By Dennis Crouch
The USPTO’s backlog of requests for continued examination (RCEs) continues to grow. The chart above shows the backlog of RCEs that have not received a first action on the merits since the RCE filing. The increased backlog is explained by both a slight rise in the number of RCEs being filed each month and a slight drop in the number of RCEs being examined. The drop in examination rates for these RCEs is explained by changes in the docketing, quota, and count system for examiners. These changes implemented by former Director Kappos slightly decreased the “counts” given for examining RCEs and also allowed examiners to delay examining RCEs without direct penalty. You’ll note the annual dip in the backlog around September – the time when some examiners rush to make their end-of-fiscal-year numbers.
The chart below shows the number of RCEs filed each month and also the number of RCEs that receive a first action on the merits (office action or allowance). These figures are smoothed with a six-month moving average. The gap between these figures represent the monthly growth in unexamined-backlog.
The USPTO has recognized that the rapid growth in RCE backlog is unacceptable and has been searching for the best response. As a stop-gap measure, USPTO Commissioner of Patents Peggy Focarino has announced that the count system will temporarily revert to the old system that gave full credit for RCE work. Focarino writes:
[T]he RCE credit will be adjusted from 1.75 (or 1.5) to 2.0 until September 30, 2013. . . . With this additional credit, I am asking each of you to help reduce the RCE backlog. With these changes it is anticipated that the RCE backlog will be reduced significantly by the end of this fiscal year. . . . Thank you for your continued hard work and dedication as we strive to be the Best Place to Work in the Federal Government.
My understanding is that examiners will now receive 1.25 counts for a first action following an RCE and an additional .75 counts at the disposal. This puts RCEs on par with original examination. Taken together with the increased fees for RCE filing, I expect that this change will entirely stem the tide of RCE growth. However, it does not address the very real concern of why so many RCEs are necessary.
It’s a royal you, 6
(geesh)
A rose by any other name smells as sweet, my friend.
(Uh oh, the red roses are sure to make Leopold charge)
You never answered the choice I gave you, Mr Card: bourbon or lollipop.
(although I think you indulge in both)
I see you want more puppy training. How nice.
“anon abuses sockpuppets for charity purposes only.”
I abuse you for the fun of it, Francis (and because you ask me so nicely to hand your head back to you).
Your head, sir.
You never answered my question to you Malcolm: does your email use a spam filter?
LOL
This is a blog and deserves a far less critical effort on nits.
On the other hand, it is very telling when it comes to law and policy, and what those indicators portend (and it doesn’t portend too well for you).
False spin doesn’t work for Malcolm. Why do you think it will work for you?
When did you stop beating your wife, anon?
I was actually the first to attest that my posts are not the result of any such “paid blogger” scheme
anon abuses sockpuppets for charity purposes only.
And I’m sure that Prof. Hricik will confirm that anon “was the first to attest” that he was not a paid blogger. Just a guy in his mom’s basement waiting for the local elementary school day to finish up so he can head over with some lollipops.
…when Prof. Crouch first introduced his ethics assistant (who is on current sabbatical clerking for Judge Rader).
LOL. Professor Hricik is going to be thrilled to learn that he is Professor Crouch’s “ethics assistant.”
you HAVE NO IDEA what type of claims I file.
Based on your comments here, anon, we all have a pretty good idea of the quality of your patent applications.
You ASSume that the flow MUST be an either-or, when in the real world (outside the confines of the cushy government job you have) ALL of the work would be done – on time. In our world, you do not clock out at 5 and watch the backlog grow and grow.
LOL.
Of course, anon lives in a make-believe world where his attorney can avoid learning about relevant prior art by instructing mailroom staff to screen registered letters and discard any letters that refer to art that is relevant to anon’s patent applications so the attorney never learns about them.
When are you going to tell us the name of that law firm, anon? I mean, you could just make the name up, just like you made up the imaginary scheme you described to us.
