"I believe this is what TD is arguing, that true patents like your companies are the minority or atleast swamped by "junk" patents. "
That is not necessarily true. While the office does have a huge number of biz method etc. patents it simply does not follow that the rest are being swamped by them. The rest are being swamped by similar applications in their respective AU's. Nobody cares if the backlog in the business method AU's goes through the roof (or at least nobody worth mentioning) but that won't impact the other AU's (electronics, chemicals, etc.).
The heart of the issue behind the ills of the patent system is the judiciary reviewing the agency and patent litigation decisions, with the laxity of all the parties concerned as an ancilliary concern.
"I believe this is what TD is arguing, that true patents like your companies are the minority or atleast swamped by "junk" patents. "
That is not necessarily true. While the office does have a huge number of biz method etc. patents it simply does not follow that the rest are being swamped by them. The rest are being swamped by similar applications in their respective AU's. Nobody cares if the backlog in the business method AU's goes through the roof (or at least nobody worth mentioning) but that won't impact the other AU's (electronics, chemicals, etc.).
The heart of the issue behind the ills of the patent system is the judiciary reviewing the agency and patent litigation decisions, with the laxity of all the parties concerned as an ancilliary concern.
"I believe this is what TD is arguing, that true patents like your companies are the minority or atleast swamped by "junk" patents. "
That is not necessarily true. While the office does have a huge number of biz method etc. patents it simply does not follow that the rest are being swamped by them. The rest are being swamped by similar applications in their respective AU's. Nobody cares if the backlog in the business method AU's goes through the roof (or at least nobody worth mentioning) but that won't impact the other AU's (electronics, chemicals, etc.).
The heart of the issue behind the ills of the patent system is the judiciary reviewing the agency and patent litigation decisions, with the laxity of all the parties concerned as an ancilliary concern.
"But... his recent remarks suggest he wants to reverse the trend of patent examiners rejecting so many patents: "
Mike, his comment was to allay the rumors of "reject reject reject" amongst practicioners so they'd stop btching.
"Patent quality absolutely means keeping out bad patents -- something the USPTO has failed at for years."
That is what his very next fews sentences say.
"But the incentives put in place at higher levels are to bring in more fees to better fund the USPTO."
Perhaps you could shine me some light on these particular incentives. Because I myself have never witnessed them.
"Of course, if it functioned as originally intended, and only narrowly approved patents that were clearly shown to be a new and non-obvious invention that promoted the progress, the staff and the budget could be cut down significantly."
Did you know that the original patent laws in this country had no obviousness requirement (that is, 103 did not exist and had no equivalent) and that many decades went by before the courts stepped in and made a judicially required obviousness requirement? It was later made statutory.
"Even if there was no prior art, to me this should be an open and shut case."
That's because you have no exposure to the nightmares of your own legal system apparently. Or you don't realize that those same nightmares apply to examination.
Change the courts if you want to change decisions like this. Till then, just go with the flow plebs.
I am not a troll. I do not even own a patent with which to go a trollin'.
We have seen neither the claims or the closest prior art. We have been given one quote. And that wasn't even put into context very well.
Let's take a sample claim.
1. A method for guiding the selection of a therapeutic treatment regimen for a patient with a chronic known disease or medical condition, said method comprising:
(a) providing patient information to a computing device, said patient information including prior therapeutic treatment regimen information for said chronic known disease or medical condition, said computer device comprising:
a first knowledge base comprising a plurality of different therapeutic treatment regimens for said disease or medical condition;
a second knowledge base comprising a plurality of expert rules for evaluating and selecting a therapeutic treatment regimen for said disease or medical condition;
a third knowledge base comprising advisory information useful for the treatment of a patient with different constituents of said different therapeutic treatment regimens; and
(b) generating in said computing device from said patient information and said first knowledge base a listing of available therapeutic treatment regimens for said patient; and
(c) generating in said computing device advisory information for one or more therapeutic treatment regimens for said patient in said listing based on said patient information and said expert rules.
Show me persuasive prior art against that. Go ahead. I'll wait.
You might just happen to notice, while you're being re tarded, that the three knowledge bases are each for a specific thing.
While I might agree with you if you merely said that it should be public policy to not allow claims to this sort of thing, Mike and others attacking it (or rather even more ridiculously, a broad generalization of the concept on display in the claim) on 103 grounds without any good evidence on display is ludicrous.
This OP is an embarrasment Mike. You need to change it.
