President Obama released his proposed budget for 2012. The new Budget would allow the USPTO “full access to its fee collections” and for a “temporary” but major fee surcharge. The proposed budget would include a 1.4% increase in fees based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase and a 15% surcharge on patent fees. The projected collections for FY2012 would jump to $2.71 billion ($2,700,000,000.00), a 16% increase of FY2011 and a 34% increase of FY2010 spending.
The 2010-2012 increase works out to a little over $100,000 extra per examiner. Examiners should not, however, expect raises.
The increased budget is intended to help cut “the average overall processing time of a patent application from 35 months to 20 months by 2015” by hiring 1,500 new patent examiners and to implement a “much-needed 21st century information technology (IT) system” for the USPTO. The proposed budget is far less than the $1 billion infusion suggested by former Chief Judge Paul Michel.
“The proposed budget is far less than the $1 billion infusion suggested by former Chief Judge Paul Michel.” Yes, but it’s progress, nonetheless. I hope President Obama’s proposed budget for the USPTO becomes reality. Until Congress gets the gumption to legislatively prohibit fee diversion, this is probably the best thing that could happen for the patent office at this point.
“Somebody’s a little sensitive.”
And somebody’s still digging.
Maybe it’s that neighbor’s dog. I wonder how long he will have to dig to catch up with you?
The original point you were trying to make is why are my comments all over a portion of something that is expressly for comments.
Interesting. And here I thought I was talking about my neighbor’s dog leaving his “gold” all over my paper.
Somebody’s a little sensitive.
late,
When you look around you and only see dirt, and look above to see the sky, here’s a hint: put the shovel down, cause you aint goin to dig your way out of it.
The original point you were trying to make is why are my comments all over a portion of something that is expressly for comments.
Now you may try to be clever and redefine “editorialize” as something that happens by editors in other places of the paper – your stretching just don’t work. I only post in the place where posting is expected. Now you can continue to try to be clever, but you will only continue to FAIL.
IANAE–
The basis of patent prosecution, like other areas of law and advocacy, is not to be “right”, as you would suggest, but to present the argument that prevails.
Superior evidence from the outset, in the form of prior art, circumscribes and informs the claims that are written directly in response to that evidence. I am in a position, as are other responsible patent attorneys, to stack the deck hugely in my favor when it comes to arguments about patentability.
In fact, that is what I see as the very basis of my duty as someone licensed before the PTO.
Your disparagements notwithstanding, once again, money spent by the private sector is not equivalent to money spent by the public sector. You’re re-hashing all of your hackneyed and vacuous “throw-money-at-the-problem” solutions. You make proud statements of position, yet provide no evidence in support thereof.
Empty rhetoric, IANAE.
BTW, it is not only Wisconsin, but also Ohio that is now taking up an important issue regarding collective bargaining in the public sector.
You are a spectator on the sidelines, and your tribal chant is being drowned out by the beat of a new drum.
and btw – your original comment is “all over the newspaper” as opposed to “all over the editorial section”.
Not sure what you’re peeing, excuse me, I mean talking, about now. If you are referring to my mention of the WSJ’s editorial staff, you might care to know that a newspaper’s editorial staff edits “all over the newspaper,” rather than presiding only over the editorial pages.
As my neighbor’s dog once said, nothing ruins the effect of trying to be a smarta_$$ like being a dumm a_$$.
“Have you noticed that if you interchange the words “examiner” and “applicant”, your statement makes exactly as much sense?”
Only on opposite day.
It’s hardly infallibility–it’s just doing a better job than the PTO.
That’s easy, when you have more money to spend. If the PTO had more money, and they could dedicate more examiner time to examine each application, they’d get better searches done too.
Examiners often believe that they have trumped the applicant on art, but it turns out that their belief is often informed by a lack of understanding, and that their art is in fact not superior to that supplied by the applicant.
Have you noticed that if you interchange the words “examiner” and “applicant”, your statement makes exactly as much sense?
