http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2007/03/19/proof-that-the-us-patent-and-trademark-office-hates-me/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=proof-that-the-us-patent-and-trademark-office-hates-me Freshly Brewed Bio/Pharma Chat. Served Up Daily. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:57:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2007/03/19/proof-that-the-us-patent-and-trademark-office-hates-me/comment-page-1/#comment-4660 biotech dave Wed, 21 Mar 2007 14:51:42 +0000 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2007/03/19/proof-that-the-us-patent-and-trademark-office-hates-me/#comment-4660 The PTO doesn't hate you, they just want to find as many ways as possible to keep your clients shelling out the duckets. I worked for a bioinformatics company where you could search 10, 50 or 100 or more sequences AT THE SAME TIME, notwithstanding the fact their algorithm is better than Smith-Waterman. The CIPO and EPO use this search platform. With the right system in place there is really no good (non-monetary) reason not to be able to search all splice variants of a given gene. Aaron Dubberley's clients are getting screwed because the PTO insists on sticking with Compugen and not upgrading their search platform like the EPO and CIPO. It is kind of like the same reason you don't see those easy-to-make lightbulbs that last forever on the shelves. You buy the cheap ones that last a few months, then you're spending money to buy new ones. And I believe 10 is an arbitrary number of sequences to permit for a given application. Moreover, I disagree with the notion that it will create excessive art and undue burden to examine splice variants of a given gene. Labs and universities that study a gene STUDY a gene. If a gene has 5 splice variants it is not going to produce five times the references as if you searched only one of the splice variants.. or a gene without splice variants. Odds are you are going to uncover the same references, the same research teams and the same names over and over. If this restriction issue is remedied you can be sure another can or worms will be opened. And it will look a little like this newly proposed CON practice. The PTO doesn’t hate you, they just want to find as many ways as possible to keep your clients shelling out the duckets. I worked for a bioinformatics company where you could search 10, 50 or 100 or more sequences AT THE SAME TIME, notwithstanding the fact their algorithm is better than Smith-Waterman. The CIPO and EPO use this search platform. With the right system in place there is really no good (non-monetary) reason not to be able to search all splice variants of a given gene. Aaron Dubberley’s clients are getting screwed because the PTO insists on sticking with Compugen and not upgrading their search platform like the EPO and CIPO. It is kind of like the same reason you don’t see those easy-to-make lightbulbs that last forever on the shelves. You buy the cheap ones that last a few months, then you’re spending money to buy new ones. And I believe 10 is an arbitrary number of sequences to permit for a given application. Moreover, I disagree with the notion that it will create excessive art and undue burden to examine splice variants of a given gene. Labs and universities that study a gene STUDY a gene. If a gene has 5 splice variants it is not going to produce five times the references as if you searched only one of the splice variants.. or a gene without splice variants. Odds are you are going to uncover the same references, the same research teams and the same names over and over. If this restriction issue is remedied you can be sure another can or worms will be opened. And it will look a little like this newly proposed CON practice.

]]> http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2007/03/19/proof-that-the-us-patent-and-trademark-office-hates-me/comment-page-1/#comment-4606 Aaron Dubberley Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:53:20 +0000 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2007/03/19/proof-that-the-us-patent-and-trademark-office-hates-me/#comment-4606 Seems to me that this new notice is simply an admission of current restriction practices in the USPTO. Lately, I can't get the Examiner to examine different splice variants of the same chromosomal gene in a single application! And since petition practice is the only mechanism to fight these overly narrow restrictions, my clients don't fight them as often as I'd like. So, I find it sort of quaint and honest that the USPTO admits what appears to have been standing policy. I don't imagine that it will have much, if any, effect on the number of applications I have to submit to get a reasonable number of sequences examined. Seems to me that this new notice is simply an admission of current restriction practices in the USPTO. Lately, I can’t get the Examiner to examine different splice variants of the same chromosomal gene in a single application! And since petition practice is the only mechanism to fight these overly narrow restrictions, my clients don’t fight them as often as I’d like. So, I find it sort of quaint and honest that the USPTO admits what appears to have been standing policy. I don’t imagine that it will have much, if any, effect on the number of applications I have to submit to get a reasonable number of sequences examined.

]]>