70 thoughts on “Rejection Perception

  1. 7

    Moved up here from the deeply nested (and already multi-topic) subthread, Joachim expressed:

    USPTO agency capture and agency corruption more of an imminent threat to the US patent system than judicial ignorance, which seems more correctable if we do our jobs correctly.

    This is worth its own subthread.

    “Agency capture” is a real concern, and one that should not be dismissed. Rather, the agency should be held responsible and should really follow the rule of 37 CFR 1.2 with sunlight – and no shadow work from the like of the remaining SAWS-like programs.

    That being said, “agency capture” is also something that infects the current day Congress. Of course, this type of capture is nothing new, but the likes of cases like Citizens United have exacerbated the impact from monied “voice$.”

    Lastly, I would implore Joachim to take a closer look at the writings of the Supreme Court, noting exactly who is saying exactly what exactly when. It is a fallacy to believe that any amount of “those scriveners” “doing our jobs correctly” will matter one whit in “more correctable… judicial ignorance.”

    Certain Surpremes certainly have their minds made up no matter how well we may do our jobs.

  2. 6

    In other news, some derpshert named Patrick Zuili floats the latest maximalist conspiracy theories (eg “panel stacking”) at the CAFC and gets the back of the hand.

    You guys are p a t h e t ic.

    1. 6.1

      Some of us have noted that “floats the latest maximalist conspiracy theories” is none of that.

      There is no “conspiracy” involved, as the power to stack panels is a KNOWN power.

      There is no “maximalist” time to this, as – again – this power to stack panels is KNOWN and has existed like forever. Even the Alappat case dealt with a stacked panel.

      ALL that we have here is (again) Malcolm reacting to some pro-patent voice in his typical anti-patent screed.

      You really need to get into a different line of work Malcolm.

    2. 6.2

      MM : The google Pup pet

      telling us about a case that involves Google where Ms Lee & PTAB did nothing wrong because Patrick Zuilie did not have evidence

      Let us have discovery on all the email and text of Ms Lee and the PTAB and then find out if Patrick Zuilie has any reason the complain.

      Read it for yourself guys .. the Opinion

      link to cafc.uscourts.gov

      MM : the google pup pet coming to defense of his “only do E vil ” company

      1. 6.2.1

        >>We hold that the Asserted Claims are directed to the
        abstract idea of collecting, transmitting, analyzing, and
        storing data to detect fraudulent and/or invalid clicks
        based on the time between two requests by the same
        device or client.

        You can’t make stuff like that up. Alice is a disgrace.

        MM probably doesn’t work directly for Google, but one of the “non-profits” that have been set-up by K Street people to lobby against patents.

        1. 6.2.1.1

          Alice may or may not be a disgrace, but I don’t think this result is required by Alice.

          The Court in Alice made the choice to decline to “labor to delimit the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category in this case.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2357 (2014). One problem, as you’ve suggested with your witch humor, is that absent such elucidation of what qualifies as an abstract idea for purposes of the eligibility exception, actors have been free to characterize nearly anything as an abstract idea for purposes of the exception.

          1. 6.2.1.1.1

            Are you familiar with the term “Void for Vagueness,” JCD?

            1. 6.2.1.1.1.1

              I’m aware of the general doctrine with respect to finding a statute or rule unconstitutional, but I can’t say that I have spent a lot of time thinking about it or looking into it.

              I guess the first question is: what is it that you are wanting to be found void? I mean the first order answer may be “the eligibility exceptions”, but how does that work legally? Is it PTO guidance on patent eligibility? Is it Supreme Court jurisprudence articulating the eligibility exceptions?

              Even with my (admittedly limited) understanding, I know that the doctrine is sometimes applied with respect to civil penalties or even an injury in the form of the potential for an increased future penalty (see, e.g., FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 2307 (2012)), but has it ever been applied in this type of context?

              With respect to a challenge to PTO guidance or rules, it seems like there might be a stronger challenge in a post grant review context, as an issued patent may allow for an argument regarding “depriv[ation] of … property [in the form of a patent], without due process of law”. Do you have a compelling argument for examination?

