« Engineered | Main | Contained »

January 29, 2009

Procrastination

John Doll isn't treading water as interim PTO honcho. He's busting a move to not bust a move examining patents. On a web page titled "Closing of the United States Patent and Trademark Office," the USPTO announced a "public roundtable discussion" February 12, about adopting a procedure for deferred examination, "in response to suggestions from stakeholders in the intellectual property (IP) community" who want to tread water. [Federal Register pdf]

Professor Crouch at Patently-O offers more detail, but less color.

Posted by Patent Hawk at January 29, 2009 4:54 PM | The Patent Office

Comments

Why couldn't they have done this THREE YEARS AGO before their freakin' "new rules" ????!!!!!?????

Posted by: Moshe at January 29, 2009 6:26 PM

I actually met Doll at BIO a few years ago, and I suggested deferred examination as a useful option for the Office. His response was that they had looked at it, and that it would likely require a change in the law by Congress for the USPTO to do that. They then (almost immediately thereafter) announced the proposed rules limiting continuations.

I won't comment on the irony.

Posted by: Patent_Medicine at January 30, 2009 8:08 AM

So when I pop open Private PAIR and click on the "First Action Prediction" tab and it tells me that I can expect a first action in 60 months, the PTO's latest and greatest proposal is to charge a fee for those 60 months?

The entire (mis)management over there needs to be purged.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of things they could do to reduce pendency. Of course, that would require overhauling their stone age docketing procedures. The problem with that though is that none of the PTO lifers currently running the place know a thing about docketing.

They really need to concentrate on "delivering the mail" over there and stop all this nonsense with "big picture" and "outside the box" "solutions."

They don't have a single person in the current (mis)management who has any experience, or even ideas, on improving the most basic procedures.

It's a disaster. And it's only going to get worse.

Posted by: JD at January 30, 2009 10:26 AM

From the USPTO Performance and Accountability [sic] Report Fiscal Year 2008 Management's Discussion and Analysis for Strategic Goal 1: Optimize Patent Quality and Timeliness:

"Proposed solutions will not be limited by existing laws, rules, processes or procedures."

In a nutshell, there is the problem.

JD, you are absolutely correct - the (mis)management is focused on the wrong thing. They need to focus on actually doing their job and not be focused on trying to define what their job should be (according to their own agenda).

Posted by: Noise above Law at January 30, 2009 12:01 PM

NAL,

Here's the first thing I would do if I were put in charge of the PTO. I would immediately direct every SPE to limit every single examiner's new case docket to no more than 10 applications. And those would be applications from amongst the oldest new cases.

Every single SPE would be responsible for monitornig, supplying, and managing every docket of every examiner in that art unit.

If the SPE had 15 examiners, he would be required, every single bi-week, to identify the 150 oldest cases assigned to the AU and make sure they are docketed, equitably, to the 15 examiners in the unit. When an individual examiner gets down to 3-4 new cases, the docket could be replenished. From the crop of next oldest cases.

And so on.

How does the PTO expect to reduce pendency when they have examiners with 50, 60, 70, 100 new cases on their dockets to cherry pick from?

Do they think that law firms have an enormous pile of invention disclosures that associates get to pick and choose from to draft new apps? In a firm, the partner(s) monitors the workflow/load, assigns it based on priority, and doesn't assign anymore until the higher priority work is done and out the door.

Are the lifer (mis)managers over there so incompetent that they are unaware of even these most basic management principles?

It's unbelievable.

Posted by: JD at January 30, 2009 12:23 PM

"according to their own agenda"

WTF is their "own agenda" you rtards? Jd, you know I respect you on most things, but you and your malcontent buddies here seem to be insisting on being arses just for the sake of being an arse.

They have no "agenda" other than to examine applications. Seriously.

JD, yes, there are ways to decrease the backlog, but stopping cherry picking DOES NOT DO THAT. How, prey tell, does the nature of the cases being examined being SIMPLER slow things down? It is literally IMPOSSIBLE. Ok? IMPOSSIBLE.

