<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Court Splits the Baby on Patent Office Continuation Rules.  Expect More Tension.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/03/20/court-splits-the-baby-on-patent-office-continuation-rules-expect-more-tension/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/03/20/court-splits-the-baby-on-patent-office-continuation-rules-expect-more-tension/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=court-splits-the-baby-on-patent-office-continuation-rules-expect-more-tension</link>
	<description>Freshly Brewed Bio/Pharma Chat. Served Up Daily.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:57:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: USPTO Wins Big in Litigation Over Rules to Limit Continuation Patent Applications in the USA - - Implications for Dealmakers &#171; IP Deals</title>
		<link>http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/03/20/court-splits-the-baby-on-patent-office-continuation-rules-expect-more-tension/comment-page-1/#comment-66487</link>
		<dc:creator>USPTO Wins Big in Litigation Over Rules to Limit Continuation Patent Applications in the USA - - Implications for Dealmakers &#171; IP Deals</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 02:55:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/03/20/court-splits-the-baby-on-patent-office-continuation-rules-expect-more-tension/#comment-66487</guid>
		<description>[...] and applications with large claim sets without “do-it-yourself” examination consequences (see, http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/03/20/court-splits-the-baby-on-patent-office-continuatio..., http://www.patentdocs.org/2009/03/tafas-v-doll-fed-cir-2009-1.html, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] and applications with large claim sets without “do-it-yourself” examination consequences (see, <a href="http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/03/20/court-splits-the-baby-on-patent-office-continuatio..." rel="nofollow">http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/03/20/court-splits-the-baby-on-patent-office-continuatio&#8230;</a>, <a href="http://www.patentdocs.org/2009/03/tafas-v-doll-fed-cir-2009-1.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.patentdocs.org/2009/03/tafas-v-doll-fed-cir-2009-1.html</a>, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EG</title>
		<link>http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/03/20/court-splits-the-baby-on-patent-office-continuation-rules-expect-more-tension/comment-page-1/#comment-66214</link>
		<dc:creator>EG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:47:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/03/20/court-splits-the-baby-on-patent-office-continuation-rules-expect-more-tension/#comment-66214</guid>
		<description>Steve,

Another thought to consider. Having gotten over my initial (and very emotional) reaction to Judges Prost and Bryson having “precedential amnesia”, the fact is with the continuation limitation portion of this Rule package blocked by even the Federal Circuit, the PTO has no choice but to modify this package to take that block into account, or else the package won’t be internally consistent, and thus highly vulnerable to further legal attack. That being said, you have to wonder whether the PTO has the energy (and the backing of the current Obama administration) to continue this fight if Tafas/GSK pursue this suit (likely) in district court, including renewing the other arguments that Cacheris chose not to address.

Any reissuing of these Rules (Cacheris may even block any attempt to reissue these Rules until the current Tafas/GSK suit is over), which the PTO dare not do without offering “comment and notice” to the public, would create another “firestorm” of comments where those commenting will be watching the PTO carefully as to how they cross the “t”s and dot the “i”. Any slip here by the PTO will certainly draw fire, including potential additional suits (now that blood has already been drawn) challenging the reissued Rules. That potentially means a drawn out battle taking years to resolve, which leaves you wondering whether the Obama administration would expend its political capital to let such “blood letting” occur for an issue that didn’t start on its watch. More significantly, given the current budget crisis facing the PTO (and of its own making by causing the allowance rate to dive to close to 40%), one must wonder whether the PTO has the resources to push these Rule packages much farther.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Steve,</p>
<p>Another thought to consider. Having gotten over my initial (and very emotional) reaction to Judges Prost and Bryson having “precedential amnesia”, the fact is with the continuation limitation portion of this Rule package blocked by even the Federal Circuit, the PTO has no choice but to modify this package to take that block into account, or else the package won’t be internally consistent, and thus highly vulnerable to further legal attack. That being said, you have to wonder whether the PTO has the energy (and the backing of the current Obama administration) to continue this fight if Tafas/GSK pursue this suit (likely) in district court, including renewing the other arguments that Cacheris chose not to address.</p>
<p>Any reissuing of these Rules (Cacheris may even block any attempt to reissue these Rules until the current Tafas/GSK suit is over), which the PTO dare not do without offering “comment and notice” to the public, would create another “firestorm” of comments where those commenting will be watching the PTO carefully as to how they cross the “t”s and dot the “i”. Any slip here by the PTO will certainly draw fire, including potential additional suits (now that blood has already been drawn) challenging the reissued Rules. That potentially means a drawn out battle taking years to resolve, which leaves you wondering whether the Obama administration would expend its political capital to let such “blood letting” occur for an issue that didn’t start on its watch. More significantly, given the current budget crisis facing the PTO (and of its own making by causing the allowance rate to dive to close to 40%), one must wonder whether the PTO has the resources to push these Rule packages much farther.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John the Skeptic</title>
		<link>http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/03/20/court-splits-the-baby-on-patent-office-continuation-rules-expect-more-tension/comment-page-1/#comment-66173</link>
		<dc:creator>John the Skeptic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:00:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/03/20/court-splits-the-baby-on-patent-office-continuation-rules-expect-more-tension/#comment-66173</guid>
		<description>@ Patent Prosecutor:  With a remand to the District Court on a large number of outstanding issues, this case is probably not yet ready for an &lt;i&gt;en banc&lt;/i&gt; rehearing.  Look for &lt;i&gt;en banc&lt;/i&gt; review only after the next appeal, on whether the USPTO was arbitrary &amp; capricious in its rulemaking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Patent Prosecutor:  With a remand to the District Court on a large number of outstanding issues, this case is probably not yet ready for an <i>en banc</i> rehearing.  Look for <i>en banc</i> review only after the next appeal, on whether the USPTO was arbitrary &amp; capricious in its rulemaking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patent Prosecutor</title>
		<link>http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/03/20/court-splits-the-baby-on-patent-office-continuation-rules-expect-more-tension/comment-page-1/#comment-66165</link>
		<dc:creator>Patent Prosecutor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 06:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/03/20/court-splits-the-baby-on-patent-office-continuation-rules-expect-more-tension/#comment-66165</guid>
		<description>&quot;Will Congress ever step up and fix this mess?&quot;  The &quot;mess&quot; in my opinion is the every increasing backlog.  I think that KSR, Bilski, and the recession will fix that, as will the hiring and RETENTION of more examiners. (Also, new and better PTO management will help.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Will Congress ever step up and fix this mess?&#8221;  The &#8220;mess&#8221; in my opinion is the every increasing backlog.  I think that KSR, Bilski, and the recession will fix that, as will the hiring and RETENTION of more examiners. (Also, new and better PTO management will help.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patent Prosecutor</title>
		<link>http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/03/20/court-splits-the-baby-on-patent-office-continuation-rules-expect-more-tension/comment-page-1/#comment-66164</link>
		<dc:creator>Patent Prosecutor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 06:42:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2009/03/20/court-splits-the-baby-on-patent-office-continuation-rules-expect-more-tension/#comment-66164</guid>
		<description>&quot;Don’t expect an en banc hearing.&quot;  Why do you say that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Don’t expect an en banc hearing.&#8221;  Why do you say that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Served from: www.patentbaristas.com @ 2012-02-13 02:12:31 -->