All you’re saying is “they think they’re right, but I know I’m right”.
Stay in Bed,
It’s a good thing that your sense is not involved either here or at the Wall Street Journal.
Those voices in your head that “Something tells me” are controllable with medication, ya know.
and btw – your original comment is “all over the newspaper” as opposed to “all over the editorial section”.
If ya gonnna post smarmy comments, ya might try to post them intelligibly. Nothin ruins the effect of tryin to be a smart a_$$ like bein a dumm a_$$.
6–
It’s hardly infallibility–it’s just doing a better job than the PTO.
Which is hardly difficult.
BTW, I have never filed without a search, and never will.
After doing an exhaustive extraction of material from inventors, I do the search myself, sometimes employing TP’s to use as checks.
I draft the spec, claims, and prosecute the app. Period. I live the invention from the time it is first disclosed to the time of grant.
Examiners often believe that they have trumped the applicant on art, but it turns out that their belief is often informed by a lack of understanding, and that their art is in fact not superior to that supplied by the applicant.
I don’t discount the possibility of a particularly acute examiner finding better art, but I know what the PTO searches and how–and I know that I encompass that entire scope, and go FAR beyond it.
I don’t claim infallibility, just due diligence, which to me means doing what the PTO does, and then doing sufficiently more to try to ensure that there are no surprises.
I may be a control freak, and may not be raking in 7 figures, but it has worked for me and my clients.
So far.
It seems that if you have problems understanding why editorial comments are appearing in a blog comment section,…
Oh, that’s not the part that’s confusing me. What’s confusing/astonishing to me is the sheer quantity of “gold” that my dear friend pang feels compelled to spray all over the place. Something tells me that the good people at the WSJ would choose to include a lot less of that glitter on their fine paper, if pang’s contributions were actually submitted directly to their editorial staff.
The Nazgul on your shoulder is probably a pretty good give away not to listen. Sorta like last year’s super bowl commerical of listening to the guy with a stain on his shirt, but the Nazgul stain is a bit more gruesome.
IPB’s pontifications aside – his point on service is dead on.
And once again, you refuse to listen.
Once again, IANAE, your statement speaks for itself.
… and the beatings will continue until morale improves.
What? It seems to work in the military…
Well now, has anybody caught wind of the changes proposed by the Wisconsin governor, and about to be taken up by the state legislature?
It would limit the right to collectively bargain to the issue of salary, and would take benefits, working conditions, etc. off the table.
While it doesn’t go far enough, it is likely the product of a strategic decision to advance what has a chance of passing the legislature.
Even though the PTO is a “discretionary” function of Congress, that doesn’t mean that it is unimportant to the national agenda or identity, or that it is somehow “not critical”.
It derives from the Constitution itself, and in our secular society, there is no higher statement of principle.
It is non-trivial. The national identity depends on it, in part. It is part of the philosophical and psychological bedrock of our nation-state. It is CRITICAL, and its servicemen and servicewomen (aka “employees”) should be treated accordingly.
It’s a call to SERVICE, not to EMPLOYMENT. Adults offer their service to the PTO freely and knowingly. People need to be made actively aware of the circumstances under which their offer of service is accepted. Collective bargaining rights should be completely ended–the Kennedy presidential orders should be repealed by similar presidential order or act of Congress.
I believe I have a positive right to feel contempt toward anybody in the civil service who doesn’t feel this way. In addition to other governmental service, I served for years in the military, yet since my discharge, I have not received any governmental benefit whatsoever as a result of my service, nor am I eligible for any–and that is fine. It was still probably the very best thing I have ever done, and made me understand the basis of service, of sacrifice, and of duty–understanding that is noticeably absent among the vast majority of civil servants.
The patent system is not a joke, and it’s time that PTO management and servicemen/women understand that fact and act accordingly, subordinating their personal needs and desires to that of the national mission, as expressed through the PTO.
