Ex Parte Bak, Application 12/822,772 (PTAB 2015) (Owned by IBM)
Claim at issue: 1. In a network of computer controlled user interactive display stations, a method for the scheduling of meetings on the calendars of invitee users comprising:
prompting an inviter, at a sending display station, to enter into an invitation a predetermined set of general attributes for the scheduled meeting;
enabling each invitee to predetermine a set of invitee-specific attributes applicable to each invitation; and
enabling each invitee to prioritize each predetermined general attribute and each invitee-specific attribute to a numerical priority level to determine the priority of said meeting on the invitee’s calendar.
Holding: [T]he claim is directed to the abstract idea of scheduling a meeting. . . . In this case, to the extent that claim 1 requires a network of computer controlled user interactive display stations and a sending display station, we determine that the recitation of such generic component is insufficient to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.
Ex Parte Base, Application 10/489,651 (PTAB 2015) (Owned by Siemens)
Claim at issue: 11. A method for video coding using symbols, the method performed by execution of a computer program stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium and comprising the steps of:
providing a prediction error matrix;
converting the prediction error matrix by coefficient sampling into a series of symbols; and
performing context-adaptive arithmetic encoding of the symbols, wherein the encoding includes for a symbol being encoded, selecting from different predetermined distributions of symbol frequencies a particular predetermined distribution of symbol frequencies based on the symbol encoded immediately beforehand, the predetermined distribution of symbol frequencies indicating the likelihood of different types of symbols occurring immediately following the type of the symbol encoded immediately beforehand based on known statistical interdependencies between different types of symbols occurring in succession;
wherein a number of symbols read out for coefficient sampling is encoded and transmitted.
Holding: Independent claims 11, 20, and 21 are directed to methods of video coding using symbols with three steps: providing a prediction error matrix; converting the prediction into a series of symbols; and performing context-adaptive arithmetic encoding of the symbols. These are mental process steps which can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. . . . And the recitation in the preamble of independent claims 11 and 21 of performing the method “by execution of a computer program” does not transform the recited abstract idea into a patentable invention.
Ex parte Shideler, Application 11/779,876 (PTAB 2015)
Claim at issue: 12. A method of playing a story based card game associated with a predetermined story and having a series of locations associated with the predetermined story and wherein the game includes a preset number of sequential rounds, the card game comprising: a plurality of sets of location cards, one set of location cards for each of the plurality of locations associated with an aspect of the predetermined story, each set of location cards including one card for each round of the game, wherein each round includes at least one correct location card for that round, wherein each correct location card for each round includes indicia indicating that it is the correct card for that round and including a continuation of the story, whereby a series of correct locations cards for the rounds of the game combine to form a story summary, the method comprising the steps of having the players selectively choose a location card for each round and having the players repeat the selection process until one player can identify all of the correct location cards in the series of correct location cards.
Holding: It is our view that selectively choosing a card and repeating that step until a predetermined goal is reached amounts to merely receiving and evaluating data, and therefore constitutes an abstract idea. . . . [Step 2:] The use of cards having indicia specific to the subject matter of a game is well-known, well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Thus, from our perspective, such cards, and the other limitations of claim 12, do not add “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
worth putting on top (for the casual readers….
below in the “Post 3” string of comments, I ruminate on how to set forth some of the foundational principles that would make a dialogue possible on what is easily the most contentious aspects in patent law (reaching back more than fifty years)….
to wit: I take it that this topic (even [em]ployed as often as it is on these pages) does not “grab your fancy”…
Too bad.
This is one of three or four major fallacies affecting the ongoing discussions that drive such much “philosophical muckraking” here.
(others include understanding that Manufactures include those things made by the hand of man coupled with the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter coupled with the fact that software is defined to be a machine component [there is no such thing a s software that is NOT meant to be a machine component]; and also include the patent doctrine of inherency, and how that doctrine is violated by the (merely implied) notion that computers sans software are the same from an invention protection standpoint of computers with software (which is the point presented first long ago by the Grand Hall experiment, then confirmed in the courts with the Nazomi case – and also directly tie into the full understanding of the holdings of the Alappat case.
Maybe (just maybe) if these points were made more crystal clear by a person other than I, the “raging battles” might subside with the points that I raise accepted and integrated into the ongoing dialogues.
Well, one can dream optimistically….
Anon, no one reading this post knows what you’re talking about when you say, “This is one of three or four major fallacies affecting the ongoing discussions that drive such much “philosophical muckraking” here.”
B$ Ned.
