21 thoughts on “The Removal of Section 102(f)’s Inventorship Requirement; the Narrowness of Derivation Proceedings; and the Rise of 101’s Invention Requirement

  1. 20

    This is the perfect blog for anyone who wants to know about this topic. The article is nice and it’s pleasant to read. I have known very important things over here. I admire the valuable advice you make available in your expertly written content

  2. 19

    The number of supervisory examiners or primary examiners may be even more instructive than total examiners.

  3. 18

    We all understand exactly where you’re coming from
    As do “we all” understand exactly where you are coming from.

    The problem with that is that this is supposed to be the “new” Patently-O, wherein this type of non-value added Trainwreck comments (i.e. yours) were not to be posted.

    Prof. Crouch, more dead prisoners.

  4. 15

    While my point is pertinent, yours is just trolling

    It just looks that way to you, anon. In fact, I merely used a real-world example to highlight the absurdity of your comment re the “record number of rejections.”

    But keep making that important “point.” We all understand exactly where you’re coming from.

  5. 10

    You mean that your predictions of the USPTO throttling the issuance of all these patents didn’t come true?

  6. 9

    my guess is that many are busy with trademark prosecution, litigation, opinion work, licensing, etc.

  7. 8

    the (record) number of rejections…

    Great point! And instead of focusing on innocent people killed by robot planes we should celebrate the record number of people not killed in jousting competitions this year!!!!!!! Yay!!!!

    Just for the sake of fairness and accuracy, of course.

  8. 7

    Welcome back, sockpuppets!

    It’s true that more invalid patents than ever are being issued by the USPTO every week but it doesn’t make me cry.

    It makes me laugh because I remember well all the Very Serious People here and elsewhere who were so sure that KSR was the end of the world for the patent shuckers. And then the same hysterics with Bilski.

    I’m still waiting for those shoes to drop.

  9. 6

    How about a graph that plots the number of issued patents together with the number of examiners employed by the agency?

  10. 5

    …as well as the (record) number of rejections…

    (Like this point hasn’t been made four or five times previously)

  11. 4

    OK, I just found the January 13, 2012 piece which estimates the number of active attorneys/agents at around 26,000. So this comes out to fewer than 10 patents issued per active reg. no. Not exactly Goldman Sachs money for the median patent prosecutor, is it?

  12. 3

    It would be interesting to see a graph presenting the number of utility patents issued / the number of active, registered patent attorneys and agents, year-by-year.

  13. 2

    That would be a lot more meaningful if plotted together with the number of filings or pending applications.

Comments are closed.