              With respect to a challenge to jurisprudence, the only time I’ve ever seen the doctrine applied to judicial action is in the context of judicial formulation of conditions for release (see, e.g., U.S. v. Loy, 237 F.3d 251, 261 (“In the context of the supervised release, however, the condition applicable to a particular prisoner — that is, the ‘law’ being challenged — is created by the judiciary, within the jurisdictional boundaries set by Congress.”).) Is there any precedent supporting application of the doctrine to challenge an appellate court holding?

              1. 6.2.1.1.1.1.1

                is it Supreme Court jurisprudence articulating the eligibility exceptions?

                Yes.

                Given that we (the Royal We, so to speak) have turned a blind eye to the fact that what has happened is that the Court itself has written patent law, the fact of the matter being that the judicial branch has written the law does not (or should not) shield that law as written to be judged under the rubric of Void for Vagueness. The law of 101, as re-written by the Supreme Court is clearly NOT able to be applied in any meaningful “foreseeable” manner given BOTH the number of terms left undefined, as well as the likelihood that different judges will simply view exact same fact patterns in remarkably different ways, thereby generating a “luck of the draw” syndrome.

                We see this now in the manner that cases have “ricocheted” back and forth on very similar technologies.

                but has it ever been applied in this type of context?

                There is nothing limiting the application of the doctrine to the principles involved in patent law.

                As I corrected one (highly esteemed, but asleep at THIS switch) attorney, the concept is applicable outside of the usual application towards criminal law. Quite in fact, when one reviews the doctrine, the application lends itself to those areas where personal liberty AND personal property are at stake.

                Patents, being personal property, are thus are a natural forum for the application of the doctrine.

                With respect to a challenge to PTO guidance or rules,

                Certainly a separate focus, and one that is perhaps EVEN EASIER to contemplate – see the comments as to the fact that an executive agency MUST adhere to the APA and its own restrictions on the treatment of factual matters, ADD to that the notion that the Court “gets” away with its current RE-writing because the Court is engaging in common law development (even a CAFC case explicitly labels the 101 “evolution” as such). Note that such a legal tool is expressly outside the bounds of what the executive branch in general – and the USPTO as an administrative agency within that branch in particular – MAY DO. How much more “compelling” do you need to recognize the separation of powers doctrine in even the limited application of when “common law development” occurs?

                As to “Is there any precedent supporting application of the doctrine to challenge an appellate court holding?” see the applicability of the doctrine REGARDLESS of who is writing the law – and that applicability certainly extends throughout the judicial branch, so any notion that the appellate court need not be concerned is entirely unsustainable on first principles.

                As to previously existing precedent, meh, was there previously existing precedent for the Marbury case? One should not be limited to “previously existing” when one is tackling a problem that may not have been tackled before.

          2. 6.2.1.1.2

            JCD, guys like Night are either confused, or pretending to be confused, by the use of the term “abstract” to describe subject matter that is not truly a new or improved machine, etc. I think they are pretending. They simply cannot be that confused.

            Actually, in my humble opinion, Alice is one of the very best of the Supreme Court cases on 101.

            1. 6.2.1.1.2.1

              Your statement is a condemnation of your own understanding, confusion thereof and pretending all wrapped up in one, Ned.

              Alice is certainly one of the more abysmal Supreme Court interactions with patent law.

              Time for you to stop genuflecting and to actually employ critical thinking outside of the fact that the decision mirrors your desired Ends.

            2. 6.2.1.1.2.2

              ““abstract” to describe subject matter that is not truly a new or improved machine”

              Yes, I’m confused by that use of the word abstract. If you mean not new or improved, then please say “not new or improved.”

            3. 6.2.1.1.2.3

              Your pretending that all these cases are in perfect harmony with one another and that they say what you continually think they say only shows you are the one confused or pretending about 101.

              1. 6.2.1.1.2.3.2

                The Alice/Mayo Test is not witchcraft, but SCOTUS and CAFC case law of judicial exceptions is definitely evolving and can hardly be called consistent.

                The patent entitled Reduction of data from spectral analysis (US 3551658 A) is considered the first software patent. It was filed September 2, 1969 and issued December 29, 1970.