“Don’t waste time responding to anon. He’s a paid blogger.”
Still have your undies in a bunch because I merely pointed out that you and NWPA are very much alike?
Still trying those Malcolm false spin tricks too? I was actually the first to attest that my posts are not the result of any such “paid blogger” scheme when Prof. Crouch first introduced his ethics assistant (who is on current sabbatical clerking for Judge Rader).
False spin doesn’t work for Malcolm. Why do you think it will work for you? Perhaps you just need some more of that puppy-nose-in-your-own-crp treatment…
I rarely spend more than an hour preparing a pre-appeal request.
I have many friends at the PTO. I’ve been told that the level of preparation and review during pre-appeal and appeal conferences varies widely, both from TC to TC and within the TC’s. However, I’ve never heard of anything resembling “being look over carefully.”
“…the PTO wouldn’t have a retention problem.”
The PTO’s retention problem was pretty much solved by the financial crisis of 2008. There will always be turn over, but it’s far less than what it was in the 2003-2008 (pre-September 15, 2008) time frame.
The PTO is actually getting very good response to its job postings.
Don’t waste time responding to anon. He’s a paid blogger.
So your solution would be for Examiners to work 80 hour weeks? What would that do to the quality of examination you supposedly hold dear? Or would your solution be to hire more new examiners, that you’ll promptly complain about? Plus, if this job was as “cushy”, easy, and/or enjoyable as you suggest, the PTO wouldn’t have a retention problem.
The difference between my “cushy government job” and that of a private firm is that the private firm can turn down work if they’re overloaded. We can’t say, “Sorry, we’ve got more patent applications that we can process, and we can’t examine yours”.
But whatever. Apparently you have an irrational hatred for every patent examiner and/or government employee out there. We all do the work that’s expected of us (else we lose our rating and get fired), and a lot of us try to strive to do the best job we can in the time we’re given and with the tools we’re given. But hey, I’m sure it’s as simple of a problem that can be solved by exclaiming, “just do your jobs!!” (like we’re not currently). I strive to be professional in my job and in the rare times I post on these forums. I guess the same can’t always be expected of stakeholders.
“How about getting together for a beer sometime & catch up on old times?”
Like you’d have the courage to actually show up.
Lulz
Happy birthday Francis
We just did this
Did your machine translation program go on the fritz again?
your acquiescence to this, remember?
Why did you stop hiding behind the bush near the school?
The problem with filing a Request for a Pre-Appeal Brief Review is that it is too easy for the Examiner to check the box “Proceed to Appeal.” In that case, the clients gets billed for two projects instead of one.
The only difference is that you can’t bill as many hours to your clients for the pre-appeal request as you can for a full blown appeal brief.
See above.
You remain off point, and you remain vacuous.
Thanks.
“might as well just get claims that are as broad as possible. Hence the unfortunate facts about the patents that are asserted by trolls. Shall we revisit those facts, anon?”
LOL – another self-induced FAIL, Malcolm. We just did this – Peter Zura and the 271 blog article, remember? Your acquiescence to this, remember?
Keep flailing, Malcolm, keep flailing.
try staying on point, Malcolm
I am very much “on point”, anon. The point is that you’re a hypocritical and pathological l-ar who will do and say anything in defense of the Patent Fluffers Club of America. Your fellow patent fluffin’ buddies can bring up dictators and communism whenever they want and somehow you never complain about them being “on point”. On the contrary, you’re always right there cheerleading with them.
EVERYONE wants as broad (and valid) a patent as possible.
“As valid as possible”? That’s interesting. What if there isn’t any possible validity? What then, anon? I suppose then might as well just get claims that are as broad as possible. Hence the unfortunate facts about the patents that are asserted by trolls. Shall we revisit those facts, anon? Believe it not, in spite of your attemps to smear the messengers, those facts are still out there.
Over the many years you’ve been trolling this blog, anon, I don’t recall you ever questioning the validity or eligibility of an issued patent, except for one: Myriad’s composition claims. Why is that, anon?
