Unpublished US Applications

We have moved to a somewhat steady state of 7%, with the bulk of these being US originated applications. That figure may further drop because the $300 publication fee has now been eliminated.

13 thoughts on “Unpublished US Applications

  1. Where is Malcolm Mooney? Ever since I suggested that he should apply for the job of Director, he has been absent from this blog.

  2. In re Packard Oral Argument as to the Ex parte Miyazaki standard being applied at the office: http://oralarguments.cafc.usco…It’s actually really good and clarifies one issue that I had been wondering about. Specifically that issue is what the office must use as its construction in terms of applying art after having made a miyazki rejection. The counsel for the PTO clarified that the PTO will still use the BRI in the application of art such that if a Miyazaki issue is raised as to 112 and the BRI is such that no art issues are present in the case then no art rejections will issue even if the other interpretation(s) might lead to an art rejection. Interesting. Though the issue of which interpretation to take for application of art when both interpretations are substantially the same in terms of size of breadth, though the breadth be different under each interpretation, goes unaddressed sadly.

    1. What a bunch of gobbledy gook 6.The PTO got hammered at oral argument. They begged to take Miyazaki off the table. And for good reason, as the Packard attorney pointed out: ANY use of BRI necessarily implies that there is more than one possible meaning and would de facto mean that every single claim ever issued by the Office fails the Miyazaki version of indefiniteness..Add (see more below):You keep on lulzing at the wrong things, 6.The PTO attempted to counter the plain meaning of BRI, but failed to do so miserably. You here and now simply mouthing “Nonsense” is itself nonsense. Tell me how you can have more than one meaning (a requirement in order to apply the differential of a broadest reasonable meaning) without invoking the “Miyazaki indefiniteness”Come 6 – if this as “Nonsense” as you claim, you should easily be able to explain this and give several examples. Try to not be as feeble as the PTO attorney who merely said that both rejections will be given – an obvious false statement..Add part 2: It is feeble in the context of having the Miyazaki standard at all.Seriously 6, can you be more lame? Can you not see that basic logic means the fall of your beloved ‘Miyazaki?’This is NOT to be confused that indefiniteness might still exist (a strawman you are desperately trying to erect), but you MUST understand (if you attempt to use ANY sense of reason) that the ‘Miyazaki standard’ is fatally flawed (there is NO line of ‘substantiality’ in the Miyazaki standard that you wish to fall back to (notwithstanding your furious backpeddling reminiscent of your ladders of abstraction retreat with ‘generalities’). Once again, you are called out and once again all you can do is spew complete – and arbitrary – B$). You have to apply the standard or not, not pick and choose on a whim with a newly made up ‘egregious’ or ‘juicy bits’ factor.

      1. “The PTO got hammered at oral argument.”I lulzed. Not the way I heard it. But whatev you think brosefus. I’m well aware of what they’re wanting to do. One really interesting thing that I did learn is that the insolubly ambiguous nonsense is only like 12 years old. “They begged to take Miyazaki off the table.”Yeah because it wasn’t utilized in the grounds of rejection. It would be helpful to have a decent vehicle for appeal at the Fed. Circ. Not try to build one out of a case where the “standard” wasn’t even utilized. Again, why on earth the federal circuit should have to review such an imaginary grounds of rejection is beyond me. We really do need to reign in the ability of courts to review non-existent grounds of rejection. That ability always leads to nonsensical results in the instant case. “And for good reason, as the Packard attorney pointed out: ANY use of BRI necessarily implies that there is more than one possible meaning and would de facto mean that every single claim ever issued by the Office fails the Miyazaki version of indefiniteness.”Nonsense, and I think they addressed that nonsense at oral argument iirc.

      2. “Tell me how you can have more than one meaning (a requirement in order to apply the differential of a broadest reasonable meaning) without invoking the “Miyazaki indefiniteness””I never said that you can. Though to be sure, I would think that such is possible. In the instance where the difference is not so egregious, read that the difference simply isn’t all that substantial, so as to make the pto raise a 112 2nd. And likewise to be clear, I have a whole docket full of examples, as do you if you’re really a prosecuting attorney. To be clear, the PTO is not making this standard just so it can sit and 112 2nd you all day long. It is being used for a purpose, or you might say two purposes. Specifically the first is to clean up the loosey goosey dual/multiple meaning drafting we so often put down for allowing. Especially where that drafting takes place right at the “juicy bits” of a claim. And, as the good PTO man stated, to hold against the PTO is simply to announce to the world that the PTO is literally incapable of attempting to address the problem. The PTO doesn’t care all that much whether it wins or loses re Miyazaki standard. The government will win in the end even if it requires congress to step in. All they’re doing now is establishing, making clear to everyone, that they tried and that they officially share the same concerns as the judiciary in the matter and are willing to take steps to address the issue. Which is what you don’t get. And which goes along with what you always forget. You may win the battle today. But when the government is coming for you in a matter like this, they’re almost certain going to win. Eventually. And the reason is simple. “Try to not be as feeble as the PTO attorney who merely said that bothrejections will be given – an obvious false statement.”How is giving two rejections when the claim merits a 112 2nd miyazaki rejection along with a 102 under the BRI of the interpretations “feeble”? I’m genuinely curious.

  3. It would be interesting to subtract the subset of applications that cannot use the non-publication option (e.g. related to items that have foreign filings).

Comments are closed.