                The claims are directed to mathematical formulae and natural phenomena and either directly or indirectly (112 sixth paragraph) include a limitation of doing the calculation automatically (on a computer). The claims probably don’t pass the Alice/Mayo Test today.

                I cringe whenever I hear or read the phrase “something more” of this test.

                Yet I doubt that Thomas Jefferson, who was a leading late and early post Enlightenment intellectual, would have considered the test horrible.

                Having been burnt out of my apartment in early January, I had time in the evening to go through 101 cases.

                I put my ideas about eligibility in a three part article that starts with Mayo v Prometheus and the ongoing appeal of Vanda v. West-Ward.

                The material won’t help in arguments with an examiner, who only cares about following the MPEP. The material may help a patent prosecutor to put eligibility arguments in a rational order within the Alice/Mayo Test.

                The material may help in dealing with a philosophically-inclined judge in an Article III court.

                The material can be found in three parts and starts at the following link, which compares a Vanda claim with a Prometheus claim.

                link to linkedin.com

                In the third part, I conclude:

                “abstract idea” seems to refer to (old) a posteriori and analytic knowledge that has possibly been divorced from any structure and

                “something more” seems to refer to significant synthetic knowledge, which is found at the point of novelty and which may or may not be found in prior art.

                If you don’t understand the phrases “a posteriori knowledge,” “analytic knowledge,” and “synthetic knowledge,” you will have to read Part II. (Sorry! At least, I am only using Kantian definitions and not the full philosophic apparatus.)

                IANAL, and I am not sure whether my analysis helps the discussion, but I try to keep it interesting and fun.

                1. Alice, of course, is witchcraft. The reason is that it allows a judge to invalidate (burn) any claim (witch) a the SJ stage. And the test is not rational and based on the beliefs of the judge.

                  The abstract witch was created. By the way, it is a matter of record that I predicted Alice about 3 years before it came down. I said the SCOTUS would figure out some way to burn claims at the stake at the SJ stage. And, as soon as Ned pointed me to Rader’s dissent in Bilski (or was it a concurrence), I said that is it. That will be the witch.

                  It was very predictable. If you want to understand what is going on, then read the cases for anti-trust law the way the SCOTUS slowly but surely removed all the teeth from the Sherman Anti-trust act.

                2. And, you are dealing with people that don’t understand science. They don’t understand information processing. They have no idea what they are talking about at all. Generally, the people that make it to the SCOTUS are people that put years into showing they will toe-the-line.

                  They are not the sort of people to look up to.

                  And, —again–this is not statutory interpretation. And, you are trying to treat the law like it is evolving common law. That is really wrong what is going on. The statutes say what 101 is. The SCOTUS should only be limiting this by parts of the statute that are unconstitutional.

                  Think about that. Not evolution of federal common law. Or at least only for a narrow subject of what is unconstitutional. The SCOTUS is completely off the rails.

                3. I was under the impression that the judicial exceptions, the Doctrine of Equivalents, and the Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents were all part of judge-made common law.

                  In any case, I am not convinced that Congressmen are any more capable of understanding science, technology, and engineering than SCOTUS.

                  To tell the truth, I lean more to considering USPTO agency capture and agency corruption more of an imminent threat to the US patent system than judicial ignorance, which seems more correctable if we do our jobs correctly.

                4. “the judicial exceptions”

                  Are part of federal common law, but they are based on supposedly it being unconstitutional for the USPTO to grant a claim to a judicial exception.

                  So, this is very narrow.

                5. The power of the Supreme Court to set the meaning of the term “invention” though the application of the power of “common law” law development (vis a vis their judicial exceptions) was REMOVED by Congress in the Act of 1952.

                  In its place, and carved out of the prior single paragraph, Congress put into place 35 USC 103.

                  That we have allowed the Act of 1952 to be overwritten by the Judicial Branch is one of today’s most egregious Constitutional crises. Sadly, this has occurred (in part) due to the “slowly boiling frog” syndrome and the erosion of what Congress did in 1952 over multiple Supreme Court cases (aided and abetted by those attorneys who feel NO COMPUNCTION with placing the Supreme Court itself ABOVE the Constitution).