Not only should the servicemen/women be educated and re-conditioned, PTO management should step up and respect the rule of law as expressed through the Patent Act, the APA, and other sources.
The PTO, and its body of civil servants, has been treated largely as have been other agencies, and has become to be considered as a tool of political action and expression. That possibility also has to be subordinated to the essential mission of the PTO, which is the betterment of American society by the positive encouragement of the development of wealth through the vehicle known as property, and of private ownership thereof.
I know that at some point policy decisions governing PTO function are politically-decided–but decisions internal to the PTO should not be.
Wisconsin is taking some of the first steps in the only possible direction of travel. It will be only a matter of time before the PTO and all other agencies will follow suit. I don’t know if it will be in 2 years or 10 years, but it WILL happen.
Those like IANAE who want to brush aside the PTO expenditures as “insignificant” are fools. Again, if it costs less to implement the fix than the fix is worth, it is worth doing the fix.
Is it relatively worth spending the time on fixing the PTO rather than on fixing some vastly larger agency? We’re in such a bad state that EVERY agency will need to be fixed, the PTO included. It is better done sooner than later. Fixes are available that affect ALL agencies–like abolition of collective bargaining rights and imposition of new codes of service. At this time, it is unnecessary to consider fixes specific to the PTO. Those would take care of themselves as necessary effects of larger fixes implemented government-wide.
I absolutely adore the idealized version of the process that is inspiration, invention, development, and attempt at commercialization in an idealized free-market, and I suspect that other patent attorneys feel the same way. To preserve anything even roughly approximating this ideal, there needs to be a serious PTO, in which proceedings are treated with solemnity, not with the apparent frivolity and triviality that we often observe today.
And it all starts with the individual mentality toward service/employment/work. That individual mentality must be adjusted to reflect the actual nature of the endeavor that the PTO is set up to effectuate. Abolition of collective bargaining rights is a necessary condition for that adjustment.
Yes, because the “materiality” of the big bad defense budgete so impacts us practicing in the patent world… My patent coupons should just be thrown away as I jump into my stealth fighter to fly to work.
IANAE – ya need to brush that Nazgul off your shoulder while ya still have some brains left.
Ya can get away with conflatin issues within the patent world with your brilliant pen – but that dog just wont hunt in the “Apples, Elephanst [and Igloos]” world beyond patent world.
“I just don’t understand why pang feels the urge to editorialize all over my newspaper”
Late – you still be in bed.
It seems that if you have problems understanding why editorial comments are appearing in a blog comment section, you are probably equally confused as to why therir are scores and sports stories in the sports section and cartoons in the comics section.
You must be a sad and confused little man. No wonder why you stay in your nice comfy bed and narrow your mind to a single (and obviously to you) important “Wall Street Journal view of the world. What would happen if the Journal actually covered things like sports? Oh wait – they do. So very sad for you.
That statement speaks for itself.
It does, doesn’t it?
In the real world, how much time do you spend clipping 10-cent coupons and going from shop to shop to save a little on your groceries? Not a lot, because your food budget is small compared to your income, your house and car are what puts the biggest dent in your budget, the minuscule savings are a pittance compared even to that, and it’s not worth the effort to optimize the small things for a saving that’s ultimately so insignificant you’d never notice. You could drive a cheaper car instead, and save hundreds or thousands a year.
It’s a little thing called “materiality”, a business concept that you’ve probably never encountered within the safe, warm confines of your law firm.
IANAE: “An organization as small as the PTO doesn’t even have to run efficiently, because it’s such an insignificant expense either way.”
Awesome. That statement speaks for itself.
Thank-you, IANAE.
Let’s try a response to the actual issues raised by Inviting Body Punches.
If you want me to defend the examination system, go read my old posts. Some of them aren’t very old at all. I’m sure you’ve already read most of them in your previous life as an alias I’d recognize.
If you need me to explain why having way more applications than the current examining corps can examine is an indication that more examiners are needed, there’s probably no hope for you.
“late riser – you are free not to come around.”
