|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 04:37 AM EDT |
In this case you make use of ways to challenge the rejection. But this should be
based on your original wording. If your original working was not clear enough,
then that is your mistake and your problem. The fix for that is a new
application with clear wording, and the penalty is a new priority date, and the
possibility that you will loose your patent if someone else publishes or patents
in the meantime.
Hmm. Patentees taking great care to make their patents clear and specific.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 08:13 AM EDT |
I'm sure that does happen, but there is a process
for appeal.
The problem with endless continuations is that
there is too much opportunity for gaming the
system. And looking at the stupid patents that
have issued, I think we can assume that when
examiners make mistakes, it is usually in favor
of the patent issuing.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: globularity on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 08:34 AM EDT |
If the examiner claims that the invention cannot be implemented, then why was
the implementation not demonstrated? If the patent application is so poorly
worded that an examiner cannot grasp it's utility, what hope has the community
got.
It should be rejected for failure to teach any art new or otherwise.
Based on personal experience over 90% of issued patents are junk, any mistake on
the part of the examiner which reduces the number of patents issued is a good
outcome for society.
---
Windows vista, a marriage between operating system and trojan horse.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
