By Dennis Crouch
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is turning a corner in terms of its backlog of pending ex parte appeals with a significant drop in the backlog in March 2013. Still, there are more than 25,000 appeals pending decision by the board of administrative patent judges.
[Updated] I collected a small large sample of file histories (here, only 21 500+ file histories) for ex parte PTAB appeals decided in April 2013 to find an estimate of the current timeline for appeal decisions. The chart below shows a histogram of the decision timing based on the number of years from applicant’s filing of an appeal brief until the PTAB’s decision on the merits of the case. The median and average appeal pendency under this calculation is just over three years.
Same thing on two different threads – neither of which score points for you.
Funny that you chose someone (Wittgenstein) related to logic, but continue to struggle mightily with that concept.
Are you aiming for the title of The Ultimate Mr. Irrelevant?
Patent law, please.
You are off in the weeds again.
Have you had lunch again with Jack Handey and Mr. Rogers?
Now there are some dangerous folk.
Turn off bold tag.
And as I already said, I have already answered that question.
You really have a comprehension issue here
As I already explained, let’s say for this example that it really does work, so credible utility is not an issue. Now try answering it.
Asked and answered – it’s already there.
Go (back) and read the answer already provided.
As mentioned (now several times) there is more than one part to the original answer.
ZOMG
Then you should be able to provide an answer that doesn’t center around credible utility. Let’s see you try.
Go.
What you “already explained” has already been taken into account.
You comprehension problem is really that severe.
Try reading the rest of the answer.
As I already explained, let’s say for this example that it really does work, so credible utility is not an issue. Now try answering it.
Jezuz – I have already answered the question, you dooche.
Did you have a different question in mind?
Do you need some other concept explained to you so that you can understand the answer already supplied to you?
Jezus, just answer the question already, you dooche.
As I have already explained, I have answered it.
Once again, read the rest of the answer.
As I already explained, let’s say for this example that it really does work, so credible utility is not an issue. Now try answering it.
Not sure why you think that – you still appear to be the one with the comprehension disorder.
You don’t even understand what telekenesis is, apparently.
Now try reading the rest of the answer.
As I said: the comprehension part is a “you” problem.
As I already explained, let’s say for this example that it really does work, so credible utility is not an issue. Now try answering it.
Actually, I’m not sure the case will get docketed to the examiner for writing the answer if there are no arguments presented to any appealable matter (presumably, Ned isn’t arguing against any of the rejections presented in the final rejection). It might be noncompliant, but I’m not sure.
You might run into credible utility problems with that one. Not to mention that that power, while possibly displayed outside of the mind, is still considered to reside fully within the mind.
D+ for effort though.
“The non-analogous art argument seldom works.”
It does if you argue it correctly.
Whether a reference is analogous art is a question of fact, which the examiner has to establish by a preponderance of the evidence. The burden of persuasion is on the examiner throughout the entire prosecution of the application.
I haven’t really decided, I was thinking stay here a little while even while I could hotel as I have a whole circle of friends and I’m productive in the office. But I don’t know what your setup is.
Send me your firm’s information at examiner6k@yahoo.com and I’ll check it out and get back to you.
Just to be clear though, regarding benes I was referring to tuition assistance as that seems to be a problem at some firms.
“The examiner refused to enter the amendment that disposed of all outstanding issues on the grounds that he wanted to consider the materials in the IDS. I don’t think he has that right.”
From what I gather Ned, the situation is that you made changes after final and the examiner has refused to enter them.
While the examiner’s proffered reason does indeed sound bogus (if he has already indicated his review of the items on the IDS, he cannot backtrack now), the admission of amendments after final is NOT a right of the applicant, and is up to the discretion of the examiner (and yes, that includes the niceties listed in MPEP 714.13 and 37 CFR 1.116).
You may win a battle against the examiner in showing his reasoning is flawed, but may lose the war on having your amendments entered.
You might run into credible utility problems with that one. Not to mention that that power, while possibly displayed outside of the mind, is still considered to reside fully within the mind.
D+ for effort though.
If I give you the answer yet again, you will fail to comprehend it yet again.
What would be the point of that?
There is no dodging – there is only you not comprehending.
I suggest that you get back on your medications.
OK, now please answer the question. No more dodging.
Benefits are not a problem. What location do you want? You don’t want to stay in DC, do you?
“It’s indisputable that in certain instances it can be so construed.”
