Comments on: Sneak Peek of Interview with David Kappos http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/04/sneak-peek-of-interview-with-david-kappos/id=7570/ Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications & Patent Law Thu, 09 Feb 2012 01:33:50 +0000 hourly 1 By: Mr. Xaminer http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/04/sneak-peek-of-interview-with-david-kappos/id=7570/#comment-9757 Mr. Xaminer Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:27:43 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7570#comment-9757 Upper management at the PTO usually filters down info through middle management (overpaid SPEs who do not examine a single case) but I think many examiners are unaware of the actual attrition rate. I’m sure some examiners have left this year, but it doesn’t seem like as many as in the past because of the iffy job market out there. Thanks to the Kappos interview there seems to be some light shed on the subject. The examiner attrition is not surprising because we’ve had a limited amount of overtime reinstated the last couple of months (about 32% of what we once could work), so that’s probably to make up some of the examining hours that were lost due to attrition. Finally, to ALL attorneys and agents: in order for the newly adjusted production system to work as hoped and bring down the PTO backlog, I STRONGLY SUGGEST that if an examiner calls you up to try and advance prosecution please make an effort to cooperate rather than just stating “oh just send out the rejection”. I know that will still happen some, but the new system gives examiners an incentive to advance prosecution with the applicants via examiner-initiated interviews and it’s going to take cooperation in return for the system to truly work. Upper management at the PTO usually filters down info through middle management (overpaid SPEs who do not examine a single case) but I think many examiners are unaware of the actual attrition rate. I’m sure some examiners have left this year, but it doesn’t seem like as many as in the past because of the iffy job market out there. Thanks to the Kappos interview there seems to be some light shed on the subject. The examiner attrition is not surprising because we’ve had a limited amount of overtime reinstated the last couple of months (about 32% of what we once could work), so that’s probably to make up some of the examining hours that were lost due to attrition.
Finally, to ALL attorneys and agents: in order for the newly adjusted production system to work as hoped and bring down the PTO backlog, I STRONGLY SUGGEST that if an examiner calls you up to try and advance prosecution please make an effort to cooperate rather than just stating “oh just send out the rejection”. I know that will still happen some, but the new system gives examiners an incentive to advance prosecution with the applicants via examiner-initiated interviews and it’s going to take cooperation in return for the system to truly work.

]]> By: uberVU - social comments http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/04/sneak-peek-of-interview-with-david-kappos/id=7570/#comment-9701 uberVU - social comments Sun, 06 Dec 2009 19:00:50 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7570#comment-9701 <strong>Social comments and analytics for this post...</strong> This post was mentioned on Twitter by ipwatchdog: Sneak Peek of Interview with David Kappos. Full interview will be published in January 2010 edition of Inventors Digest http://bit.ly/7lUzKq... Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by ipwatchdog: Sneak Peek of Interview with David Kappos. Full interview will be published in January 2010 edition of Inventors Digest http://bit.ly/7lUzKq...

]]> By: sburch http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/04/sneak-peek-of-interview-with-david-kappos/id=7570/#comment-9685 sburch Sun, 06 Dec 2009 04:44:47 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7570#comment-9685 Thanks for the response. Before I started law school I was certain about quite a few things that, once I learned the actual law and not just what politicians and lay-people had to say about it, became not so clear. Right now, I am certain that the patent system in its current state is incredibly broken. If I understand things correctly, the goal of the patent system is to encourage innovation by giving people who invest time and money in research and development a temporary monopoly over their findings. If that is the goal, I completely agree with it, but I just don't think that the way things are implemented now accomplish that goal very well. And I think this situation is another one of the problems. If two people independently come up with the same process, product, etc at approximately the same time and without knowledge of the other, it seems to me that the process, product, etc could not possibly be non-obvious and novel. How could it? And, I think that this hurts innovation as well. By granting a patent to inventor A, inventor B has not only lost the time and money that it spent in research, they can't even use there new process in house without first licensing it from inventor A. I was hoping that the answer to my question would be that because there were two independent creations of the same thing, no patent would be granted and both inventors would be free to use and market their inventions. But, if I understand correctly, inventor B can not even use his own invention without first licensing it from A. BTW, the relation to this article came from me thinking that if the patent office is backed up, there would be a longer amount of time between the submission of a patent and its appearance in a search. That would mean that B would have a longer time to continue to put time and money into an idea that ultimately he will not be able to use without having any way to know that inventor A has already filed. Thanks for the response. Before I started law school I was certain about quite a few things that, once I learned the actual law and not just what politicians and lay-people had to say about it, became not so clear. Right now, I am certain that the patent system in its current state is incredibly broken. If I understand things correctly, the goal of the patent system is to encourage innovation by giving people who invest time and money in research and development a temporary monopoly over their findings. If that is the goal, I completely agree with it, but I just don’t think that the way things are implemented now accomplish that goal very well. And I think this situation is another one of the problems.