The points have often been on the table – and directly pointed out to you to address.
The “nobody knows” may – just may – apply to those with a mind closed to understanding. Or to those only interested in one way monologues.
Gee, no surprise then, that you voice this “concern.”
Anon, that you assume that anybody including me knows what you’re talking about when everybody tells you consistently that we do not know what your talking about is an interesting conundrum.
Ned,
The only “interesting conundrum” is your purposeful “gee, I don’t understand.”
How many times have I walked you through – step by step – arguments only to have you run away or try to derail the conversation?
Beyond count.
Let me remind you of an easy one: the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter and my exposition of Simple Set theory.
Let me remind you of another easy one: The Grand Hall experiment and its direct reflection in the Nazomi case.
Let me remind you of another easy one: your own production of the Judge O’Malley link and the danger of wanting the judiciary to do the work of the legislature.
Let me remind you of another easy one: your own production of the danger of using dicta as setting law and your past attempts to use Supreme Court dicta as law.
Let me remind you of another easy one: your canard of “Point of Novelty” and what the selfsame “Point of Novelty” was in Diehr.
Let me remind you of another easy one: what it means for a case to have a holding (and that cases often can have more than one holding) and what was an actual holding in Alappat.
Conundrum, you say?
Hmmmm.
One last comment. The amount of bickering on this blog is mind numbing. I actually got a headache trying to filter through to the substantive comments. How on Earth do people post such shallow remarks at such a high rate?
A last last comment. A metacomment. Good legal decisions don’t raise the kind of dissent and outcry that some of the 101 decisions have raised. Obviously, the converse is not true; lots of outcry does not prove a decision bad. Still, it’s something to think about…
Yes, I do realize. Trolls are hungry for attention and eager to type something into machinery (that they belittle) and then go back and read it back to themselves admiring their own cleverness as they wait, “All-Caps” at the ready, to pounce on any little goats who try to cross their bridge. So don’t feed them. Trolls hate to be ignored.
I understand about the nature of the argument taking place, and think it is an important one, but any worthwhile argument is an open-minded pursuit of truth. How much of that takes place here? Low SNR my friend, low SNR.
It is less about “don’t feed them” and more about “repeat it often enough and it appears to be true.”
That’s why attempts at dialogue can NEVER be replaced by drive-by monologues.
H, Do you think the bickering could be related to the fact that Dennis allows free debate? Does any other patent law site?
Professor Crouch hardly allows a “free debate.”
Leastwise, how that term implies an actual dialogue without unremitted propaganda and running away from counter points put on the table for discussion.
Blogs are either open or moderated. Moderation can take a lot of time, so I understand how things are. My own thought is that blogs that don’t get bogged down in mud have self-shaping features; the participants can conveniently ignore certain threads or posters, or can vote posts up and down, order by popularity or date or poster, etc. Offensive or insulting posts can be flagged and optionally considered by a moderator. Disqus is a good example, but there are others. Disqus has performance issues when posts get up to 1000+.
Personally, I’d like to filter out MM’s posts because they are an infinite loop of personal opinion. I once felt he had some interesting points to make and freely admit to refining my views on software-related patent law from some of his posts, but how many times are too many? On this Patently-O entry, he is accountable for 1/6th of all of the posts … ~60. How much can one really have to say on three PTAB decisions?
How much original material does he have to say that takes into account the counter points offered up to what he so often says?
That would be a null set.
As I have often said: it is NOT his position pe se that is offensive – it is how he goes about that position. He does NOT engage in any consideration of ANY point – factual, legal, or even philosophical. The (extremely) rare occasions that he has, he has blundered about the law badly, and made some doozy admissions against interests (like knowing and understanding the law concerning the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter).
But press him to be (gasp) H0NEST in how he posts, and , well, we just can’t have that, can we?
H, the posts in a thread are available through e-mail and a comments feeder. I would think, but I do not know, that if one only looks at comments through these methods that one could use his e-mail program to impose a filter on certain people.
But it would be nice to simply use the browser to filter out comments from selected individuals.
I guess new and efficient coding schemes for use in all kinds of equipment is not the kind of thing that Congress intended to encourage. If someone made an antenna that improved communication efficiency, there would be no question of patentability. Because someone improves communication by devising a clever coding scheme that can only be performed by configuring a digital processor, they are denied patentability? Where is the practical difference? There is an outrageous discrimination taking place based on technical subject matter. The coding invention is exactly the kind of thing that we need to be invented, and it’s exactly the kind of thing that should be rewarded. Can anyone argue with a straight face that making devices operate more efficiently and reliably is not desirable? How does the public benefit from removing the incentive to improve the heart and soul of modern machinery? Any argument in favor of this decision must ultimately reduce to an “all patents are bad” argument. This decision serves no purpose of the patent scheme. It prevents no over-reaching. It reduces the incentive for someone to technically improve millions of devices. So why?