You are right that it would be a great thing to stop the cherry picking and etc docketing blah blah. In fact, it would be great if SPE's assigned a case per day (or two depending on the art) and carefully controlled what everyone was working on every single day. But guess what? Not happening. Also, the 200 examiners who have 80 cases on their new tab are not affecting the overall performance of the office in any meaningful way. The rest of us 5800 examiners are working with 15-20. Half (or more) of them at any given time need to be transferred or restricted. Trust me, we're sitting here with around 5 cases that are "on deck". Sometimes none.

Personally I've spent the last 3-5 biweeks ONLY doing amended. I have literally not picked up more than 3 new cases in that whole amount of time. I'm not even sure if I did 3. Thank your RCE happy bulsht style of prosecution for that. OK? Don't even get in our faces about picking up new cases when we can never put down old duds. Unless we just cave when they put in the 7th obvious, but requiring a new reference, limitation.

Under the very best circumstances, if we had a crack management team made up of the finest administrators in the world installed, the backlog would maybe go down 5% in the growth of the backlog IN THE HUGE A SS RECESSION. Just wait till we get to the other side of the recession and the backlog is going up again.

In short, your armchair undersecretarying didn't get any better just because Dudas left. Some of your ideas have real merit. Talk to John about them, he'll listen if you catch him at the right time. Don't mention your bad mouthing him all the time though.

Posted by: 6000 at January 31, 2009 4:53 AM

6K said,

"They have no 'agenda' other than to examine applications."

Hmmm, how to fix the obvious typo??

"They have no 'agenda' other than to not examine complex applications."

"They have no 'agenda' to examine complex applications."

"They have an 'agenda' to not examine complex applications."

"They have an 'agenda' other than to examine complex applications."

"They have no 'agenda' not to not examine complex applications."

"The Patent Office will be closed until further notice."

But how about this suggestion, 6K (JD or others, please feel free to disagree): When an applicant files an application with a claim that is (clearly) anticipated by prior art in the applicant's own IDS (nb. the chance of this increases the more the applicant bloats the IDS or doesn't read the references), the Office should issue a 30 day rejection letter with notice of anticipated claim(s), indicating that:

a) should the applicant choose to persist in his claim for a patent, the application will be "reexamined" under 35 USC 132(a), but issues of fraud and misconduct (including the imposition of discipline or sanctions on the practitioner by OED) will be adjudicated to completion under both under 37 CFR 11.18 and 37 CFR 1.56 prior to further examination of the application on the merits, with the rebuttable prima facie* presumption being that the applicant has either 1) submitted the claims without reasonable inquiry, 2) submitted the claims for the mere purpose of fraud or delay, and/or 3) submitted the claims without fulfilling the duty-to-disclose (e.g., by "burying the reference" or "burying the teaching" or otherwise failing to indicate that prior art known to the applicant anticipated the submitted claim(s)); or

b) should the applicant choose not to persist in his claim for a patent, the application will be abandoned at the end of 30 days, with the applicant being given the right to file a continuation application within that period which, if it has proper claims, will cure any defect, as to both fraud and misconduct (including delay), in the parent application, as indicated above, and shall not be evidence of abandonment of invention under 35 USC 102(c).

Right now, applicants can (and do) file claims which read directly on prior art they cite (or are aware of), and they get off scott free IF (big IF) the Examiner does his job well. (That is, there is no incentive not to file super-broad invalid claims.) If Office policy were changed, the attorney would either be answerable to the Office, in "a)", or the client, in "b)". (Imagine having to explain to the client that the application *had* to be abandoned because the claims drafted by the attorney were too broad - the free-market can address the "bad attorney" problem much more efficiently than OED can.)