I’m not sure if where someone specifically defines his term to go against the art really counts for the purpose of this discussion MM. But if you insist on your newbishness then you may do so by yourself bro. But you, like other newbs, are forgiven for your newbishness since apparently the powers that govern can’t be bothered to setup some sort of helpful framework for these situations.
You about ready to talk benes and location?
“In any case, why not just amend the claim? If the construction of the “metal” is the key to patentability here, why leave any ambiguity at all? Just amend the claim. Done.”
Some people worry about festoing the entire claim and/or bogus WD challenges down the road that they wouldn’t have to face if they win on claim construction now? If the claim is otherwise original, meh, I could see fighting for it. I do not however personally think it is worth 10k unless there is some hella equivs you’re worried about.
Same points to you Malcolm, sicne you always crow about how great you are.
Let’s see some examples of that greatness – for surely, you have shown nothing yet.
What are you afraid of?
YOU’RE STILL DODGING THE QUESTION! ANSWER THE QUESTION! STOP ASSERTING THAT YOU’VE ANSWERED THE QUESTION AND JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION!
PLEASE!
LOL – more of the same lame accuse-others-of-that-which-you-do Malcolm.
You are the one diving low to throw out “putdowns” of a sexual nature. What’s next? Race? Cancer survivors? Grieving sons?
You are one classless act, Malcolm.
Truly, the scorn I give to you is very much deserved.
And the funny thing is, you act like none of this is archived, and caught in plain black and white for all to see your baseness and your petty gamesmanship. You are clueless to how you are perceived, how your positions are in ruins due to your self-defeating tendencies.
But like I said – it’s a win-win for me, and life is good.
Oh really? What was that Examiner’s name?
You have already been provided the names of Examiners in the 3600 group that don’t allow applications absent an reversal by the PTAB.
I know this because I have provided them to you.
Really? What pseudonym were you commenting under then, S-ckie, and how many have used in the meantime? I seem to recall a little checking up being done on your allegations and it turned out that you were holding onto a very very tiny piece of stick.
Malcolm has the excuse that he doesn’t know squ#t about mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, material science, metallurgy, etc.
My only “excuse” is that you are keeping your awesome claim and the laughable prior art hidden from everyone while you trash this (imaginary?) Examiner. Why bother hiding anything? Your claims are the best, man. They are valid and they are the claims your client is entitled to. So let’s see ’em. What could you possibly be worried about?
parts made out of a material that’s been around since the early 1990’s.
So the field of endeavor is recycling?
No, it is evidence that one person
More than one. Quite a few more than one. I hardly think I exhausted the list of references.
In any case, why not just amend the claim? If the construction of the “metal” is the key to patentability here, why leave any ambiguity at all? Just amend the claim. Done.
Vacuous and putrid accusations
Your stock in trade, anon. It’s pretty much all you do, really.
Oh really? What was that Examiner’s name?
You have already been provided the names of Examiners in the 3600 group that don’t allow applications absent an reversal by the PTAB.
I know this because I have provided them to you. This statement about certain examiners in the 3600 group is nothing exceptional. It has been known for years (probably close to at least a decade).
Vacuous and putrid accusations from you Malcolm. Let’s compare them to a couple of your ‘doosies,’ shall we?
Malcolm, what is the controlling law regarding the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine?
Malcolm, please tell us again that you agree that “configured to” is structure.
Oh, this is a very fun game Malcolm. Just not for you.
No. I am waiting for you to addres the points I keep on raising.
You know, the ones you keep on avoiding.
You need to have your little pet theory robust enough to actually cover the types of claims that are legally available.
You keep on ‘forgetting’ that.
Malcolm,
You are the poster boy for being disengenuous.
Just [shrug] and stand by.
I have.
At least twice now.
Whether or not you understand the answer is a different matter. That would be a “you” problem.
“It’s evidence that sometimes when persons of skill in the art say “metal” they intend it to include metalloids. ”
No, it is evidence that one person redefined the term explicitly to mean something else in a context where he is specifically given permission to be his own lexicographer, not where he is at liberty to redefine an accepted term of art that is present the world over. No one man, or small group even, has the power to redefine a standard term for everyone else in the whole world where the vast bulk is against them. What’s next? I start writing publications where “foot” actually means 13 inches so then magically 3 feet = 39 inches instead of 36? What manner of tar dation do you think you’re peddling here exactly?
YOU HAVEN’T ANSWERED THE QUESTION
And just to be clear for MM, none of this is “because 6 says so” it is because the art says so, routinely.
Except when the art says otherwise. Hence the need for care when drafting claims whose validity hinges on terms such as “metal.”