And I guess that playing card game is a fundamental building block of human ingenuity. Right.
The whole charade can be summed up in the quote of one of the decisions: “in our view”. In other words, in our opinion. The Supreme Court opened the door to “I know it when I see it” type of analysis, and the PTO rushed right through it.
Expressing a computing process in mathematical language is not the same as “math”. It’s an efficient and precise way to communicate to a software engineer about what a computer is doing. Heck, everything in computing is done with numbers. So, all computing is an abstract idea of math. Everyone go home.
Another inexplicable edit – HoPB, my kudos to you must have included something REALLY offensive.
Offensive at last, to the desired narrative here (oops, fight club and all)
I must have missed the edit. I would never intentionally post something offensive here (I save that for sports pages :-). The posts on Patently-O are first rate, but it’s a shame that the comments are the way they are.
I agree. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the points made were actually incorporated into the ongoing dialogue?
At 20.2.1 below, I refer to the subject matter Siemens discloses and enables, and suggest that it might amount to a snappier way for “coding Video” (whatever that means).
MM replied:
“That subject matter would be “math”, absent some novel structure. Is math eligible?
I like that reply, because it vindicates the “per se” drafting of the eligibility section of the EPC. The Siemens claim I envisage would not be directed to math per se but to a process or a system in a field of technology, in which the clever math is embedded. You know, like an eligible and patentable process or system for rubber molding using the Arrhenius equation.
MM, are you suggesting that Deere was wrongly decided and is now over-ruled?
“I like that reply”
Is it any wonder that you “like” (and echo) a fallacy?
Software is not math.
When the “board” permits the ongoing falsehoods to be so knowingly made and perpetrated, what “hope” is there for a genuine dialogue?
As for the last comment, I believe that you mean “Diehr” as opposed to “Deere” and the answer has already been provided by Malcolm who has stated that Diehr WAS wrongly decided.
Diehr Yes. Thanks for that.
link to bigstory.ap.org
Nissan Motor Co. showed a concept vehicle loaded with laser scanners, a 360 degree camera setup, a radar and computer chips so the car can “think” to deliver autonomous driving. The Japanese automaker called it IDS, which stands for “intelligent driving system.”
ANTHROPROMOFORNICATION! OMG!
Best part about this: the number of cars in the future that will be owned by ordinary people and legally driven with this awesome software is exactly zero. LOL
“Best part about this: the number of cars in the future that will be owned by ordinary people and legally driven with this awesome software is exactly zero.”
Why do you say that? Tesla is selling cars that pretty much do that now.
link to youtube.com
Thank goodness you’re only posting two hours a week. Given the volume you’ve posted on this thread in the first 2+ days this week, is it safe to assume that your time is up?
The comedy that Malcolm’s post remains, and my reply (censored) of the following is removed:
Dare ANYONE to point out how my post is objectively more censorable than Malcolm’s.
You still don’t seem to “get” what anthropomorphication is about…
“Obtuse, is it deliberate?” – said in the best Andy Dufresne tones
Down below in reply to 6’s mewling, I state the following (it is worth highlighting here on top for all examiners):
Sounds like nothing but excuses from you 6 – and very much NOT in line with your very own contribution of the rule that governs your ETHICAL behavior that Lee so recently reminded you of.
It is more than apparent that you are failing to live up tot he required standards.
This type of “Chamberlain” acquiescence will only lead to an emboldening of the poor “management” behavior that makes you so inconveniently “uncomfortable.”
The notion of “well, there’s a lot worse stuff going on” is – and should be – ALARMING: just what ELSE is there that you “insiders” know about (and are apparently also doing NOTHING about)…?
Instead of the phantasy-make-up-laws-based-on-ends-desired C R P we see posted here, let’s focus on the very real malfeasance in your own house guys. Air those grievances. Get the ball rolling on making some real changes that have real affect not just for you, but sadly make you guys take out your frustrations on my clients.
and combine with your POPA protection of:
For the less-inclined to click and search, 6’s pincite is:
“Any laws, regulations and policies relevant to an employee’s performance, conduct or employment in the possession of the office shall be made available for inspection and study by the Association and individual members of the Unit, if such material is not otherwise reasonably available. Upon request, a copy of the relevant portion(s) of such material shall be provided to the Association or the requesting employee if the request is not unreasonable and the cost is not excessive.” (emphasis added).
