|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT |
Lawyer: But this isn't a second submission, it's a new invention
with first submission!
In which case the first submission becomes
prior art and the new invention had better be substantially different otherwise
it will have to be rejected due to prior art.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
Remember that you're dealing with word smith's that like to argue.
Word smiths of the type willing to argue "all doesn't mean all".
Require all word meanings not found in the standard patent
legalese dictionary be explicitly defined and keep that definition record with
the patent in question. By the way the standard patent legalese dictionary
shall only have one definition per word. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 09 2012 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
Oh...remember that protesting a rejection is another 3X. :)
And set the assumption to...the examiner is right. :)
At this point, the rational USPTO clerk has the option of
rejecting annoying/unclear patents which:
(a) increases revenue
(b) is actually the right thing
or accepting annoying/unclear patents which:
(a) loses revenue
(b) is a bad thing
The clerks will tent to go with the money, all else being
equal.
So, the clients will notice that resubmission is really
expensive and start forcing lawyers to write clear
patents...
Some will still be granted, but the current morass of
'probably not legitimate BS' will dissipate.
--Erwin[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 09 2012 @ 10:27 AM EDT |
The thing is...lawyers will argue forever _if it benefits
them_.
If arguing forever does significant financial harm to their
clients (needs to significantly exceed lawyer's fees) -
they'll stop or face malpractice charges.
If need be, simply bill all unsuccessful appeals time X2 to
the patent applicant.
--Erwin[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