Dear Eliza,
MM, aka Malcolm, is a known w@nker.
As I posted, the blame is the other side of the coin of accountability. The fact that you ignore this is part of the problem.
Also, your math and analytical skills are suspect, as clearly the continued growth in the amount of backlog after the RCE level had peaked indicates your analysis is faulty.
It’s pretty basic analysis at that.
Do a study in each art unit of the two or three examiners who have the most RCEs filed on them and see what is learned.
As MM said, I am not assigning blame. I am saying that the initial statement in this thread, that RCE filing have not increased, is false. I am also saying that an increase in filings that occurs all at once and then levels off has as much of an effect on the backlog as an increase in filings that climbs over time. As for blame, well, I see no point in blame. It’s just a simple analysis of cause and effect. If applicant’s want to file more RCEs, that’s their perogative. And given that the Office has a monopoly on patent granting, they need to respond accordingly.
She sounds like she would be making an admission of infringement if this thing had been issued back then. Stup id copiers! OMFG DIE DIE DIE!
“copiers… communist, too”
LOL – try staying on point, Malcolm, and maybe, just maybe, you won’t be seen as the complete a__h0le you accuse others of being.
“like you”
LOL – you continue in your clueless ways, Malcolm, as you HAVE NO IDEA what type of claims I file.
ZERO.
In other words, your reply here is a completely vacuous and meaningless reply – all you can do is attempt an insult in return to my on point counter of Tafas and the claims/continuations rules debacle.
Pretty sweet how evident it is that you are merely trying to kick up dust, Francis.
Immediately above, 6 writes:
“If you literally could not anticipate such a negative limitation based on applicant’s original disclosure then it lacks WD.”
Doesn’t anybody want to challenge that? If not, I’m surprised. For whenever an EPO Examining Division writes it (substituting 123-2 for WD) about this or that claim amendment made by a US patent attorney during examination on the merits, there is an outcry.
Thank you, 6, for making the straightforward uncontentious point in your usual curt style.
Maybe he has personal experience. Like this lady:
link to amazon.com
I have been diagnosed with severe osteoarthritis in my left knee, and sometimes the pain is crippling and horrible where I will be up for hours at night just waiting for something- anything to kick in (oral meds, cream etc)
I put this on and within 10 minutes I was pain free after rubbing it in thoroughly. For an added treat, put it in the fridge to get chilled — very soothing for any musculoskeletal pains!
Of course, she must be one of those “copiers” we keep hearing about. It couldn’t possibly be independent invention. That never happens. Somehow she probably got hold of insider information from Johnson & Johnson. I bet she’s a communist, too.
let the applicants do the work that the office is supposed to do.
I’m not saying everyone should have to do that, anon. I’m saying just whiny — t-tty babies like you should do it if “all you want” is to have the closest art cited against your p.o.s. initially filed claims.
Hello Ned:
I found your non response, response, of (Compare Diehr to Prometheus to Flook).
And since my question on “Integration” is apparently too hard for you. I will be glad to answer it for you.
In Prometheus you have a claim that pre-empts a LoN. In order to discover the pre-emption the Court engaged in two different analysis.
1. Post ( extra) solution activity analysis ( From Flook )
2. Integration Analysis. ( From Diehr )
What the Court did NOT engage in was the MoT.
Nor was there any dissection in the concluding analysis. Indeed the claims were considered as an inseparable whole, ( Integrated).
And once again the claims in Diehr were patented eligible because when considered as a whole ( integrated ) they did not pre-empt an algorithm which the Court considers like a LoN.
Further more, passing the MoT was not ever describe by the Prometheus Court as the determining factor in the Diehr case, ONLY “integration”.
The MoT may have been a clue to the Diehr Court but not passing the MoT was never held as a reason to reject claims at 101, by the Diehr Court or any Court.
The above FACTS can’t be refuted with any Court citations.