Since the directive – non-optional verb of “shall” is used, (with a relatively minor caveat), I cannot see how ANY verbal, non-written directive that could possibly affect the performance rating of an examiner could ever exist.
Examiners take note: you get a “verbal” anything,
PUSH BACK.
While these are almost constructive comments (and cheers to you for that), your recommendations suggests that you’ve never held private or public employment.
“Bob,”
Your “comparative analysis” skills are severely lacking.
As to your “suggestion,” it is notably also lacking – in that we are talking about duties in an occupation that transcend the “private employment” scenario – and are explicitly involved in the examiner’s “public employment.” Notably – you might want to catch up on what 6 provided.
I do “get’ that what is required may in fact be difficult – nonetheless, the requirement remains clear, and the path of protection I point to should be enough.
“I do “get’ that what is required may in fact be difficult ”
Or impossible for normal people? I’m flattered to have you think I’m basically He-man Master of the Universe but I can assure you I’m just a normal dude.
“and the path of protection I point to should be enough.”
You don’t seem to have pointed to any path of protection (the CBA is not a path of protection it is just the means by which a request for information can be made and grievance can be filed). I myself brought up the PPP’s and the whistleblower protections and those are the “paths of protection”. Both of which were also noted by me to be ridiculously ineffective irl (this is fact and I don’t doubt it). I told you and everyone at the end of my first post on the subject to get those “paths of protection” overhauled so that what you want can even have a chance to take place.
What possible objective reasoning is there for removing my reply?
The editing has clearly become “personal” and in such, rather non-professional.
Mayhap it is time for you to appoint a truly neutral party to write and enforce ONE consistent set or posting rules.
While I am not your attorney and this is not legal advice, carrying on with such a personal editing style may affect your rights re: running this blog.
Can you not just rephrase what you said in a respectful manner and spare us the drama anon?
Hey, 6, it does seem that you yourself have made some sort of transition. Remember the good old days when you like to call me (and others, of course) names, like, ret@ard or the like?
I’ll miss that swagger. 🙂
Spare the drama?
You quite miss then the actual cause of the drama.
The lengths gone by the editor show a personal animus beyond any objective reasonableness.
If he cannot see that his one actions are made of issue from the one-way editing style and lack of a consistently enforced and objective rule-set (and the possible impact that this behavior has on the ability to “reach in” for discovery – let alone any sense of: link to en.wikipedia.org
Long time readers know full well what has been going on – and ongoing well before I started posting here (reference the nine years and running comments).
“Hey, 6, it does seem that you yourself have made some sort of transition. Remember the good old days when you like to call me (and others, of course) names, like, ret@ard or the like?”
Well I would but D’s all cracking down.
your recommendations suggests that you’ve never held private or public employment.
I’m pretty sure he worked in a mail room once, opening letters addressed to attorneys that he wasn’t supposed to read.
Yep that is correct Bob.
Copyright law is starting to catch-up with the increasingly nutty world of “owning” logic.
link to arstechnica.com
These kinds of tentative carve-outs achieve very little in terms of moving towards sanity. When things finally do turn around, they’re going to turn around fast. Just watch and see. And then we’ll all look back and wonder how on earth a decision as ridiculous as State Street Bank could ever have been written by adult human beings.
catching up…
achieve very little…
turn around fast…
Not sure what point you are trying to make, or how you are backing that point up.
This just comes across as your (usual) conclusion and diatribe.
If Shideler is affirmed, are all new card games unpatentable as MM suggests be the case? Here is Shideler Claim 1 with the language discounted by the Board (as best I can determine from the Board’s inexact language) bracketed:
1. A story based card game have a series of sequential rounds, the card game comprising a plurality of sets of [location] cards, one set of location cards for each of a plurality of locations [associated with an aspect of the story], each set of [location] cards including one card for each round of the game, wherein each round includes at least one [correct location] card for that round, [wherein the correct location card for each round includes text indicating that the it is the correct card for that round and including a continuation of the story, whereby a series of correct locations cards for the rounds of the game combine to form a story summary].
Dependent claims describe the game board and further details of the indicia on the cards. The expression “associated with an aspect of the story” was discounted as merely an expression of intended use. The “location” related expressions were discounted as printed matter, and the claims were rejected based on the In re Gulack “obviousness” test in light of a prior art published application resulting in the following patents.
