Seriously though, the arrival patent is disturbing. In effect it appears that Apple hasn’t invented anything, other than a method of filing a patent application so that even though there is no invention, a patent will be issued… And this brings the patent system into disrepute. That the USPTO is unable to control such gaming of the system reflects badly on the USPTO, and the United States Government as a whole.

Yeah, I like Apple. I have an IPhone. I have an IPad. I have an IMac. And I have a MacBook Pro. I paid a bit more, but I’ve got well built hardware and software that performs really well, and makes Microsoft looks like a sick puppy.

But any company that attempts to game the system in this way doesn’t deserve my support.

Wayne

For example, Apple is claiming rights to any software application that could reach the claims listed in the patent, in this case, that would be an automated arrival notice. There are thousands of ways this could be done in terms of software code and hardware choices. Does the patent cover every possible method of producing an automated notification sent to a mobile device?

If so, wouldn’t you agree that this is a patent on an idea rather than an invention? If such a patent were granted, would this really increase innovation? (I know, a totally different question, but worth asking)

What do you think?

The following rant is a bit off-topic, but these Apple applications can provide an illustrative entry-point into the discussion of the increasing volume of RCE filings.

Herein lies the all-too-common tension for the examiner who will examine this case. According to the tenants of compact prosecution, the examiner is required to search the entire disclosed invention, which in this case (like so many others), is perhaps orders of magnitude broader than the claimed invention. In order to satisfy production quotas, the examiner will most likely apply art that covers the broadest disclosed embodiment, including the claims (hopefully), while leaving some of the myriad disclosed (but not claimed) embodiments, unsearched. Apple will likely respond by adding features from one of those disclosed (but previously unclaimed) embodiments, which, for practical reasons, the examiner was unable to search, thereby overcoming the initial art rejections. The examiner will now search the newly-claimed features, make the next action final (“the new rejections are necessitated by applicant’s amendments”), and Apple will file an RCE adding yet another previously unclaimed (and likely unsearched) feature (i.e. the “layer[ing] on specifics after specifics” that Gene mentions).

From the (admittedly narrow) perspective of this humble examiner, the above scenario is a leading cause for the continued rise in RCE filings, even as the Office attempts to dis-incentivize such filings. To those who prepare and file applications such as these, do you see the above scenario as a failure of the Office to properly examine the application the first time around? Or does the applicant share the responsibility of writing an initial set of claims that is at least reasonably commensurate in scope with the specification (i.e. by not writing claims that are orders of magnitude narrower than the disclosed embodiments)?

One wonders what percentage of RCE filings are caused by these so-called “fishing expeditions.” Also, one wonders if the “we invented whatever the examiner couldn’t find” approach really in the best interest of the patent system as a whole. (A rhetorical question of course, but one likely at the root of much of the animosity heaved at the patent system in recent years.) Anecdotally, I find that the applications with the shortest overall prosecution time are those filed with an initial set of claims roughly equivalent to the disclosed embodiments in the specification, while the fishing expeditions tend to drag for years and years, and the backlog continues to grow. So it goes.