CORRECTION facious = facetious.
lil Prick still means what it means.
(In this case, Ned’s “I just responded” WAS his entire (and completely disingenuous) response.)
Thanks anon for exposing Ned. What an intellectually dishonest trick. Rather than make a legitimate and substantive response that will advance the discussion Ned is being a facious lil prick .
And he does this AFTER accusing us both in the other thread of not answering hard questions?
What a hypocrite!
Oh and I noticed in his responses how he is telling MM to boycott your post, apparently because you backed them into a corner on the software debate.
What are these two, in grade school or something?
Don’t talk to anon because he is smarter than us??
QQQQQQ
What a joke.
Another vacuous comment.
Way to go, Malcolm.
6 is busy taking “clueless” lessons from Malcolm.
“No Kidding”
LOL – self defeat without self-realization.
So self-unaware.
“LOL, lack of accountability IS something wrong. You have previously stated that you go along with this crp and that does in fact make you PERSONALLY a part of the problem.”
How do you want me to be accountable for actions taken by someone who does NOT REPORT TO ME you ta rd? Make me director, and I’ll be accountable.
“You have previously stated that you go along with this crp and that does in fact make you PERSONALLY a part of the problem.”
I never stated that I “go along with it”. You fck ing ta rd.
Stop acting like I’m doing something, I’m literally not doing anything remotely relevant to this situation except being the messenger to you. And your dum as thinks shooting the messenger will somehow make things better. God you are a ta rd.
” that excuse is part of the problem.”
What “problem” is it a part of? I have heard of no problem in this entire exchange other than one person not knowing what the tradition is.
“Yes, we know, but thanks for the admission against interests anyway.”
It is no admission against interests you fa gtard. I have no interest at all in what they do. Go d you are so dum.
“By blowing off the actual rejection with some “reply for giggles” and just putting the dep into ind form (your “time saving device”), this move is directly contrary to a full examination (on the merits).”
That “move”? You mean putting the claim into a condition where it can be allowed? That is against a full examination? No “move” the applicant can take can affect whether a “full examination” takes place or not you ta rd.
My doing my job cannot address others you tar d.
IS PART OF THE PROBLEM
Very impressive. Next time try bold, capitalization and italics. That will be REALLY persuasive.
Troll’s rarely if ever prosecute their own patent applications.
No kidding. I wonder why? LOL.
“who equate attempts to regulate patent trolls with communist Russia‘
Another glorious mischaracterization, Malcolm.
Lady Justice would like a word with you.
“Here’s an idea”
LOL – sure, let the applicants do the work that the office is supposed to do.
Express Suicide Document, anyone?
Tafas anyone?
Been there, Malcolm, done that. You and 6 need to use the archive function and spend a few days reviewing the actual history and defeat of the claims/continuation debacle to see where that idea now lays and why.
101,
Ned’s excuses in this manner have been explored before (when he tried that lame-@ss trick with me).
If you click on his hyperlinked name, you will see ALL of his actual posts – including any that did not – for whatever reason – make it to this board.
In this case, Ned’s “I just responded” WAS his entire (and completely disingenuous) response.
He does not respond in any intellectually honest manner, because he cannot – not without torching his agenda, anyway.
“ Not sure why “blame” comes in.”
Of course, you are not sure. You tend to not be able to think about these things in any non-superficial way. “Blame” is the other side of the ownership coin. Not taking ownership of the problem (and even you cannot seriously be saying that there is not a work-to-be-done problem) as exemplified by any (and all) of the Office voices on this thread IS PART OF THE PROBLEM.
I fully understand, thanks.
Your approach, like the other Office voices here is simply off base. You ASSume that the flow MUST be an either-or, when in the real world (outside the confines of the cushy government job you have) ALL of the work would be done – on time. In our world, you do not clock out at 5 and watch the backlog grow and grow.
“been doing it for decades”
Sure, sloth has been around for decades, but what is your point?