Mike don't be an arse. We have rules in place that specifically address what happened and what the office is supposed to do. His fee wasn't 10 dollars short. There was a seperate surcharge of 10 dollars for something. He didn't pay the 10 dollars, and he never bothered to check to see if his patent went expired because of something going wrong. That is, until 4 years later. Patents are definitely a privelege, this isn't like the bs "privelege" of having a drivers license. You need to be fairly responsible.
I'm not saying that it is nice, or that it was "right", or that I would not have excused his late payment, but the rules are in place to keep the system going correctly and smoothly. We have a lot of apps to deal with and the rules are there to make sure everything gets done properly.
Besides that fact, the man is complaining so that he can SPEND 4 thousand dollars. He's hardly a "pauper".
Finally, it is no scam. Nobody is making you submit a patent app, or even telling you to. It is something you might want to look into, if you have plans for your invention. And, it is all very very complicated.
PS He could have had the money he paid refunded if he hadn't waited FOUR YEARS.
"I'm paying the doctor based on what he knows, not based on what his friend in class knew 5 years ago."
Only for his simplistic every day routine bs. For other more complicated things the docs are expected to consult the literature about. Why do you think you go to the docs office sometimes and he leaves the room, then comes back a half hour later? Or why specialty docs don't just spout out a diagnosis, but instead go and sit and think about it for a few days?
Mike check it out, the guys that make this gamer show (5 people) are using the show for the commercial to sell t-shirts. Watch the vid at the top of the page.
"Honestly, how many poor people do you know are affected by the patent system?"
All of them. Are you a poor person? Then you too. Can anyone in the US, poor, or rich, make anything I grant a patent for? No.
"Aside from some AIDS drug issues it seems that there is little that poor people in poorer countries would consider a necessity that is still under patent."
Is that right? Maybe processes to make everything you have in your mansion? Maybe all of the things you have in your mansion?
On a related note, just why do you pro patent folks believe that poor folk (or middle class folk) ARE POOR? Is it because they went out and did an honest days work for that last billion they made? Of course not, they keep making themselves richer based on legal systems of property, of which, one form is the patent system in the US. Legal systems of property are the only way that I can even think of at the moment that would allow someone to be as wealthy as the real rich are.
BTW Mike, good going with your postings, I can't wait to see the rest. I'm sure there's plenty of arguments for and against, but it's a hard sell to me that the "for"s have it by a healthy majority.
On the post: Commerce Secretary, New USPTO Head Suggesting They Want More Patents, Approved Faster
That is not necessarily true. While the office does have a huge number of biz method etc. patents it simply does not follow that the rest are being swamped by them. The rest are being swamped by similar applications in their respective AU's. Nobody cares if the backlog in the business method AU's goes through the roof (or at least nobody worth mentioning) but that won't impact the other AU's (electronics, chemicals, etc.).
The heart of the issue behind the ills of the patent system is the judiciary reviewing the agency and patent litigation decisions, with the laxity of all the parties concerned as an ancilliary concern.
On the post: Commerce Secretary, New USPTO Head Suggesting They Want More Patents, Approved Faster
That is not necessarily true. While the office does have a huge number of biz method etc. patents it simply does not follow that the rest are being swamped by them. The rest are being swamped by similar applications in their respective AU's. Nobody cares if the backlog in the business method AU's goes through the roof (or at least nobody worth mentioning) but that won't impact the other AU's (electronics, chemicals, etc.).
The heart of the issue behind the ills of the patent system is the judiciary reviewing the agency and patent litigation decisions, with the laxity of all the parties concerned as an ancilliary concern.
On the post: Commerce Secretary, New USPTO Head Suggesting They Want More Patents, Approved Faster
That is not necessarily true. While the office does have a huge number of biz method etc. patents it simply does not follow that the rest are being swamped by them. The rest are being swamped by similar applications in their respective AU's. Nobody cares if the backlog in the business method AU's goes through the roof (or at least nobody worth mentioning) but that won't impact the other AU's (electronics, chemicals, etc.).
The heart of the issue behind the ills of the patent system is the judiciary reviewing the agency and patent litigation decisions, with the laxity of all the parties concerned as an ancilliary concern.
On the post: Commerce Secretary, New USPTO Head Suggesting They Want More Patents, Approved Faster
Mike, his comment was to allay the rumors of "reject reject reject" amongst practicioners so they'd stop btching.
"Patent quality absolutely means keeping out bad patents -- something the USPTO has failed at for years."
That is what his very next fews sentences say.
"But the incentives put in place at higher levels are to bring in more fees to better fund the USPTO."
Perhaps you could shine me some light on these particular incentives. Because I myself have never witnessed them.
