Comments on: An Open Letter to President-Elect Obama on Patent Reform http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/01/06/an-open-letter-to-president-elect-obama-on-patent-reform/ Freshly Brewed Bio/Pharma Chat. Served Up Daily. Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:32:51 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: ja http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/01/06/an-open-letter-to-president-elect-obama-on-patent-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-65381 ja Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:44:26 +0000 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/01/06/an-open-letter-to-president-elect-obama-on-patent-reform/#comment-65381 If you bring up establishing branch offices for the PTO, the first location considered will be West Virginia. If you bring up establishing branch offices for the PTO, the first location considered will be West Virginia.

]]> By: 6 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/01/06/an-open-letter-to-president-elect-obama-on-patent-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-65379 6 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:00:23 +0000 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/01/06/an-open-letter-to-president-elect-obama-on-patent-reform/#comment-65379 "The USPTO should consider whether more examination efficiency can be gained by adopting the European unity of invention concept, under which examination could be conducted more efficiently on a single application for a group of closely-related inventions that are linked so as to form a single general inventive concept. (Can I get an Hallelujah, Amen?)" If I understand it correctly, EPO examiners can simply knock out your ind and then declare a massive lack of unity of invention if they so please. Even though they rarely do this. Trust me, you think you want it, but you probably don't. My suggestion to you: stop filing independent and distinct inventions in the same application just because you can make a claim that reads "A product comprising: a material" as an ind. “The USPTO should consider whether more examination efficiency can be gained by adopting the European unity of invention concept, under which examination could be conducted more efficiently on a single application for a group of closely-related inventions that are linked so as to form a single general inventive concept. (Can I get an Hallelujah, Amen?)”

If I understand it correctly, EPO examiners can simply knock out your ind and then declare a massive lack of unity of invention if they so please. Even though they rarely do this.

Trust me, you think you want it, but you probably don’t.

My suggestion to you: stop filing independent and distinct inventions in the same application just because you can make a claim that reads “A product comprising: a material” as an ind.

]]> By: 6 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/01/06/an-open-letter-to-president-elect-obama-on-patent-reform/comment-page-1/#comment-65378 6 Wed, 21 Jan 2009 11:55:16 +0000 http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/01/06/an-open-letter-to-president-elect-obama-on-patent-reform/#comment-65378 "instead providing greater reward for initial patentability determinations." If you want an initial patentability determination then ask for it in a cover letter to the examiner. He'll probably give you one. Most times we don't want to do one because there is a feeling that nobody cares what we think is patentable, and it takes a lot of time to go dragging in pieces of the app piece by piece and running them through the 103 grinder. “instead providing greater reward for initial patentability determinations.”

If you want an initial patentability determination then ask for it in a cover letter to the examiner. He’ll probably give you one. Most times we don’t want to do one because there is a feeling that nobody cares what we think is patentable, and it takes a lot of time to go dragging in pieces of the app piece by piece and running them through the 103 grinder.

]]>