“time saving device used by a bureaucracy”
LOL – that excuse is part of the problem.
“signatory examiners, who feel they are more comfy NOT allowing things”
Yes, we know, but thanks for the admission against interests anyway.
“Did I say anything contrary in anything I said in this thread? No? ”
Um, 6, actually yes. By blowing off the actual rejection with some “reply for giggles” and just putting the dep into ind form (your “time saving device”), this move is directly contrary to a full examination (on the merits).
Asinine.
“I stated what the informal policy is”
Sloth is an informal policy? Or was it the signatories’ “no patent for you”?
“as if I PERSONALLY did something wrong” –
LOL, lack of accountability IS something wrong. You have previously stated that you go along with this crp and that does in fact make you PERSONALLY a part of the problem.
No Malcolm, you are the king of FLAIL.
Pay attention to the thread – and what I am actually saying please. Far too often, you are too interested in spin and not fact, and your mischaracterizations simply flounder. Just [shrug] and stand by.
Thanks.
Italics tag off.
“Why do you all try to put words in my mouth”
See my post at 6:25 pm. As for your thinking that I am being disingenuous and using pure hyperbole, I say thee nay. When your side of the equation is represented by 6, Malcolm, and the rest of the little circle, “reasonable” is anything but, and my statements are the paradigm of virtue and accuracy.
“If you can not understand that there are limits, in particular with time”
I never said I don’t understand this. But you don’t understand: THAT’S NOT MY PROBLEM. I never said your job was easy, I just said stop QQ’ing and DO your job. Lack of time is never an excuse to provide a B$ rejection. If you don’t have time to do it right the first time, when will you have time to do it right?
Easy: Do your Fn job
Time for you to leave your fantasy world Malcolm:
1) The patent troll fantasy has been repeatedly debunked by Peter Zura’s 271 Blog article explaining that Troll’s rarely if ever prosecute their own patent applications.
2) “unlimited bites” – has been repeatedly debunked. See Tafas and the claims and continuation rules debacle.
3) “get a broad patent” – Um, EVERYONE wants as broad (and valid) a patent as possible. THAT”S WHAT OUR CLIENTS PAY US TO GET. Your smear attempt at painting this as a “troll” activity necessarily FAILS.
4) “along with 500” Huh? You might want to try basing your accusations in reality.
5) “Why should they have to pay” Nice strawman – no one is making this argument.
I liked the hand wavey part Eugene did where he didn’t bother to cite even one piece of art even for his primary reference.
Because they’re forever hoping (praying really) that the office will all of a sudden miraculously reform itself and all their actions will be perfect. Or at least their clients are. That’s why. And also, even though they don’t want to admit it, they’re probably not competent to do so anyway.
That’s ridiculous. But it’s not a granted claim, is it?
Of course, it’s no less ridiculous than using a computer to identify “available real estate” or turn off your kid’s credit card (or process any other kind of information that was routinely processed before computers). Those sorts of claims are routinely granted by the USPTO and resolutely defended or praised by the same commenters here who think our patent system isn’t sufficiently coddling in its treatment of applicants.
Ned Heller Said : “I just responded.”
Hello Ned:
I know in the past your do dog has eaten your responses, or something like that. Is that what happened this time?
If so will you repost the quote and proper pin cite now please ?
Of course if you want to now admit the Court never said such and you simply made it all up, or made an honest mistake, and thus are wrong, please kindly do so now, and we can all move on.
Thank You
Ned Heller Said : “I just responded.”
Hello Ned:
I do not see a response with the exact quote of the Supreme Court saying, “The integration must modify the otherwise eligible process to produce a new result. If it does not, it is not integrated.” Did you post it in another thread perhaps? Please let me know
Thank You
The patent troll fantasy: file a giant nearly impossible to understand specification and a claim that covers the Internet using words that nobody has ever used before. Then get unlimited bites at the apple for no cost arguing with an Examiner who gets a percentage of pay docked every time he construes the claim in a way that the troll “clearly did not intend”. Get a broad patent, then let the “market” decide how much it’s worth by asserting it against everyone with any money, along with 500 equally sh-tty patents.