*The prima facie presumption in "a)" would require no resources to be expended by the PTO (though a fraud/misconduct hearing in "a)" would be incredibly burdensome to the Office, as was the case in the 1980s before such investigations were terminated Office-wide; hence the "b)" option is necessary which is both attractive, though punitive, to applicants and attractive to the PTO as it results in abandonment or claim-narrowing), and any attempted rebuttals by the applicant would provide ample fodder should a patent subsequently issue and be litigated in court. (It would have been so nice if the PTO hadn't screwed up the words of 37 CFR 11.18(b)(2)(ii) because there would be yet another presumption. Such procedural "incentives" would also address in a practical and equitable manner the main concerns of the PTO vis-a-vis IDS overload and attorneys not reading or comprehending the references they submit. An easy abandonment in "b)" would also give Examiners incentive to read the references submitted in an IDS to find the buried references/teachings.)

Posted by: NIPRA anonymous at January 31, 2009 10:38 AM

Isn't it the examiner's job already to read the references submitted in an IDS?

Posted by: breadcrumbs at January 31, 2009 11:11 AM

No argument here, Breadcrumbs, but if you talk to Examiners (or if you've submitted relevant art in an IDS and had the Examiner search for and apply less-relevant art while ignoring your relevant art*) you'll find that perhaps 2 times out of 3, an Examiner merely "disqualifies" the prior art submitted by the applicant, without necessarily reading it (i.e. you can be pretty sure they won't use it against you).

If you go to the Just a Patent Examiner blog, you'll see a lot of anonymous Examiner comments/observations on this issue.

*To be fair to Examiners, surely some are surprised that there can be relevant art in an IDS, but that has as much to do with the CAFC's holdings as it does with attorney conduct (submitting large amounts of art).

Posted by: NIPRA anonymous at January 31, 2009 11:36 AM

Wow. Where to begin?

Let's see, maybe here: "Talk to John about them, he'll listen if you catch him at the right time."

So, they published the proposed claim examination and continuation rules on January 2. 2006. May 5 (or something), 2006 was the due date for comments.

Why don't you go read some of the hundreds of comments that were submitted. You may actually learn something. But as your brain has been polluted by Mr. Doll's "quality = reject, reject, reject" and "Applicants are filing low quality applications and not coming to the PTO prepared to prosecute their applications" garbage it is unlikely you will learn anything.

The PTO was told, in no uncertain terms, by some of the most knowledgeable applicants and practitioners in the country that those rules were beyond their authority to implement. Did they listen?

No.

I went to a BADC (Bar Association of DC) meeting in April/May of 2006 (right around the time comments were due) and Mr. Whelan spoke. He took questions and comments. One person stated that the rules were beyond the PTO's authority and may be challenged. Mr. Whelan's response was (with a bit of paraphrasing on my part, but not much): "We've considered that possibility, but we think we have a 50-50 chance, so go ahead and take your best shot."

The rest is history.

Did you miss the blog postings on Mr. Toupin's appearance in front of the ABA (I think it was) conference in September, 2007 at the Homestead where he declared (again, with some paraphrasing on my part, but once more, not much): "These rules are going into effect whether you like it or not."

Go read the comments on the proposed Markush rules. Hal Wegner and Bill Berridges comments in particular.

I know both those gentelmen. Mr. Wegner was one of my professors at GW. I worked for Mr. Berridge for about 2 years. Now I was an examiner for 9+ years and have been in private practice for 9+ years (10 years on May 3). If there is anybody who knows more about patent law than these two individuals, I haven't met them. (Though I do work with some who know as much.)

What do you think they said about the Markush rules?

Here's a hint: think unlawful.

So the notion that PTO (mis)management is going to listen to its "customers" (i.e. applicants and practitioners) is simply ludicrous. If you actually believe that, you're either incredibly stupid or singularly naive. Because I like you, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're naive.

"In short, your armchair undersecretarying didn't get any better just because Dudas left."