I do agree that the prosecutor prosecuting this case is a t ard and that he can and should simply safely disclaim metalloids, arguing if a tar dation rears its ugly head, that was what was always intended by the term in the first place. And he will still get his “full scope to which he is entitled”.
Well, then we don’t disagree about much, do we? It seems all we disagree about is whether the term “metal” can be reasonably construed to include metalloids. It’s indisputable that in certain instances it can be so construed. I’m told (commanded is more like it) that in this very specific instance that’s not possible. You’ll forgive me if I’m skeptical, given the manner in which the conversation unfolded.
Wrong on all accounts Malcolm.
As usual.
Being deliberately obtuse is a speciality of IANAE’s.
It’s a trick he picked up from the little circle (you will note who else often employs that vacuous trick).
he has been caught volunteering admissions that toast his precious dogmas.
Right. And you were caught playing with yourself behind some bushes by an elementary school.
Fun game, anon.
“if you want to credibly whine…
…Not since anon”
LOL at you IANAE.
Perhaps the tinly veiled attempt to ‘out’ the person is what is being resisted. And you quite forget how much effort your little circle mates Malcolm and Ned put forth to avoid answering simple questions. And even better – the ones they avoid are directly on point to the discussion, and not some trap you wish to put out there.
You really received several major Calvinball face sp1kes today IANAE.
You might want to check with your doctor before going to sleep tonight.
I am still waiting for you to support your B$ theory
You mean my “theory” that Prometheus’ claims would be found ineligible because you can’t rescue ineligible subject matter (a new thought) by reciting a single old eligible step? You’re waiting for me to “support” that?
LOL.
The game went like this: “Malcolm says: well if they don’t agree with me, they can say so”
Actually, you disengenuous t00l, at least with respect to Prometheus I showed you direct quotes from their own postings that indicated their agreement with me. Somehow you forgot that? Sad.
it’s clear to me that Malcolm is somehow involved with running Patently-O.
Well, yes, I get the checks from Lord Soros (registered mail) and at the Quaretly World Socialist Planning Meeting we pass them out to the leftist academics who have been on good behavior.
C’est la vie.
There is another option: Malcolm is allowed to run rampant as the poster boy of how NOT to effectively campaign for your agenda.
Oh he realizes it Alun – he has been caught volunteering admissions that toast his precious dogmas.
He is simply bankrupt on the intellectual honesty factor.
It’s a pity that he does not realize the damage he does to his own agendas. But he is too full of himself to allow for that truth to soak in. He llives in a world so full of spin, that he has forgotten what a fact without spin looks like.
And should we even get to that pathetic attempt at a Crybaby’s Veto that was launched because you and your little circle were getting trounced on every thread? Your poor little dogmas being whipped with reason and intellect? Your ‘theories’ shoot through with so many holes that the soapbox you climb upon collapsed and sent you sprawling into the gutter?
LOL indeed.
As I said earlier, Malcolm,…
…do not address the points that I raise and I win.
Try to address them and show yourself to be the vacuous f001 that you are and I win.
It’s a win-win for me.
Life is good.
The non-analogous art argument seldom works. It once worked for me in a case where the Examiner cited a photo album as prior art for a case concerning a kitchen chopping board! On appeal.
Where I went to university I was taught that a semicondctor is neither a conductor or an insulator, and that metals are conductors. Granted I am an EE, not a chemist, but I am tempted to wonder if someone who believes otherwise even inhabits the same planet?
As for waiting, I am still waiting for you to support your B$ theory and explain a few things, like how it allows for the fact that [oldstep]s claim alone are perfectly eligible, which means that [oldstep]s and [newthought]s are also eligible, as well as controlling law about claims having elements that are considered mental steps are perfectly eligible (and distinguishing those claims that are ONLY mental steps – let’s stay away from your petty strawmen).
Hmmm. A complete lack of intellectual honesty from you on all of these points is also well archived.
Make my day INDEED.
And another thing that is due from you is the simple question as to how you would enforce your patent on something from nature’s warehouse. You keep on forgetting to address that very simple question (you even tried to steal that question and make it your own – that too is archived).
Maybe because it flies directly in the face of the words of the Supreme Court and its foundational understanding that those items in nature’s warehouse are free to all men.
LOL indeed. Lot’s of words from you Malcolm. Still nothing of substantive value.
Maybe YOU should shttcan the insults for awhile, at least until you have provided a few answers.
Frankly, you will not do so, because you cannot do so.
