Comments on: Brief Highlights Patent Office’s “Suspicious Procedures”

By: Patent Baristas » What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been In 2008

Patent Baristas » What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been In 2008 — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:43:57 +0000

[...] Brief Highlights Patent Office’s “Suspicious Procedures” [...]

By: Patent Baristas » Examination Support Document (ESD) COuld Add $26,000 to Patent Costs

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:53:04 +0000

[...] though we’ve covered the “suspicious procedures” at the USPTO regarding the Final Continuations and Claims Limits Rule, more evidence seems to [...]

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:41:20 +0000

LeRoy says: “In all the criticism about the new rules, I do not see anyone recognizing that there is a problem or making other recommendations for solving the backlog problem, if there is a problem.”

You must be joking or practicing the ostrich head in sand selective approach to facts so favored by the PTO.

So as to spoon fead the willfully ignorant, here is a post at patentdocs summarizing user-submitted proposals received over several months. This post also links to a series of post by the authors on proposed alternative solutions. And if the excellent analysis at patentdocs doesn’t satisfy your thirst, please visit patentlyO for even more scholarly analysis.
http://www.patentdocs.net/patent_docs/2008/01/post-gsk-where.html

By: Anon

Anon — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 18:39:47 +0000

You must be joking or practicing the ostrich head in sand selective approach to facts so favored by the PTO.

http://www.patentdocs.net/patent_docs/2008/01/post-gsk-where.html

By: LeRoy T. Rahn

LeRoy T. Rahn — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:29:31 +0000

In case you want a little different take on your report, I think it presents an unbalanced treatment of the new rules. What is the PTO’s position on the issues you have raised and are raised in the opponent’s briefs? How does the PTO defend against the charges of suspicious procedures? What is the content of the sworn declaration provided to OMB opining that the PTO’s stated cost burden estimates were in error by large factors. How does the PTO respond to the declaration?

I can find out the answers to these questions by conducting my own research, but it seems to me fairness would dictate that the PTO’s arguments be presented in close proximaty to the arguments presented in your report.

Another thing: does the author think that everything is copacetic? If not how would he solve the problem? In all the criticism about the new rules, I do not see anyone recognizing that there is a problem or making other recommendations for solving the backlog problem, if there is a problem.