Why thank you, ping, that’s very generous of you. Likewise I’m free to not read my copy of the Wall Street Journal. I just don’t understand why pang feels the urge to editorialize all over my newspaper. Why doesn’t he start his own?
late riser – you are free not to come around.
Likewise, you are free to actually engage and contribute. And while contributions of merely be otching are possible – dontcha think that ya might actually want to contribute something of substance?
As for the “unfortunate” comment, you obviously are one of those so full of yourselves that ya cant get the gold in my observations.
Even as Iza dont do answers, my observations are gold – witness teh recent blog by the Eskimo at:
link to ipwatchdog.com
Iza take full claim for bein the first to say that dumptrck loads of IDS will result. Iza even gave links to some pretty damm nice trucks as a public service. Iza gave gave that info twice (the second time to stuff the piehole of the schooled boy). As you can see from the igloo vantage point, the large scale dumping has already begun – and even King Kappos recognizes the validity of what I done observed.
Iza just don’t see any gold in your smarmy comments. But thanks for the chuckles.
Signing on to Patently-O in the morning lately has unfortunately become like too much like my morning ritual of retrieving the newspaper from the driveway. It’s the rare day recently that the neighbor’s dog (let’s call him “pang”) hasn’t peed all over my paper before I’ve had a chance to read it.
Lolz 6 – once again you show a complete misunderstanding of the concepts behind having patents. Still tryin to make friends over at techdirt or ya?
If we grew up, we would have to leave this playground and there would be no more chuckles.
Not likely.
“even though the divisionals are explicity to a completely different claimed invention.”
And I thought it was merely to provide the Office with additional fee income.
Politics, Military, Murder? Let’s stay on focus with the actual issues here. Inviting Body Punches historical context and even his mention of President Obama in a call to action are not “political” comments and those that feel bruised that their democratic or liberal political feelings have been somehow assaulted need to grow up.
Let’s try a response to the actual issues raised by Inviting Body Punches. Let’s stop comparing the patent law scenario with military spending or with criminal systems that have nothing in common. Such glibness is not a proper response and neither addresses, nor advances the actual issues that this forum allows for.
I’m pretty sure the whole idea was to retard innovation Mike. Indeed, the entire patent system is based around handing out a right to retard the use of innovation amongst ones peers.
I doubt that, unless you’ve done only a very few applications. Or unless you’re in a very limited small art.
The very best searchers I’ve ever been up against can not regularly find all the art better than I can, even one presumes, in one rare occasions where they’ve had bukoos of time. Additionally, even where they have sufficiently found art that caused the drafter to draft a properly patentable claim over the art I find I still come up with better art than that on record quite regularly even when that art is quite good and only narrowly drafted around. I’m hardly the only good searcher here in the office. And you can often tell when there was a good searcher out there that was on the case so don’t get all “but you don’t know when there was a good searcher on the case”. It is usually quite easy to tell.
But carry on with your allegations of awesome infallibility. It is so good for business you’ve probably convinced yourself.
lulz. Like that matters. The fact that you can roflpwn the avg examiner at lawlgames is hardly relevant.
Besides that, in those instances which I mentioned we’ve done this thing called “building a record”. Which is beneficial to both you (if you do it right) and the public.
6–
That has also never happened successfully.
6–
It has never happened successfully.
Clearly the little guy trying to start out is the wrong person for the fee increases. The burdon should fall on those making good money from issued patents in the form of maintenence fee surcharges.There method is inovation retartive and will further the black hole already being created by the lopsided so called justice of the system.
Reprehensible. Morally bankrupt. And completely off-focus.
I agree. Your implication that I condone the murder of homeless people is reprehensible, morally bankrupt, and completely off-focus.
Not to mention that leaving a murder uninvestigated a pretty feeble analogy, since you’re the one saying that we should have less government-funded examination.