I’ve gotten some traction out of arguing non-analogousness, but not by simply arguing that the examiner hasn’t established analogousness. Good luck with that.
As for causing a tr_@inwreck – that would be you and the low quality blogging that I explained in detail and to which you merely [shrugged] and stood by.
You know, low quality blogging like confusing spin for fact, like misrepresenting facts, law and what other people post (like you do on a rather routine basis), as well as outright and blatant ly1ng (which you also do on a rather routine basis – for example, the controlling law regarding the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine), amongst other indicators of poor blog quality.
… or whether he is even capable of realising that
In pieces due to the filter:
“On the contrary, plenty of people here, including Dennis and Jason and other well-informed parties agree with me about many “hot button” issues”
LOL – we played that game and everyone agreed with me – it’s archived, you know.
The game went like this: “Malcolm says: well if they don’t agree with me, they can say so” to which I used your own ‘logic’ and found that the entire world quite in fact agreed with me. They still do. No one has posted otherwise.
“And what rule prevents you from calling an attorney at ANY point in prosecution?”
My excellent and prescient examiner actually did call me; after my written response to his 1st OA (where he had rejected all 100+ of my claims).
After just a couple of phone conversations over a few day period, all questions were answered and all issues were settled; with an allowance on all 100+ of the now-amended claims.
No RECs.
No appeals.
No crying to the SPE.
And yes; I got all the scope I was looking for and legally entitled to.
Nope
“Evidently not.”
Different field of endeavor.
Your deliberate obtuseness is ponderous, f#$@king ponderous.
Nicely done, 6.
Are you about ready to come over to the other side?
We […] are getting patents on parts made out of a material that’s been around since the early 1990’s.
Evidently not.
“…but using it to build stuff once its properties are known is generally not inventive.”
I wish you were advising our competitors.
We, and our competitors, are getting patents on parts made out of a material that’s been around since the early 1990’s.
“It’s highly non-inventive to build car parts or aircraft parts out of the lightest suitable material available.”
Right, Examiner IANAE. Until you actually try to build them.
At least Malcolm has the excuse that he doesn’t know squ#t about mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, material science, metallurgy, etc. for s#$cking as bad as he does. What’s your excuse?
Sorry, continuing before that little “part 1” post:
And just to be clear for MM, none of this is “because 6 says so” it is because the art says so, routinely. You may consult official lists of metals also which I have a hard copy of but which the closest I can find on the web quickly is:
link to google.com
But if you’re absolutely stuck on acting a ne wbie, then sure, go on running your mouth about how o my go d the indefiniteness is just soo bad and it is a perfectly good rejection! Fact is, it is only a rejection that looks acceptable on its face, but not once you know anything about what you’re talking about.
Though on the whole, and in a post that for some reason did not post, I do agree that the prosecutor prosecuting this case is a t ard and that he can and should simply safely disclaim metalloids, arguing if a tar dation rears its ugly head, that was what was always intended by the term in the first place. And he will still get his “full scope to which he is entitled”. Though that should be his last choice, his first choice being smart enough to know how to convince an examiner that a metalloid is not a metal, and that the official lists of metals that do not include Si are in fact not l ying due to the official definition of the term. And that should be his last choice because I can assure him he is far from assured to win on appeal as I know personally the person down the hallway won an appeal on this very issue having his rejection affirmed even though by the time the affirmance got back to him he was experienced enough to know he wouldn’t have made the rejection in the first place. Still, that guy went abandoned before the examiner had any opportunity to reverse himself. The people at the board are tar ds, especially if you draw a panel of ex-bio guys (which can happen and did happen in that case) to deal with mat sci and it is a toss up as to whether or not they will agree with you unless you come down just as hard as you’d need to come down on the examiner to convince him. So my sincere advice is to go ahead and put forth the effort to win at the examiner level unless you really want PTA or whatever benefit or have a spare 10k or whatever sitting around.
If I made an engine block out of a composite of carbon is that obvious/not inventive because engine blocks are made of iron or aluminum? If previous aircraft engine fan blades were made out of metal but somebody figured out how to make them of composite material that was lighter, thus allowing significant weight and fuel savings, while still meeting all FAA requirements, would that be inventive?
No. The material itself is inventive, if you invented it, but using it to build stuff once its properties are known is generally not inventive. It’s highly non-inventive to build car parts or aircraft parts out of the lightest suitable material available.
That goes double when the so-called “inventive” material being used is “metal”. Your client didn’t invent metal, did he?
So tell me, what field of endeavor are you in? It’s starting to sound like you’re making this whole story up.
“On the contrary, plenty of people here, including Dennis and Jason and other well-informed parties agree with me…”
There was a theory on this site awhile ago that Dennis was Malcolm. While I don’t believe that Dennis is Malcolm (there’s no way Dennis would have that level of understanding of DNA bits and protein fragments), it’s clear to me that Malcolm is somehow involved with running Patently-O. If that’s the case, the credibility of this site is pretty much shot.
It previously referred to the fra king metal gate in the old timey transistors before poly si was worth using in commercial devices all that often. We then moved on to making gates out of poly si, but the name still sticks out of tradition. The usage there does not mean that people making MOSFETs think poly is a metal. Since the poly si rage is waning as devices shrink and get faster we’ve since moved back to using actual metals as the gate. Notably W for many devices. And none of this affects what is technically considered to be a metal since there is a very specific chemical definition, which si fails, for a metal.
link to en.wikipedia.org
part 1
“I’d love to know in what field making something that previously existed out of metal is inventive.”
You may actually s@#k at this more than Malcolm.
There are plenty of fields where “making something that previously existed” from a different material is “inventive.” Have you never heard of alloys and composites? If I made an engine block out of a composite of carbon is that obvious/not inventive because engine blocks are made of iron or aluminum? If previous aircraft engine fan blades were made out of metal but somebody figured out how to make them of composite material that was lighter, thus allowing significant weight and fuel savings, while still meeting all FAA requirements, would that be inventive? If you don’t think so, then I suggest you look for a new line of work because you very clearly s$%k big time at patent prosecution.
If I thought you had any actual clients they would have my deepest sympathies.
It previously referred to the fraking METAL gate in the old timey transistors before poly si was worth using in commercial devices all that often. We then moved on to making gates out of poly si, but the name still sticks out of tradition. The usage there does not mean that people making MOSFETs think poly is a metal. Since the poly si rage is waning as devices shrink and get faster we’ve since moved back to using actual metals as the gate. Notably W for many devices. And none of this affects what is technically considered to be a metal since there is a very specific chemical definition, which si fails, for a metal.
link to en.wikipedia.org
For fra ks sake, you don’t need an expert to spell this out for you, just read the wiki.
“The ‘metal’ in the name MOSFET is now often a misnomer because the previously metal gate material is now often a layer of polysilicon (polycrystalline silicon). Aluminium had been the gate material until the mid-1970s, when polysilicon became dominant, due to its capability to form self-aligned gates. Metallic gates are regaining popularity, since it is difficult to increase the speed of operation of transistors without metal gates.
Likewise, the ‘oxide’ in the name can be a misnomer, as different dielectric materials are used with the aim of obtaining strong channels with applied smaller voltages.”
And for a list of terms that should be used, though aren’t always, because people (especially patent drafters) are ta r ds: “An insulated-gate field-effect transistor or IGFET is a related term almost synonymous with MOSFET. The term may be more inclusive, since many “MOSFETs” use a gate that is not metal, and a gate insulator that is not oxide. Another synonym is MISFET for metal–insulator–semiconductor FET.”
Likewise I can assure you that we still refer to a nitride gate dielectric transistor as a MOSFET even though there literally is no oxide. And also sometimes people will call it an MNOSFET if it has NO as the dielectric, and possibly someone has called them a MNFET. But generically and routinely they are still referred to as MOSFETs even if there is no O at all and if there is no metal at all simply because that is the traditional name for the genus of devices that operate in a certain way and have a certain generic structure. And yes, I get that this is confusing for newbs but it isn’t confusing for your local foundry operator.
Uhm, it does. You don’t think it does?
Of course it does. Which is why, if you want to credibly whine about being the victim of an oppressive examiner’s unreasonable rejection, you might care to tell us what field of endeavor your claims are in.
Not since anon have I seen someone put so much effort into not answering a simple question.
“Not sure how the case being on appeal will affect that, though.”
If Ned filed his brief, it’s pretty simple: the examiner can respond with the examiner’s answer for the remaining count (or fraction of a count or whatever is left) or re-open.
The accuse-others-of-that-which-you-do game?
No. The “attack-a-strawman-out-of-desperation” game. The game you’re playing now, anon.
No one can take that title away from you.
Pretty sure you’re still the champ, S-ckie. It’s not even a year since you were busted.
“You keep saying it depends on what art everything is in.”
Uhm, it does. You don’t think it does? You might want to re-read section 103(a) as a little refresher.