"Of course, if it functioned as originally intended, and only narrowly approved patents that were clearly shown to be a new and non-obvious invention that promoted the progress, the staff and the budget could be cut down significantly."
Did you know that the original patent laws in this country had no obviousness requirement (that is, 103 did not exist and had no equivalent) and that many decades went by before the courts stepped in and made a judicially required obviousness requirement? It was later made statutory.
On the post: USPTO: Using Three Knowledge Bases To Diagnose Is Patentable
That's because you have no exposure to the nightmares of your own legal system apparently. Or you don't realize that those same nightmares apply to examination.
Change the courts if you want to change decisions like this. Till then, just go with the flow plebs.
On the post: USPTO: Using Three Knowledge Bases To Diagnose Is Patentable
We have seen neither the claims or the closest prior art. We have been given one quote. And that wasn't even put into context very well.
Let's take a sample claim.
1. A method for guiding the selection of a therapeutic treatment regimen for a patient with a chronic known disease or medical condition, said method comprising:
(a) providing patient information to a computing device, said patient information including prior therapeutic treatment regimen information for said chronic known disease or medical condition, said computer device comprising:
a first knowledge base comprising a plurality of different therapeutic treatment regimens for said disease or medical condition;
a second knowledge base comprising a plurality of expert rules for evaluating and selecting a therapeutic treatment regimen for said disease or medical condition;
a third knowledge base comprising advisory information useful for the treatment of a patient with different constituents of said different therapeutic treatment regimens; and
(b) generating in said computing device from said patient information and said first knowledge base a listing of available therapeutic treatment regimens for said patient; and
(c) generating in said computing device advisory information for one or more therapeutic treatment regimens for said patient in said listing based on said patient information and said expert rules.
Show me persuasive prior art against that. Go ahead. I'll wait.
You might just happen to notice, while you're being re tarded, that the three knowledge bases are each for a specific thing.
While I might agree with you if you merely said that it should be public policy to not allow claims to this sort of thing, Mike and others attacking it (or rather even more ridiculously, a broad generalization of the concept on display in the claim) on 103 grounds without any good evidence on display is ludicrous.
This OP is an embarrasment Mike. You need to change it.
On the post: USPTO: Using Three Knowledge Bases To Diagnose Is Patentable
The patentability of a claim can very well hinge on very complicated things.
The prior use is not usually a defense, and the documents they submitted might not even be prior art.
You haven't presented a viable case against the claims.
6
On the post: USPTO Getting Paupers To Hand Over Thousands On The Dream Of Patent Wealth
I'm not saying that it is nice, or that it was "right", or that I would not have excused his late payment, but the rules are in place to keep the system going correctly and smoothly. We have a lot of apps to deal with and the rules are there to make sure everything gets done properly.
Besides that fact, the man is complaining so that he can SPEND 4 thousand dollars. He's hardly a "pauper".
Finally, it is no scam. Nobody is making you submit a patent app, or even telling you to. It is something you might want to look into, if you have plans for your invention. And, it is all very very complicated.
PS He could have had the money he paid refunded if he hadn't waited FOUR YEARS.
On the post: Is It Cheating Or Is It Collaboration?
Only for his simplistic every day routine bs. For other more complicated things the docs are expected to consult the literature about. Why do you think you go to the docs office sometimes and he leaves the room, then comes back a half hour later? Or why specialty docs don't just spout out a diagnosis, but instead go and sit and think about it for a few days?
On the post: Congressmen Not Happy About Charter's Plan To Sell Out Users To Advertisers
http://www.purepwnage.com/
On the post: On The Constitutional Reasons Behind Copyright And Patents
All of them. Are you a poor person? Then you too. Can anyone in the US, poor, or rich, make anything I grant a patent for? No.
"Aside from some AIDS drug issues it seems that there is little that poor people in poorer countries would consider a necessity that is still under patent."
Is that right? Maybe processes to make everything you have in your mansion? Maybe all of the things you have in your mansion?
On a related note, just why do you pro patent folks believe that poor folk (or middle class folk) ARE POOR? Is it because they went out and did an honest days work for that last billion they made? Of course not, they keep making themselves richer based on legal systems of property, of which, one form is the patent system in the US. Legal systems of property are the only way that I can even think of at the moment that would allow someone to be as wealthy as the real rich are.
BTW Mike, good going with your postings, I can't wait to see the rest. I'm sure there's plenty of arguments for and against, but it's a hard sell to me that the "for"s have it by a healthy majority.
Examiner#6k
Next >>