You’d be closer to the mark with “it is the equivalent of scaling up the police force when it turns out there’s a five-year backlog of unsolved crimes (including murders of homeless people, let’s say), and not caring too much about the cost because it’s a pittance compared to the total budget it’s a part of”. In that analogy, you’d be the one saying that policemen are overpaid and inefficient, and we’d be better off eliminating them entirely and going to a voluntary admission of guilt system.
“That’s true, but it does put into perspective how insignificant $2 billion is in the annual budget. It would be insignificant even if it were paid from tax dollars, which it isn’t. An organization as small as the PTO doesn’t even have to run efficiently, because it’s such an insignificant expense either way.”
Apples and Elephants – and completely untrue.
It staggers the mind that you wish to dismiss as insignicant the woes of the USPTO just because there is a bigger animal with a bigger budget that it completely related to a different function.
It is the equivalent of dismissing the murder of a homeless person because in the grand scheme of things no one would miss him.
Reprehensible. Morally bankrupt. And completely off-focus.
Oh and also those instances where the examiner just so happens to find that 102b that your searches missed.
“In this situation, the PTO adds no value to the patent, other than the validation that is grant–and that can more efficiently be accomplished through a registration system.”
Except, oh wait, in those instances where the PTO disagrees with your assessment of patentability.
Talking about the military does little to inform our understanding of PTO efficiency.
That’s true, but it does put into perspective how insignificant $2 billion is in the annual budget. It would be insignificant even if it were paid from tax dollars, which it isn’t. An organization as small as the PTO doesn’t even have to run efficiently, because it’s such an insignificant expense either way.
The military may (or may not, for all I know) have really efficient management methods, but the fact is that the military is woefully ineffective at accomplishing its actual goals, and its actual goals are much less relevant to the national welfare than a working patent system.
If we took an extra billion from the army and gave it to the patent office, it would be a boon to the PTO and the army wouldn’t even notice it was missing. They’ve been known to misplace more than that in actual cash.
If it’s a question of whether the PTO is worth spending the money on, it’s very relevant to look at how much money we’re talking about and where else the money might go instead.
I agree that the current system allows one to pick the strength of their patent.
I do apps that far exceed the quality of anything the PTO can offer by way of examination. All the arguments have been dealt with, all the PA has been found and applied. This is high-quality stuff. Clients drive the quality by prefering to pay known increases in cost now, and minimizing the possibility of unknown increases later on. Where the balance is struck is, for my clients, on the high end.
In this situation, the PTO adds no value to the patent, other than the validation that is grant–and that can more efficiently be accomplished through a registration system.
The question is this: does society benefit from the grant of weak patents?
I don’t know, but I think not.
Anyone?
A brief couple of things:
1) the military actually uses LOTS of management science, and highly sophisticated analyses and modeling. Some of it is too sophisticated and becomes speculative, some of it is suppressed, the “world” never sees any of it because it is at least classified if not secret or top-secret. It only applies in certain areas of operation, I don’t want to get ridiculous, but the military is much more diverse in its types of objectives and missions than is the PTO.
I’m NOT saying that the military is operating at maximum efficiency, just that they do actually make use of these optimization procedures, and that the procedures they use are as varied as are their objectives.
2) Don’t reason by comparison or analogy–there is no reason. Let’s talk about the PTO. Talking about the military does little to inform our understanding of PTO efficiency.
America was a great idea–do people realize that American Independence preceded the French Revolution?
Are you saying the French needed more examiners to find that highly relevant prior art? It’s not like America invented the idea of people rising up to overthrow an oppressive monarch and start their own country across the sea. Moses did it, if I recall.
Then again, we probably don’t want that whole “rise up in armed revolt against the current leader” sentiment to persist full force for centuries. Because most of the time, the current leader is Republican, and we wouldn’t want anything bad to happen to those leaders.
What I DO know is that I have never seen a rational analysis of PTO efficiency–not workflow or production.
I haven’t seen one for the military, either. Let’s cap their funding at the greater of $2 billion or whatever they normally collect from the grateful throngs who greet them as liberators.