The method and apparatus claims of the reference applied in the In re Gulack rejection were allowed and issued in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,978,999 and 6,685,187, e.g. this apparatus claim of the `187 patent:
1. A game apparatus comprising: a first set of cards, said first set of cards being a set of cards bearing indicia of a situation to be enacted; a second set of cards, said second set of cards being a set of cards bearing indicia of a style for said situation to be enacted; a third set of cards, said third set of cards being a set of cards bearing indicia of a feeling for said situation to be enacted; a game board defining at least one path of movement and requiring drawing one card from said first set of cards, and the at least one path of movement bearing indicia requiring drawing of at least one card from each set of cards; means to randomly select a number from a finite set of numbers {a spinner}; a plurality of player pieces for placement on and movement through the at least one path of movement; and wherein the players commence and maintain play by moving player pieces along the path of movement in response to random numbers obtained by the player operating the random selection means and wherein the players are directed to enact the situation read from said card from said first set of cards based on the style described on the card drawn from said second set of cards and based on the feeling described on the card drawn from said third set of cards.
No 112 or 101 rejections posed in the prosecution of the applications resulting in these patents. And the Examiner’s reasons for allowance of the even broader method claim in the ‘687 patent indicate that he based patentability on the indicia on the first and second sets of cards, not the board or spinner structures or that the game employed more than one set of cards.
Just the luck of the draw from the examining pool? Both Examiners are in AU 3711.
Just the luck of the draw from the examining pool?
it is true. First Action Allow.
Shideler’s claim 1 has big problems, Joe, that you seem to be trying to wave away with your attempted “paraphrase”. For example, you write:
wherein the correct location card for each round includes text indicating that the it is the correct card
There’s no limitation in claim 1 regarding any “text”. Also, you note “[d]ependent claims describe the game board and further details of the indicia on the cards”. That doesn’t help claim 1.
Claim 1 is a description of a quintessential abstraction (i.e., a set of “rules”) layered on top of objects that are old in the art (i.e., cards). Nothing in claim 1 precludes, for instance, using a standard card dek and “identifying” the jack, the queen, and the king as “locations’ and a subset of those “locations” (e.g., the “location” hards of a particular suit) as the “correct” locations for that round of play.
U.S. Patent Nos. 6,978,999 and 6,685,187 [were allowed by the USPTO]
That matters for nothing, pretty much.
“And the Examiner’s reasons for allowance of the even broader method claim in the ‘687 patent indicate that he based patentability on the indicia on the first and second sets of cards, not the board or spinner structures or that the game employed more than one set of cards.”
Reexam this cr@p now to see what is actually allowable.
This will be invalidated during litigation. Only distinguishing feature is printed matter as examiner stated. Allowance was error. The printed matter exception is still good law.
Not luck. Incompetence. And it is unethical to issue a patent that you know to be ineligible under 101. That is called theft–taking something out of the public domain and claiming that it belongs to your client.
Sorry. You made it sound like this was your case. If it isn’t, these comments are directed to the attorney of record.
The attorney of record is in the file history. Too often patentlyo commentators (not accusing you) fail to review the file history.
Had an examiner tell me this week the following:
1. He has been instructed to levy an Alice rejection in every case no matter what. He will be given a deficiency if he does not.
2. Because…the PTO has decided to try to fill as many 101 cases into the pipeline that eventually leads to the Supreme Court, in an effort to get the Court to provide more clarity.
He did not sound either like a crackpot or a liar, so I believe him.
Demanding a false rejection sounds like an abusive and arbitrary exercise of power.
What was that section of binding Rules that 6 so recently posted…?
Does that section speak of (gasp) consequences?
I wonder if examiners an demand to see any such “direction” in writing, lest they have an action against anyone giving them such “deficiencies”… I also wonder if the examiner’s Union and the patent office ombudsman are aware of this…
…and instead of making up law wholesale or cheering on the b@nal here, our resident “examiner voices” would be better tasked with taking care of such internal things….
I wonder if examiners an demand to see any such “direction” in writing, lest they have an action against anyone giving them such “deficiencies”
It’s almost as if the large governmental agency with a union read what you thought and traveled back in time to pre-implement something to prevent that very thing decades ago. It would probably make his story’s truthfulness unlikely, wouldn’t it?
?
What is the point that you are trying to make, Random? (no snark)
He was referring to the CBA which gives us the right to demand instructions in writing. Unbeknownst to most examiners (and probably most SPEs too).
