisdiction (patents). This nominee might be a good one for one of the other Circuit Courts of Appeal, but he doesn’t look very qualified to me for the Federal Circuit.

  106. I agree that having an engineer or a scientist at the FC is desirable. But how much more desirable is it at DC level, where the facts are supposed to be found? Remember the idea of the “Two Cultures” science and the humanities? Scientists can talk about arts, but how many that have had their education on the “arts side” have the faintest clue, when it comes to science and engineering. Is not the first priority to get science and engineering knowledge infused into those who handle patent infringement cases (and decide what is or is not “equivalent”) at the first (rather than the appeal) instance?

    Of course, if that’s simply impossible, well then the next best thing is to pack the FC, I agree.

  107. I don’t think that methods of doing business are a high priority subject matter, as far as patents are concerned. Patents for business methods are NOT NEEDED for stimulating commercial development. The reason is that methods of doing business require essentially zero dollars for research and development. And they do not require one billion dollars for conducting a 5-year long clincal trial that eats up patent term. In striking contrast, patents are absolutely needed for stimulating commercial development for drugs. A new drug requires one hundred million dollars for research, and one billion dollars for clinical trials. Patents on business methods are a burden to society, and use up our nation’s resources. At the time of the signing of the U.S.Constitution it was recognized that the main goal of patents was to stimulate commercial development (NOT to reward the inventor). Please see Edward Walterscheid’s two find history books on early U.S. patent law.

  108. TB If Mr.DuMont is invited to join the Federal Circuit, he would not be capable of more than the haziest understanding of many of the patents that are being litigated except, of course, for many patents in designs, mechanical devices, or medical devices.

    Or methods of clicking a mouse to order a book. Or methods of determining who is next in line to use the airplane toilet. Or methods of sending an “offer” to someone in your “social network”.

    Let’s face it: an incredible amount of the stuff the PTO examines and issues requires no scientific expertise whatsoever. An office manager with a bachelor’s degree in business is more qualified to examine most of this stuff.

  109. Yes, his bio is extensive: banks, annuities, Indian gaming.

    But patent law, like any field of endeavor, depends on a knowledge of a specific type of language. Language like: covalent bonds, electromagnetic field, regulatory T cell, membrane transport, precipitation, solubility product, Nernst equation, acceleration, calcium flux.

    If Mr.DuMont is invited to join the Federal Circuit, he would not be capable of more than the haziest understanding of many of the patents that are being litigated except, of course, for many patents in designs, mechanical devices, or medical devices. But if you invite him to hear a case relating to semiconductors, organic chemisry, or biotechnology, I for one would expect his opinions to be somewhat less than reasonable.

  110. I agree his biography at WilmerHale does not paint a picture of someone who has worked or thought extensively in patents:

    link to wilmerhale.com

    However, the man does appear to have stellar credentials in general civil litigation. The Fed. Cir. is supposedly taking a broader view of caselaw, especially with regard to civil procedure, and Mr. DuMont could complement the Court nicely in this area.

    I will save my demands for an out-and-out patent devotee for Newman’s replacement (may she live forever).

  111. To repeat, the above announcement provides no evidence that Mr.DuMont is capable of understanding any language found in any patents, except, for words such as: the, hose, wire, link, situated, boat, connected, air, beneath, and contact. If a candidate is not able to distinguish a “capacitor” from a “transcription factor,” he has no business being on the Federal Circuit.

  112. Wouldn’t it be better to appoint a judge for the Federal Circuit who is capable of understanding what his own job. I don’t see any evidence, from the above announcement, that Mr.DuMont has any training or experience in engineering or science. Certainly THERE ARE PLENTY of senior partners in law firms with an EXCEPTIONAL TRACK RECORD engineering or science, and with a thorough understanding of the case law and its application, and with a thorough understanding of the appeals process. The best I can expect of this appointee, is that 50% of his opinions will make sense, and when they do make sense, it will be due to the laws of statistics.

  113. What is his stance on inequitable conduct?
    With him on board will I still have to cite 300+ OAs for a divisional/con/parent/child/aunt/uncle family of applications, or will he assume that the PTO may be able to look these references up themselves once we have let the PTO know of the relationships?

    I love that the Fed makes me cite an OA back to the same Examiner that originally wrote it (for a related case).

Comments are closed.