What’s that, you say? The military couldn’t possibly do its job properly with so little money? Huh. Imagine that. Well, we could disband the military and convert the whole world to a registration system. Plant your flag, that land is yours. Let the courts sort it out later.
No, that’s probably not a fair comparison. I bet the military uses lots of management science and accounts for every taxpayer dollar it spends.
Guess I don’t understand – the current system already allows one to “pick the strenght of their patent.” You just don’t realize it.
You want (most likely) a weak patent. Don’t pay for any prior art search. Don’t put any time (meaning, money) into independent analysis after receiving the Office Action. Just amend as quickly (meaning, cheaply) as possible to obtain allowance, without considering (meaning, spending money) to worry about the scope of your claims.
You want a strong patent. Pay for an extensive prior art search. Spend more money preparing a response to the Office Action not only in view of the references cited by the Examiner, but also in view of the other references. Prosecute with an eye towards enforcement.
In other words, you can spend a thousand preparing an Office Action response, or tens of thousands if you wanted. And, most likely, there will be a direct correlation between the strength of your patent and money you spent.
blah blah blah registration blah blah blah
Exactly.
I’m past the point of rage on this issue, as I sit here forlornly.
When will Americans in general understand?
THIS IS NOT A SOLUTION–THIS IS A SYMPTOM OF THE PROBLEM.
America was a great idea–do people realize that American Independence preceded the French Revolution?
The USA is like a mountain range–thrust up quickly to a great height by tremendous forces. Those forces have waned, and have come to be more than balanced by the opposing erosive forces, which have blunted the sharp peaks, and which are working inexorably to grind the mountains down to rolling hills, a vague reminder of earlier times.
This is perhaps a natural course, but what’s interesting to watch is how QUICKLY it has been happening to the USA. Unlike other empires, the American one will last only a couple of hundred years. Maybe the longevity is inversely proportional to the might of the empire, I don’t know.
What I DO know is that I have never seen a rational analysis of PTO efficiency–not workflow or production.
I wouldn’t have a problem funding the PTO to the tune of $100B, if that was what it was worth. But given the vast resources our society should be able to bring to bear upon the problems with the PTO, the cursory level of analysis and solution is appalling. Ever hear of management science? I’m not talking about the chicken-bleep-type of data collection they do–I’m talking about higher-order activities like interpretation and synthesis.
The vested public-sector interest in the PTO would naturally be totally opposed to any sort of observation, interpretation, synthesis, and intervention that would cast them in any sort of a negative light.
Come on Obama, repeal those presidential orders.
Of course, that will never happen.
Brazil, anyone? The USA is going down, hard and fast.
The one good thing about current examination and fees is that they allow a pro-se to buy an inferior product from the PTO, at a reduced cost. They aren’t forced to spend the $ that a truly meaningful examination would require.
I remember asking a year or so ago, how much people would pay for a basically iron-clad exam by the PTO. I didn’t give any strict criteria as to quality, leaving everybody to interpret it as they wished.
If I remember, most would have paid $25k+, some $50k. The current mechanism at least allows those costs to be spread out, and the gap between current and excellent examination to be taken up by private endeavor, rather than by PTO action. So I suppose that, except in the case where litigation costs are being incurred, the current system may be more economically efficient than one with a better PTO examination.
Of course, if that line of thinking is taken to its logical conclusion, then the PTO should run a mere registration system.
ugh
K,
E.O. 13162? Do ya got the right number? Cause I dont see your point.
If this is the case than why were all the patent examiner jobs removed from the upsto and usajob websites? And what’s the deal with E.O. 13162?
Thanks AJE and 6 for the replies!
6 – The patent families generally work fine if all you’re doing is novelty/patentability/validity work which is essentially what you do as an examiner. The family is supposed to group everything which is based on the same disclosure/priority document (continuations, divisionals, re-exams). Unfortunately they often let c.i.p.s slip in which messes it up.