I must admit your bromance with Mr. Dudas perplexes me. What exactly do you think his qualifications for the job were? He never saw a patent application in his life. He carried some Congressman's briefcase between the office and the committe hearing room for a few years. You think that makes him more qualified than me to judge PTO policies and procedures?

And you think that the PTO lifer (mis)managers are more qualified than me? As I've told you numerous times, the PTO is using stone age docketing policies and procedures that haven't changed since the mid 1970's. I worked there for 9+ years. I'm quite familiar with PTO docketing. And I have many friends who are primaries, SPE's, and APJ's and I know what goes on there. I'm pretty sure they're using the same policies and procedures that they were using when I was there.

I've worked at 4 law firms. Every single one of them in the top 20 of firms getting patents issued. Two of them in the top 10. One of those firms I worked at for 6 years and they were using a "home grown" docketing system developed in the 1970's. Over the course of my time there I was integrally involved in bringing in a new docketing system (one of the most widely used in the industry), writing the policy and procedures, and training the staff, and attorneys, in how to use it.

I was also integrally involved in establishing an entirely new form generating program that integrated our docketing system with our document management software to generate all of our forms and transmittals for submission to the PTO. I reviewed every single form to ensure they complied with all applicable statutes and rules. I then participated in training the staff and attorneys in using the system.

You once claimed on another site that I couldn't do any better at training than the PTO (mis)managers. You're wrong again. I personally wrote, and taught, many classes to the staff and attorneys at my previous firm. On a multitude of prosecution topics. Everything from interview practice to drafting and recording assignments. I taught an entire class on claim counting and fee paying. Every single one of those classes was approved for CLE credit in Virginia. And in case you weren't aware, Virginia doesn't approve just anything that's printed out on paper. It's not like the PTO where you can just clack away on the keyboard, make sure you never include the word "allow", hit the print icon, sign whatever rolls off the printer, and send it out and get credit. It doesn't work that way in the real world. You may have the opportunity to find that out at some point.

Do you honestly believe that any of your career, lifer PTO (mis)managers over there can teach, for example 131 or 132 affidavit practice, better than I can? Do you honestly believe that the lifers over there, not one of whom has ever actually interviewed an inventor and drated an application, know more than me about the practice of patent law?

If you do, please give me the number of your "prescriber" because I'd love to get my hands on some of what you're evidently taking.

"Some of your ideas have real merit."

Ya think?

Pray tell, which ideas of your beloved career lifer PTO (mis)managers have real merit. Heck, forget about real merit, name me one that even has a smidgen of any merit.

Posted by: JD at January 31, 2009 5:24 PM

BTW, I've seen Mr. Doll speak at several meetings. It is very clear that he has no interest in listening to his "customers."

Posted by: JD at January 31, 2009 5:26 PM

""They have no 'agenda' other than to not examine complex applications.""

Um that isn't mgmt's agenda, that's MY agenda :)

Anyway, sure the IDS idea is a good one, although I see it as too lenient in b. If we're presuming fraud for reals, let's presume fraud for reals not fakes. Don't just let them off the hook for another grand. That would make the whole patent system seem cheapened and would sully our halfway decent name. "You can commit fraud, but if you get caught they'll fine you a little bit he he he". Wtf is that?

Posted by: 6000 at February 1, 2009 7:58 AM

Yeah but JD doll's doing better lately if I understand correctly from those around me.

"The PTO was told, in no uncertain terms, by some of the most knowledgeable applicants and practitioners in the country that those rules were beyond their authority to implement. Did they listen?"

They already knew there was a chance that it was JD. It was a statement to congress as much as anything, and you already know that. Why do you drone on about the rules without addressing that?

"You think that makes him more qualified than me to judge PTO policies and procedures?"

Not really, but today I just used his departure as signalling the end of an era of you telling us weekly about how you'd be undersecretary so much better than him. Not saying you wouldn't, but I doubt you would.