                6. Anon, you really have to read Neilson v. Hartford, the source (together with Boulton and Watt v. Bull) of the law we have that they regarding 101, to really understand what the issue is. The issue is whether the patent is on a principal in the abstract or on a new manufacture (in the U. S., machine, manufacture, composition or process). A law of nature, a phenomena of nature, or things of nature cannot be the subject of a patent. Only applications of these principles can be.

                  The requirement for public use or knowledge novelty prior to the filing of the application is a separate requirement, as is the requirement of novelty prior to the invention. 103 is about the latter requirement.

                7. Another flippin post vanishes…

                  Ned,

                  You really need to read (understand, and not want to denigrate or otherwise diminish) the Act of 1952.

                  And I would suggest that you read (understand, and not want to denigrate or otherwise diminish) the views as expressed by the Jurist with the most knowledge on what Congress did in the Act of 1952.

                  You of course are familiar with that person, even as you constantly seek to denigrate that person based on your own desired ends.

                8. Ned,

                  Process is NOT “manufacture” as you continuously attempt to subvert that statutory category.

                  We both know this is directly tied to your Ends-desired prohibition on Business Methods (which as you are well aware were NOT eliminated in Bilski even though for years after that decision you attempted to misrepresent).

            4. 6.2.1.1.2.4

              Ned, seriously? There are so many highly respected former judges and academics that simply are in disbelief that our patent system is being eaten by Alice.

              Please try to give us some definition of abstract (keeping in the mind the ladders of abstraction.)

              “Alice is one of the very best of the Supreme Court cases on 101.” I shall hold you to that statement.

              1. 6.2.1.1.2.4.1

                Night, and I am frankly stunned by their apoplexy. They cannot be sincere unless they truly believe that business methods are the stuff of patents.

                1. unless they truly believe that business methods are the stuff of patents.

                  They are.

                  Ned – it is only YOUR dogmatic view to the contrary that is blowing smoke.

                2. Ned, “stunned”? Come on. You know some of these people or at least have read what they think of Alice.

                3. To the extent anyone had any doubts about anon’s motives, his admission here is should remove them.

                4. Night, I think these professors simply do not agree that business methods should excluded from eligibility.

                5. You always try to create these straw men Ned. You know very well that the problems with Alice are not directly related to business methods.

                6. I am puzzled. I thought Ned Heller agreed with me that the R+L Carriers claims should be patent-eligibile. Shouldn’t Ford’s assembly line method have been patent-eligibile when it was new?

                  After spending the last 37 days reading and rereading abstract idea decisions, I think I can give a working definition of “abstract idea” that I could argue before the PTAB or in an article III court.

                  An “abstract idea” is an (perhaps very old) a posteriori and analytic idea that has been drained of all structure.

                  Consider the Rubber-Tip Eraser decision.

                  The idea of itself was “joining by insertion.” I wish that point were explained more clearly in the decision.

                  If I could persuade the Court of the working definition above, the case for eligibility becomes arguable and winnable.

                  I have to admit that the whole “abstract idea” issue irritates me while “something more” sandpapers my brain.

                7. To the extent anyone had any doubts about anon’s motives, his admission here is should remove them.

                  You feign “shock” while for years now I have kept reminding you that your odd Windmill Chase of business methods as de facto not eligible was simply wrong (back even to when Stevens LOST his majority writing position in Bilski when he would have directly rewritten the words of Congress in his attempt to bookend his career with two anti-patent rulings.

                  Ned, your tactics are unethical.
                  Clean them up.

                8. Joachim,

                  An “abstract idea” is an (perhaps very old) a posteriori and analytic idea that has been drained of all structure.

                  I admire your tenacity, but that hammer of yours (philosophy, and “knowledge”) will never be the answer to all of the NON-nails in law.

                  Read again the 101 decisions (the post-1952 ones especially) and note that the claims being tossed are NOT claims “drained of all structure.”