If two people independently come up with the same process, product, etc at approximately the same time and without knowledge of the other, it seems to me that the process, product, etc could not possibly be non-obvious and novel. How could it?

And, I think that this hurts innovation as well. By granting a patent to inventor A, inventor B has not only lost the time and money that it spent in research, they can’t even use there new process in house without first licensing it from inventor A. I was hoping that the answer to my question would be that because there were two independent creations of the same thing, no patent would be granted and both inventors would be free to use and market their inventions. But, if I understand correctly, inventor B can not even use his own invention without first licensing it from A.

BTW, the relation to this article came from me thinking that if the patent office is backed up, there would be a longer amount of time between the submission of a patent and its appearance in a search. That would mean that B would have a longer time to continue to put time and money into an idea that ultimately he will not be able to use without having any way to know that inventor A has already filed.

]]> By: Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/04/sneak-peek-of-interview-with-david-kappos/id=7570/#comment-9682 Gene Quinn Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:51:03 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7570#comment-9682 sburch- With respect to your second question, the fact that someone else did it independently around the same time has absolutely no bearing on whether the invention is obvious or novel. In fact, in many areas that is exactly what happens. It is to be expected when multiple research teams are looking for solutions to the same problems. Your first hypothetical is a little more complex, at least in part because it couldn't happen. Assuming you file the application properly it is considered filed the second it leaves you regardless of whether the Patent Office ever receives it. But under your hypothetical A would win in both a first to invent and a first to file system. You may find it useful to take a look at this, regarding the risk of not filing a patent immediately: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/10/30/the-risk-of-not-immediately-filing-a-patent-application/id=7014/ -Gene sburch-

With respect to your second question, the fact that someone else did it independently around the same time has absolutely no bearing on whether the invention is obvious or novel. In fact, in many areas that is exactly what happens. It is to be expected when multiple research teams are looking for solutions to the same problems.

Your first hypothetical is a little more complex, at least in part because it couldn’t happen. Assuming you file the application properly it is considered filed the second it leaves you regardless of whether the Patent Office ever receives it. But under your hypothetical A would win in both a first to invent and a first to file system.

You may find it useful to take a look at this, regarding the risk of not filing a patent immediately:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/10/30/the-risk-of-not-immediately-filing-a-patent-application/id=7014/

-Gene

]]> By: sburch http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/12/04/sneak-peek-of-interview-with-david-kappos/id=7570/#comment-9680 sburch Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:27:46 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7570#comment-9680 I have a question that is tangently related. I haven't had a patent law class yet, my knowledge of patents comes mainly from software blogs, and my googling of the answer didn't really help. You stated in a previous comment that time was important in determining if an idea was patentable or not (something that seems obvious today may not have seemed so obvious when it was patented). And when I did a google search, it seems like we have a first to invent rule, and there is some controversy as to whether it should be first to file. Here is the hypo: if inventor A creates a new process in January and files a patent on a process that same month and the patent office is swamped and doesn't make any record of the process until July. In the mean time inventor B creates the same process in March and files for a patent in March. Under the the current rules (and the first to file rule) inventor A has the valid patent (I think). And finally, here is the question: Would the fact that inventor B created the same process independently and around the same time as inventor B be enough to prove that the process was obvious/non-novel? I have a question that is tangently related. I haven’t had a patent law class yet, my knowledge of patents comes mainly from software blogs, and my googling of the answer didn’t really help.
You stated in a previous comment that time was important in determining if an idea was patentable or not (something that seems obvious today may not have seemed so obvious when it was patented). And when I did a google search, it seems like we have a first to invent rule, and there is some controversy as to whether it should be first to file.
Here is the hypo: if inventor A creates a new process in January and files a patent on a process that same month and the patent office is swamped and doesn’t make any record of the process until July. In the mean time inventor B creates the same process in March and files for a patent in March. Under the the current rules (and the first to file rule) inventor A has the valid patent (I think).
And finally, here is the question: Would the fact that inventor B created the same process independently and around the same time as inventor B be enough to prove that the process was obvious/non-novel?

]]>