The CBA was implemented years ago, in the past, was what he was saying.
Thanks 6.
I’ll have to give that CBA a read (the POPA website has a downloadable version).
link to popa.org
Article 3, section 4B (on real page 5).
For the less-inclined to click and search, 6’s pincite is:
“Any laws, regulations and policies relevant to an employee’s performance, conduct or employment in the possession of the office shall be made available for inspection and study by the Association and individual members of the Unit, if such material is not otherwise reasonably available. Upon request, a copy of the relevant portion(s) of such material shall be provided to the Association or the requesting employee if the request is not unreasonable and the cost is not excessive.” (emphasis added).
Since the directive – non-optional verb of “shall” is used, (with a relatively minor caveat), I cannot see how ANY verbal, non-written directive that could possibly affect the performance rating of an examiner could ever exist.
Examiners take note: you get a “verbal” anything, PUSH BACK.
Even absent the CBA, you’re only judged on your PAP and your PAP is core-wide.
This from the same guy we SAWS no problem with SAWS…
My, how the “good soldier – ethics vanish in front of Star Chamber tactics” comes out…
Hahaha uh huh. Once again anon, it’s got nothing to do with whether you get a fair shake, it’s simply that someone who is interested in not giving you a fair shake doesn’t have to run a convoluted high-maintenance plan to do it, so you probably shouldn’t assume those exist.
If the SPE didn’t want to allow the claims, he would tell his junior that there’s better art out there and not to allow the claims. He doesn’t have to subject himself to union action and an angry junior to screw the applicant over.
Once again, you quite miss the point of WHY SAWS was a problem.
If it was such a “pristine” program as you want to think it was, then why did the Office pull it so quickly? (but not quickly enough as it blundered into openly admitting that it was only one of who know how many Shadow Programs….)
I don’t HAVE TO “assume” existence: the Office stated they exist.
What next from you? Are you going to “belieb” in Malcolm’s denial that the Reject-Reject-Reject era even existed?
You do realize that it is only your own “credibility” that is diminished with your denials of reality, right?
If it was such a “pristine” program as you want to think it was, then why did the Office pull it so quickly?
Assuming facts not in evidence. But to answer your question, probably because it was a little-used program and people’s imaginations were running away with them. It became more trouble than it was worth.
Are you going to “belieb” in Malcolm’s denial that the Reject-Reject-Reject era even existed?
I wasn’t around. All I can say is right now prosecution is heavily weighted in favor of allowance.
You do realize that it is only your own “credibility” that is diminished with your denials of reality, right?
I don’t care whether you in particular believe me, and to the extent that third parties don’t believe me that’s fine too. One of us works on the inside, the other plays guessing games with incomplete information.
probably because it was a little-used program and people’s imaginations were running away with them. It became more trouble than it was worth.
Ding ding ding!
But for “anon” and his pals SAWS was like a meat grinder where innocent patentees were scooped up and turned into soylent tablets. The horror! Meanwhile, the PTO continues to spew forth reams of junk on a weekly basis. But let’s talk about SAWS some more because … patent quality. That’s what super serious guys like “anon” want everyone to believe they really, really care about: patent quality. Does anyone buy that?
^^^ a couple of guys who just don’t get that the ends do not – and cannot – justify the means.
Is anyone surprised?
“Does that section speak of (gasp) consequences?”
Not the exact section but the consequences are put down elsewhere they basically range from a slap on the wrist to dismissal.
Still, the examiner’s SPE might be hand picking cases he thinks must have a 101 to send to this examiner (or to his whole AU). There’s not much blo w back for that.
Please note that “hand-picking” is expressly not what was said.
Hand-picking implies actual thinking and some judgement while what was said was the unthinking blanket approach.
If he handpicked the Examiner’s docket so he had read the claimsets, he could have decided that each of those cases merited a 101 and told the examiner to make a 101 in every case.
There’s dozens of examples like this. The fact is that telling someone to do something when you are ultimately responsible for their work neither suggests impropriety (as you may decide to act as a gatekeeper later) nor a situation that wouldn’t fix itself (a rogue SPE would be caught by QC).
Try again…
NOT hand picked…
“a rogue SPE would be caught by QC”
I loled.
What if “QC” is itself “rogue”…?
What if “QC” is itself “rogue”…?
Or non-existent.
You may have a point there, Malcolm.
After all, we both know that Quality does not mean Reject-Reject-Reject.
Remember who said that? Remember why he said that?