                9. …leastwise the actual claims…

                  Now what the Court does with the leading edge of the “Gist/Abstract” is a different matter; being that the Court (in disregard of 35 USC 112), takes it upon themselves to REdefine the invention to arrive at what they feel the (scurvy) patentee (scrivener) is “really” claiming, and they themselves “Abstract” the claim outside of the actual words of the claim…

  3. 5

    Meh, seems like an ok comic to me.

    1. 5.1

      I know, right?

      And yet look at the single person who most has their knickers in a bunch with this humor: Malcolm.

      And also note that (along with his usual helping of mindless ad hominem) comes the typical Accuse Others meme.

      He launches into a diatribe KNOWN to be false, with his accusation that “certain types” must not “really want solid examination quality,” when ALL ALONG that “certain type” have been very clear as TO wanting examination quality.

      His own “logic” remains abysmal in his screed against what he considers patents “for logic.”

      He attempts to parlay his “feelings” into some “given” that those with whom he does not agree cannot possibly want solid examination quality, which flies in the direct face of those – such as I – that have been strongly expressing the desire for solid examination quality (and have been doing so – consistently).

      ALL that he offers is mindless (and unconnected) ad hominem for his rant of feelings. And that rant comes from a comic panel that reflects the unhappiness with p00r examination!

      He would seek to elevate the use of “templates” in some mindless manner, when the issue is NOT the use of templates per se.

      That’s a nice straw man that he has created.

      Templates very much have their place. But like ANY beginning attorney is taught, one does not BLINDLY and UNTHINKINGLY just use any ol’ template. The choice, use, and modifications of templates IS what is taught. But he does NOT include that in his rant, because then his rant would be seen for the empty-of-actual-logic and mere exposition of his (rather unfounded) feelings against anyone not in his own “bucket.”

      1. 5.1.1

        Repu k k k es and glibs wouldn’t know funny if it crawled up their behinds and pitched a circus tent.

        1. 5.1.1.1

          Nice one bucketing – It is humorous that you fail to see that your reactionary rant proves the point of the post.

          Thanks for that.

        2. 5.1.1.2

          Which is why “glibs” lost the meme war of 2017! Oh wait, no, they won the meme war of 2017, by a lot. The left can’t meme bruh, get over it.

    2. 5.2

      I thought it was pretty funny, and it was tactful in dealing obliquely rather than explicitly with the not-so-small matter of the lack of command of English among many USPTO employees (including, sadly, many examiners). It does not attack any particular employee, but it does question the hiring practices of the USPTO. That’s fair.

  4. 4

    MM has turned into quite a whiner. Odd, considering when we started blogging together patents were worth about 10 times more than they are now.

    His side is winning big time.

    1. 4.1

      That winning only urges on the whining.

  5. 3

    Wow – the “feelings” sure are touchy today.

    Bottom line folks is that the cartoon resonates because of “The Truth” of it.

    There is no need for Malcolm’s “one bucketing and 0bsess10n with Gene to come screaming through.

    1. 3.1

      the “feelings” sure are touchy today.

      Nobody could have predicted this response.

      It has nothing to do with “today” and everything to do with this already tiresome derpshertery going beyond tiresome.

      If it was remotely funny that would be one thing. But it never is. Worse than that, it’s representative of the sort of mindless mo u th breather bottom rung driveling ign 0rance that already has multiple platforms all over the Internet. What’s the purpose of posting it here?

      I won’t even get into the silliness of an alleged “cartoonist” who can’t even draw trying to make hay out of the fact there is a lot of “copying and pasting” involved in a repetitive data processing task. In the law firm where we would never hire someone like this Chung derpshert, we use things called “templates”. Take a guess as to why that is.

      1. 3.1.1

        So, submit your own cartoons.

    2. 3.2

      the cartoon resonates

      LOL

      No doubt it “resonates” with you. It’s the familiar smell of that monkey p00 that’s smeared all over the walls of your echo chamber.

      1. 3.2.1

        Translation:

        “Anything NOT anti-patent is monkey p00”

        Yes, Malcolm, your feelings are noted.