Of course, even if that happens, the He-Man Patent Luvvahs Society will still complain. Why should they have to pay any fees at all? Constitution! Innovation! Merka! Rinse. Repeat.
It’s not that hard to cite the closest art the first time. That’s what we’re really wanting.
Here’s an idea: if you want that so badly maybe you should find the closest art yourself and explain how your invention is different, right there in the specification. That would save you time and money. Why wouldn’t you want to save time and money?
I post at Gene’s site fairly frequently.
LOL. Nobody could have predicted.
“The clients are demanding too high a volume.”
Blame the applicants.
Not sure why “blame” comes in. That assumes a mistake has been made. Here the assertion is simply a cause (clients are demanding too high a volume) that explains an an observed effect (processing is slower than it would be under optimal conditions).
Asked and answered Malcolm.
Translation: “I flailed upthread. Weren’t you paying attention?”
Seriously, defend your statement that RCE’s are filed only because of PTO failure. It would be a fascinating fact, if only it were true. So prove it.
“ALL claims are to be examined fully, be it independent or dependent. It is people like you that give examiners, both here & in real life a bad name.”
Why on earth do you say that? Did I say anything to the contrary in anything I said in this thread? No? Then STFU old man.
“Good thing you were never reporting to me or in the art I came up in. You would never have made it with that attitude.”
With what attitude you old stupi d fck? I displayed no “attitude” above, I stated what the informal policy is, boo frakin hoo me a river. Jes us h Chris t, it was your generation that gave us this fed up system in the first place, stop blaming me for it as if I PERSONALLY did something wrong. Because I sure as f did not.
“Do you know how asinine that sounds?”
How asinine? People in my art having been doing it for decades, who am I to contend with TRADITION? Bottom line is, just like official notice, it is just a time saving device used by a bureaucracy. Just deal with it in the time honored fashion and consider the claim more or less unofficially stated as being allowable if put in independent format. Look, there are people, known as signatory examiners, who feel they are more comfy NOT allowing things. You’re dealing with human beings not something rational.
I know what to do ya jack arse, I’m telling you what to do with people that aren’t doing what you’d like.
I personally only use like 3 of the 103 caselaws (ranges and order of steps along with elimination of elements where function not retained) that I know of and yes I know all about the arguments against its use in such a manner and I know all about this that and the other related thereto, and I don’t use them all the time if whatever the limitation is doesn’t seem obvious to me.
Although I totally would use the whole aesthetic changes thing and I’ve considered using the change in shape thing. But the thing is, in my art changing the shape usually leads to some real consequences, so I usually wouldn’t use that even if I started.
So how do you address it supar genius? I mean without making me director of course.
“Of course, you all don’t wan t to hear that from someone in the office, do you.”
That’s exactly what we want to hear. It means that you don’t have your head entirely in some nether region, and would invite a toned down reply.
Thanks.
A great article taht shows how braod some applicants are filing claims.
link to ipwatchdog.com
How’s this sound to you?
1. A method of treating pain by topical application of an analgesic composition to the skin of a patient comprising a) placing an analgesic composition in an environment with a temperature of less than 10° Centigrade, b) keeping said analgesic composition in said environment for a period of time sufficient to reduce the temperature of said composition c) removing said composition from said environment, and d) applying said composition topically to the region of pain.
MVS
I always hated for my examiner’s to give a 1st action final & rarely did myself. It’s not fair to the applicant. The only time I would do it (be it for RCE, FWC, etc.) was when they filed without any response. If there were at least arguments, I wouldn’t make it final because the applicant paid for their 2 new actions. That was the general policy in the art I came up in, as well.
MVS
JD, I thought you were dead. 🙂
Haven’t bothered posting in here just because it is so much like those taking heads on MSNBC. All chanting to themselves.
