<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>IPWatchdog.com &#124; Patents &#38; Patent Law &#187; Borat</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/tag/borat/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com</link>
	<description>Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications &#38; Patent Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:24:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Prior Borat? Non-traditional Prior Art Rejections!</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/03/24/prior-borat-non-traditional-prior-art-rejections/id=22837/</link>
		<comments>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/03/24/prior-borat-non-traditional-prior-art-rejections/id=22837/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Mar 2012 20:20:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Stewart Walsh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fun Stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guest Contributors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IPWatchdog.com Articles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Fools™]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2001: A Space Odyssey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Borat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[john white]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent examiner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent examiners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent searches]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prior art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SP Attorney Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stanley Kubrick]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stewart walsh]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=22837</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recently, I was working on a patent search requiring me to look in areas of patent art relating to male underclothing (a very popular area for patenting, as you may guess) when I came across this little number: US Patent Application 12/071,878, which is titled "Scrotal Support Garment."  This application serves as a great example of rejection through non-patent literature. When you apply for a patent, the examiner can use any information available to the public to reject your application – not just patents. In this case, the examiner had an easy time finding a picture of Borat in the swimwear and was gracious enough to include several pictures in the rejection.<div class='yarpp-related-rss'>

Related posts:<ol>
<li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/04/26/confessions-of-the-borat-applying-patent-examiner/id=24419/' rel='bookmark' title='Confessions of the Borat Applying Patent Examiner'>Confessions of the Borat Applying Patent Examiner</a><small>Yes, it was I. The former Borat applying patent examiner turned law student. See Prior Borat: Non-traditional Prior Art Rejections! If nothing other than offering comic relief, the now infamous Borat patent rejection has hopefully illustrated at least one fundamental truth to the inventor and patent practitioner alike – don’t forget to do a thorough search of non-patent literature. I won’t bore you with citations from the MPEP. We all know what the Manual says. Instead I will attempt to provide some general insights into the examination process....</small></li>
<li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/01/12/the-pto-paradox-a-gatekeeper-mired-in-the-past/id=14351/' rel='bookmark' title='The PTO Paradox: A Gatekeeper Mired in the Past'>The PTO Paradox: A Gatekeeper Mired in the Past</a><small>I believe it is time for the PTO to jump aboard the ship of the future and use document and data search techniques now being employed in the litigation and national security arenas. Many tools (software approaches) exist that multiply effort and get smarter with each go around. I believe these tools should have a place at the PTO. Search techniques that build on what others have done and that search not just publications, but file histories as well, would give examiners a leg up when trying to assess patentability and truly understand what references can and should be cited...</small></li>
<li><a href='http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/03/13/making-it-easier-to-get-a-patent/id=22707/' rel='bookmark' title='Making it Easier to Get a Patent'>Making it Easier to Get a Patent</a><small>Contrary to popular belief, things are getting much better in business methods. Applications filed in 1999 had prosecution times of over 10 years (lower green arrow). These and subsequent applications jammed up the system leading to excessive delays to first office actions. Applications filed in 2004, for example, had delays to first office action of 6 years (middle red arrow). Sometime around 2010, however, things started to improve. A lot more patents started issuing and the delays to first office action dropped to around 2 years (upper red arrow). That’s not to say that it’s easy to get a patent...</small></li>
</ol>

Related posts brought to you by <a href='http://yarpp.org'>Yet Another Related Posts Plugin</a>.
</div>
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/03/24/prior-borat-non-traditional-prior-art-rejections/id=22837/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