        1. 3.2.1.1

          There’s a vast universe between “anything NOT anti-patent” and whatever you want to call Chung’s br@ inless w @nking.

          I prosecute patents, too. So do my co-workers. We understand how the USPTO works. But somehow we manage to rise above the derpshert conspiracy theories and

          Of course, we’re usually dealing with relatively highly educated people. All bets are off when you stick your face into the logic patenting muckworld. You get the Examining corps you deserve. What’s bizarre is the idea that if Examination of logic patents was “better” that you and your cohorts (like Chung) would be better for it.

          Trust me: that’s not how it’s going to play out. I’m already ten years ahead of your dmb@ss legal theories and that’s always been the case. You want smarter Examiners? You want better Examination of your junky logic patents? Of course you don’t. What you want is a free pass where you get to scriven your way into the blue sky. Every word, after all, has a different fake “structure” from every other word. So you recite a “new” functionality using different words and that’s necessarily a “new” improvement and now you want your patent and every attempt to rebuff you is going to be deemed “lawless”.

          Yes, we know very well how it works in your world, “anon.” You and your cohorts are just pieces of shirt. Rotten people.

          1. 3.2.1.1.1

            translation: “Wah, anything not exactly I feel is monkey p00p”

            We heard your feelings the first time Malcolm.

          2. 3.2.1.1.2

            What does MM mean by logic programming?

            In Direct digital control of rubber molding presses(US 4344142 A), Diehr was not performing logic programming. Diehr was building a device controller.

            I think MM means computerizing pencil-and-paper calculations. Mathematicians refer not to logic programming but to effective calculability.

            When I am doing logic programming, I am typically programming an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC). In other words, I am building a circuit. My program for the circuit may look a lot like a C/C++ program, but I built the circuit with all sorts of real circuit considerations like timing. I did not write a program to be read and executed by a general purpose processor.

            I would intend for my ASIC to be used as a component in an even larger circuit.

            I don’t think that anyone denies that while important aspects of IC protection have tended to come under the SCPA and TRIPS, I have created a statutory device with my logic programming.

            Feel free to correct me. While I have developed logic for ASICs, I have never dealt with this area of IP law.

            1. 3.2.1.1.2.1

              I don’t think that anyone denies that while important aspects of IC protection have tended to come under the SCPA and TRIPS, I have created a statutory device with my logic programming.

              With all due respect, you have not been paying attention as that is exactly what certain sAme ones have been denying.

              For years.

              It comes down to a rather simple point that is refused to be treated with ANY inte11ectual honesty by the anti-patentists: software is equivalent to – and that is equivalence in the patent sense which is NOT meant to mean “exactly the same as” as some of those unwilling to be honest oh so typically attempt to kick up dust with – equivalent to hardware and equivalent to firmware.

              As to what you are “supposing” Malcolm might be “meaning,” you err as to give Malcolm ANY credit whatsoever. He only looks at “logic” and attempts to say “software IS logic.” He has nothing else in his mind (if even that constitutes something in his mind).

              Can this be, given that one cannot copyright logic, but one can copyright software?

              No. Of course not.

              But Malcolm does not care.

              He.
              Just.
              Does.
              Not.
              Care.

              The other aspect on the discussion point (to your notion of effective calculability) is to understand the differences between:

              math,
              applied math, and
              Math(S).

              The archives of this blog have my past detailed explications of these three concepts and how they are to be understood in light of patent law.

  6. 2

    This Chung cre ep is one of the least funny human beings on the planet. It’s like he goes over to Big Jeans place and scoops up the concentrated st Oo pit and makes a cartoon out of it.

    Avoid his firm. That’s lesson one. No sign of intelligent life there.

    And Dennis pull the plug already. This is embarrassing to the profession, not just your blog.

    1. 2.1

      Get a grip.

      1. 2.1.1

        I’ve got a far, far better grip on reality than Chung.

        That’s the point.

        There’s just no need to broadcast more of this @ hole “derp, the PTO suhcks, bro!” g@ rbage than is already being broadcast. There’s entire blogs devoted to projecting this cr @p along with a thousand conspiracy theories every day.