Our problem as searchers is when we’re doing clearance/fto/infringement work. Then the family gives you a ‘representative’ claim set even though the divisionals are explicity to a completely different claimed invention. That was the point of the examiner restriction in the first place!
(BTW, for Euro searching, the patent families are 100% required. That’s one of the good things about the DWPI database they put on EAST a few years ago.)
Just so you know, as much as we b-tch/laugh about EAST all the time, it is head and shoulders more efficient (read WAY FASTER) for electrical and mechanical work (text and picture searching) than the vendor databases which cost 10K and up per year.
Increased fees? What? I have on the other hand seen a tremendous drop in pendenacy… a lot of office actions being issued lately and of better quality than I’m used to seeing.
Increased fees? What? I have on the other hand seen a tremendous drop in pendenacy… a lot of office actions being issued lately and of better quality than I’m used to seeing.
Nope sorry man I haven’t heard much about that. I was actually wondering about it myself.
I rather like the family groupings myself, or at least I did at the presentation where they were used. I’m not sure how to use them in east right now because I haven’t fiddled with it. But occasionally I run into a huge family or three in my search and wish I didn’t have to flip through the same family members several times.
I think it was working well, iirc. If the family is relevant, even a little bit, then show me the whole family at once and get it over with. If it isn’t relevant then by all means sort those 16 patents to 1 listing.
“Yes, this is purely a selfish question. All we want is access to all of the patents available on the INTERNET at the EPO, KIPO, JPO, SIPO and WIPO websites.”
lulz keep dreaming. Maybe by 2020. I’d like to have essentially a WELL DONE east page that is on the interweb myself. But again, that’s just a dream.
Something I did not know, which you insiders might like to know, is apparently the office spent millions and millions on upgrading the systems/making new systems but then the projects were botched. That’s the rumor anyway.
“this chart apparently contains only appeals from district court proceedings, and does not appear to include appeals from the PTO or ITC).” — sounds like another chart is needed.
Yes we’ve seen the first “betas” for workflow (beta is in quotes because I wouldn’t classify what they showed us as betas, they’re more like thoughts on a chalkboard). No we haven’t see an updated search.
6 – I’ve seen the fliers for the various workflow software betas sitting around the Roundhouse cafe, but I haven’t seen anything about updating the search software. You seen anything?
Yes, this is purely a selfish question. All we want is access to all of the patents available on the INTERNET at the EPO, KIPO, JPO, SIPO and WIPO websites. And full text searchable. And please, no ridiculous patent family groupings based on priority documents. (Some cool selective coloring of key words and mosaics wouldn’t be bad either, but they don’t ask us in the PSF.)
“16% increase of FY2011 and a 34% increase of FY2010 spending”
. . . ALL of which should be spent at the BPAI to help tackle their massive backlog . . .
I was saying it in jest man, chillax. Still imma be there when the presumption dies.
“the day the presumption of validity died”
You’re even worse than some of the people who have been to law school.
There will always be a presumption of validity. At worst, it will be brought into line with the presumptions of validity in all the other countries that generate the majority of US patent applications. Which, for reasons I can’t explain, will destroy innovation forever somehow.
Also, set your calendars for Monday, April 18, 2011, Microsoft v I4i at the USSC a.k.a “the day the presumption of validity died”.
By the by, a DC has found a “purple squirrel” business method that supposedly passes the abstract idea analysis but does not pass MOT.
link to 271patent.blogspot.com
On the other hand, perhaps the court simply screwed up the abstract idea analysis as I noted and explained in my comment there. I suppose we may see an appeal.
I’ll take my $100k in small unmarked bills, please.
Or maybe that spiffy new examination software suite they’ve got some contractors working on. That’d be nice, too.
Let’s hope that the PTO gets more resources and that more resources can lead to better (e.g., faster) outcomes.
I guess he read my request for a raise. I sent it like a few weeks ago. Seriously though I only asked for a couple million.
Hello $$$.
Comments are closed.