How about getting together for a beer sometime & catch up on old times? You can tell me about all the exciting searches you did for toilet paper rollers.
MVS
bad joke,
Again, you are arguing things I never said. Pure straw man. Where did you get that I said anything about not reading the spec??
Yes, read the spec, claims, everything. Understand the invention. THEN do the search. That’s what I always preach & do.
My point was about the asinine idea that any new art should be made non-final because, based on that idea, the search was not complete.
My point was, and is, that no matter how completely the spec is read & understood, there are always things that might be added that the art of record does not anticipate or make obvious and thus require some additional search.
Of course, I’ve had all too many cases where art was cited (not applied) in the FAOM & the applicant still amended to read on the cited art. Obviously, the attorney never bothered to look at what was cited or the parts referenced.
MVS
6,
I’ve said it before & will again. You are a f00l. ALL claims are to be examined fully, be it independent or dependent. It is people like you that give examiners, both here & in real life a bad name.
Good thing you were never reporting to me or in the art I came up in. You would never have made it with that attitude.
MVS
bad joke,
How about reading some of the stuff Anon is posting & respond to that. You 2 seem to have a somewhat different opinion on what the examiner should be doing.
And, for the record, I have literally issued thousands of patents & always tried to find something allowable & instruct examiners I trained to do so. You all may not realize it, but my opinions about office quality isn’t that much different from you all (just not as extreme). I think that actions, as a whole, can & should be better across the board. Of course, you all don’t wan t to hear that from someone in the office, do you.
MVS
Anon,
I have said SO many time. Do a complete search, did out what, if anything is, or can be suggested to be, allowable, and do the action. Why do you all try to put words in my mouth?
And as I have repeated the search is supposed to cover what is claimed & reasonably expected amendments. The field of the invention would obviously be included as well as any relevant areas. To say that “any claim by an examiner that he must conduct a new search only means that the first search did not cover the entire application” is being disingenuous and pure hyperbole and you know it.
If you can not understand that there are limits, in particular with time, as to what can be searched. All “relevant” art should be searched, yes. But that is different from saying that “all possible” art should be searched & made of record.
MVS
bad joke,
The MPEP indicates that the search is supposed to cover what is claimed as well as what can reasonably be expected to be added by amendment. This is what I was referencing if you my remarks again. This discussion was about how comprehensive the search should be.
That’s one of the problems with this blog. A person responds to one point and someone else attacks you on a different issue because they read the remarks out of context.
MVS
Anon, I still don’t understand your point, and maybe you don’t understand what I previously said. Let’s keep it a simple analogy: let’s say you’re an attorney with a firm, they’re getting a steady stream of work, and you can write 4 applications a month (I have no idea what typical attorney workload is, or if you even write and prosecution patent applications). Now, lets assume companies A-C have 2 new patent applications they’d like drafted each month. A reasonable approach would be to work on each in the order they’re given to you. However, let’s say your boss tells you not to ever work on any applications from company “C” until all of those from companies A and B are completed. The result is you never work on applications from company C, since you’re constantly getting work from companies A and B which you must do first. That’s what’s happening to RCEs, at least on my docket. My docket is constantly refilled with new CONs and DIVs, and those CONs and DIVs are pushed to the front of the line as far as oldest new assignment every time, no matter when they were docketed to me. See the problem yet?
You are welcome.
Here’s a clue for you, 6tard: if the only way you can reject a dependent claim is by “taking Official Notice that it’s inherently obvious to optimize the prior art through routine experimentation and optimization as a matter of design choice, then just indicate the claim allowable if rewritten in independent form. In other words, if the feature is not within the scope and content of the prior art, or if it is but it wouldn’t have been obvious to modify a reference, or combine references, to provide the feature, the claim is allowable.
You should know this by now.
Asked and answered Malcolm.
You might want to get a clue and try reading the rest of the posts on the thread instead of spending your time on a vacuous anti-software patent frolic.