        Just a friendly reminder of the basic facts: across the board, the PTO makes far far more errors in the applicant’s favor than not. It’s exactly because of that procedures like IPRs were created. It’s exactly because of those errors that the system is deluged with reams upon reams of ineligible junk and it’s why 101 is being used to crush that j unk out of existence (meanwhile more ineligible ju nk is STILL being granted, as anyone can see). That’s why shirtheads like Chung and Company are frustrated. They prefer the free-for-all. That levels the playing field so even cr @ppy attorneys can thrive. The thing they can’t stand is when someone turns on the lights.

        Well, I’m turning on the lights. Deal with it.

        1. 2.1.1.1

          You think that your whining is “turning on the lights”…?

        2. 2.1.1.2

          “I’m turning on the lights. Deal with it.”

          It’s one thing to tirelessly post your philosophy into a black hole of the internet. It’s quite another to think it’s accomplishing something.
          L.O.L.

          On another note, why is no one talking about PTAB’s Ex Parte affirmance rate in business methods? They are going beyond ‘turning on the lights’ and into ‘turning on the flamethrowers’!

          1. 2.1.1.2.1

            Ben >>> On another note, why is no one talking about PTAB’s Ex Parte affirmance rate in business methods? They are going beyond ‘turning on the lights’ and into ‘turning on the flamethrowers’!

            Yup. It is real bad.

          2. 2.1.1.2.2

            I don’t “think”. I know. This community is smaller than you think.

            At some point it got infested with some real pieces of work, some of the same types of scuzzy sorry excuses for human beings that are infesting the White House now. And the worst thing you can do is sit there and pretend it’s normal. It’s not. Patenting logic and information is not “normal”. It’s ins @ne and the only people who support are greedy self interested people or people who are totally clu e less. Just pay close attention. You’ll see.

            1. 2.1.1.2.2.1

              “I don’t “think”.”

              At least you’re admitting it now.

            2. 2.1.1.2.2.2

              This community is smaller than you think.

              What the H does a statement like that even mean?

              Your ElitISM is showing. Too bad, you are on the wrong side of the fence as far as understanding the propriety of the actual law written by Congress.

              You are doing that “one-bucketing” thing again and labelling ANYONE that does not have your (rather odd – and quite limited) view of “the proper place” of patents into the “bucket” of “greedy,” when – in fact – it is quite proper for those wanting patents to want them TO make money.

              Yes, patents are – gasp – an item to make money with. They are – gasp – a piece of personal property.

              Your only too often exposed “feelings” leaning as they to do to the extreme liberal left must cause you no end of mental anguish as you (supposedly) work FOR clients TO create for them something that you so evidently despise.

              Do you even realize that your spite and enmity which pervades your every post comes in no small part because you (claim) to do that which you so vociferously despise?

              Maybe you should get into a different line of work, one in which you can really believe in the work product produced and one in which you can actually find delight in providing something for your clients for them to make money with.

            3. 2.1.1.2.2.3

              Even for you, 2.1.1.2.2 is bad. You really are sinking to new lows.

              I think my views are actually mainstream for those patent attorneys not working for Google or the like or being paid off by Google or the like.

          3. 2.1.1.2.3

            I see what he’s saying about “shining a light.” He fancies himself as a watchdog for intellectual property matters. In his troubled mind, he is the IP Watchdog.

            1. 2.1.1.2.3.1

              Add that to him being the Trump of these boards…

              (I have stated this previously, but under a different ‘meme’: he is the self-appointed guardian of the Fields of Rye – in the JD Salinger mode)

  7. 1

    I wonder if Mr. Chung cleared it with his partners and clients before he published an unprofessional “comic” that is incredibly insulting to examiners.

    1. 1.1

      Dave was also a Patent Examiner in an electrical group at the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

    2. 1.2

      The robot was being hired for an examiner position? I thought it was applying for a position in the pre-exam corps.

    3. 1.3

      I doubt any of his clients are concerned. They are only concerned with whether he’s getting their cases allowed.

      As for his partners, if his clients aren’t concerned, they’re not concerned.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 Notify me of followup comments via e-mail.

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture