“In January 2002, President George W. Bush unveiled a five-year budget proposal that called for a doubling in NIH funding. It was an unprecedented show of commitment to the scientific community that promised 36,000 new projects and major breakthroughs in medical research.“
17
Growth rate of scientific and technological developments and thus (productivity and) patent issuance will be slowing in the decades ahead. See Sequestration Ushers In A Dark Age For Science In America
That’s why graphs like this are merely chum for the uninformed, and tend to do a disservice to a true understanding of the complete picture.
For example, connecting a line from the year 2000 to the projected patent total (to account for the patent grant suppression era) would yield a mere 8,000 patent increase on a year over year basis.
innovation begets innovation, and we should be asking ourselves why we do not have MORE patents.
15
The backlog for consideration of RCEs really is inexcusable — the patent examiner is familiar with the patent application and the prior art, the clock is ticking away and the applicant has paid his money to have his amendment considered.
14
” we’re 2.5x as inventive in 2013 as compared to 1993.” — markedly increased filings by foreign applicants
13
That laughter you hear is not laughter with you.
12
You want answers?
Really?
You left a discussion hanging on a recent thread.
Try again.
11
Too subtle for me there anon. You point out that the European PHOSITA lacks even one iota of inventive faculty. I get that much, but so what? That has nothing to do with what the USPTO or the District Court or the Federal Circuit or the Jury finds obvious or not-obvious today and what they found obvious or not obvious in 1993.
But if it does, do tell, and give us all another laugh.
10
Thanks for returning the favour anon. Now I can enjoy a chuckle.
9
“You don’t think my “no doubt” was meant ironically then?”
As my Boston friends say, ‘You can’t get there from here.’
Trying to claim irony and ignoring the actual irony I pointed out is a bit cheekish.
8
Care to tell me about a couple of things that you have left hanging, MaxDrei?
(reminder: not one iota of inventive capability)
7
You don’t think my “no doubt” was meant ironically then? I’m distraught, anon, I must say.
But come on, let’s get this straight: are people of ordinary skill in the art in the USA finding that stuff is getting progressively more obvious, or less? What’s your feeling on that? Care to tell us?
6
KSR did tighten the standards.
5
And yet, MaxDrei, it can be said that standards have only not been falling, They have been tightened (with KSR).
I have to chuckle at your admonition to another from last week, as your own statement of “no doubt” is doubtful.
4
In 1993, Wall Street and VC merchants were not impressed by a big patent portfolio. In 1993 there was litigation of chemical patents but not much of any other kind. Now we see patent litigation on biotech, business methods and the shapes of mobile telephone casings. One can explain the explosion in the numbers without any need to resort to falling standards in the examination of obviousness.
But it no doubt helps.
3
Apparently we’re 2.5x as inventive in 2013 as compared to 1993. That’s the only explanation for this trend. Couldn’t be the PTO issuing a plethora of patents on obvious variations of preexisting things…
2
PTO is working hard to catch up on the backlog from the 2005-2009 era. (At the same time they have to work on the increased filing rate in the past years — which has resulted in delays for appeals and for RCE’s.)
1
Take the ‘bite’ out of the graph from 2006-2009 when patent issuance was being artificially suppressed, and adjust the current rise by the number of those who persevered through the Reject-Reject-Reject Just say NO as inNOvation era, and this chart becomes so very so what?
Hmmm…
“In January 2002, President George W. Bush unveiled a five-year budget proposal that called for a doubling in NIH funding. It was an unprecedented show of commitment to the scientific community that promised 36,000 new projects and major breakthroughs in medical research.“
Growth rate of scientific and technological developments and thus (productivity and) patent issuance will be slowing in the decades ahead. See Sequestration Ushers In A Dark Age For Science In America
link to huffingtonpost.com
That’s why graphs like this are merely chum for the uninformed, and tend to do a disservice to a true understanding of the complete picture.
For example, connecting a line from the year 2000 to the projected patent total (to account for the patent grant suppression era) would yield a mere 8,000 patent increase on a year over year basis.
innovation begets innovation, and we should be asking ourselves why we do not have MORE patents.
The backlog for consideration of RCEs really is inexcusable — the patent examiner is familiar with the patent application and the prior art, the clock is ticking away and the applicant has paid his money to have his amendment considered.
” we’re 2.5x as inventive in 2013 as compared to 1993.” — markedly increased filings by foreign applicants
That laughter you hear is not laughter with you.
You want answers?
Really?
You left a discussion hanging on a recent thread.
Try again.
Too subtle for me there anon. You point out that the European PHOSITA lacks even one iota of inventive faculty. I get that much, but so what? That has nothing to do with what the USPTO or the District Court or the Federal Circuit or the Jury finds obvious or not-obvious today and what they found obvious or not obvious in 1993.
But if it does, do tell, and give us all another laugh.
Thanks for returning the favour anon. Now I can enjoy a chuckle.
“You don’t think my “no doubt” was meant ironically then?”
As my Boston friends say, ‘You can’t get there from here.’
Trying to claim irony and ignoring the actual irony I pointed out is a bit cheekish.
Care to tell me about a couple of things that you have left hanging, MaxDrei?
(reminder: not one iota of inventive capability)
You don’t think my “no doubt” was meant ironically then? I’m distraught, anon, I must say.
But come on, let’s get this straight: are people of ordinary skill in the art in the USA finding that stuff is getting progressively more obvious, or less? What’s your feeling on that? Care to tell us?
KSR did tighten the standards.
And yet, MaxDrei, it can be said that standards have only not been falling, They have been tightened (with KSR).
I have to chuckle at your admonition to another from last week, as your own statement of “no doubt” is doubtful.
In 1993, Wall Street and VC merchants were not impressed by a big patent portfolio. In 1993 there was litigation of chemical patents but not much of any other kind. Now we see patent litigation on biotech, business methods and the shapes of mobile telephone casings. One can explain the explosion in the numbers without any need to resort to falling standards in the examination of obviousness.
But it no doubt helps.
Apparently we’re 2.5x as inventive in 2013 as compared to 1993. That’s the only explanation for this trend. Couldn’t be the PTO issuing a plethora of patents on obvious variations of preexisting things…
PTO is working hard to catch up on the backlog from the 2005-2009 era. (At the same time they have to work on the increased filing rate in the past years — which has resulted in delays for appeals and for RCE’s.)
Take the ‘bite’ out of the graph from 2006-2009 when patent issuance was being artificially suppressed, and adjust the current rise by the number of those who persevered through the Reject-Reject-Reject Just say NO as inNOvation era, and this chart becomes so very so what?
Comments are closed.