"You once claimed on another site that I couldn't do any better at training than the PTO (mis)managers. You're wrong again. I personally wrote, and taught, many classes to the staff and attorneys at my previous firm. On a multitude of prosecution topics. Everything from interview practice to drafting and recording assignments. I taught an entire class on claim counting and fee paying. Every single one of those classes was approved for CLE credit in Virginia. And in case you weren't aware, Virginia doesn't approve just anything that's printed out on paper. It's not like the PTO where you can just clack away on the keyboard, make sure you never include the word "allow", hit the print icon, sign whatever rolls off the printer, and send it out and get credit. It doesn't work that way in the real world. You may have the opportunity to find that out at some point."

Who told you that you did better than they do here? I too am a pretty decent teacher, and have been told so many times, but it doesn't matter. I don't regard myself as being able to do appreciably better than my old academy spe.

"Do you honestly believe that any of your career, lifer PTO (mis)managers over there can teach, for example 131 or 132 affidavit practice, better than I can?"

Actually we got affidavits from an affidavit attorney.

I'm glad to hear about your work in docketing and other submissionware, but it doesn't seem like anything more than a handful of experts in those types of systems we have on board have. And sure it'd be great to fix everything in our sys but come on, that's small potatoes.

But look, just put all your ideas down on a piece of paper and go over them with doll, then give him a copy. Put some cost/time estimates etc. too. You could also design a docketing program/procedure and explain all the wonderful improvements. Also, you could post your submission here for all to see the folly of the PTO's rejecting it.

Posted by: 6000 at February 1, 2009 8:28 AM

"Yeah but JD doll's doing better lately if I understand correctly from those around me."

And those around you know or understand what?

They know and/or understand nothing. Because all they know is what their lifer status at the PTO tells them. Which is nothing. Nothing. Get that through your head. They know nothing.

"They already knew there was a chance that it was JD. It was a statement to congress as much as anything, and you already know that. Why do you drone on about the rules without addressing that?"

I've acknowledged, and addressed, that numerous times. There's no doubt that the continuation and claim examination rule packages were a plea to Congress to do something legislatively. It was a hail Mary pass by PTO (mis)management.

However, the pass was incomplete. But instead of going back to a realistic game plan, PTO (mis)management just keeps throwing hail Mary passes. The Markush rules. The IDS rules. The appeal rules. Now deferred examination.

As I explained in the previous posts, PTO (mis)management needs to focus on "delivering the mail" and not on trying to set patent policy. They have tried to set policy and they have failed miserably. Acknowledge that and move on to doing what their mission is supposed to be: examining applications and issuing valid patents.

"Not really, but today I just used his departure as signalling the end of an era of you telling us weekly about how you'd be undersecretary so much better than him. Not saying you wouldn't, but I doubt you would."

How could I, or any other practitioner with equivalent experience, do any worse? How could we do any worse than he did? What was the pendency and backlog when he became Director? What were they when he left? How could anybody do worse? Your man crush on Mr. Dudas is clearly clouding your judgment.

"Who told you that you did better than they do here?"

I told myself. And my colleauges in the patent bar told me. All of us receive OA's daily from relatively newbie examiners like you. And they are atrocious. It is very clear that the "training" being provided is garbage. You yourself said most newbie examiners don't bother to issue restriction requirements because they simply don't understand how to. Again, how could I, or any other practitioner of similar experience, possibly do a worse job training the examiners than what is currently being done?

"I too am a pretty decent teacher, and have been told so many times, but it doesn't matter. I don't regard myself as being able to do appreciably better than my old academy spe."

Here's a newsflash for you, 6: All of those SPE/SPRE/TQAS/OPQA/otheruselessknownothingdonothingdeadweightGS-15's don't know anything about the law. What they know, and know very well, is how to game the PTO production system to make 110+% production, get bonuses and promotions, and eventual elevation to mid-level PTO (mis)management. That's it. That is the sum total of what they "know." All they can "teach" you is how to generate an OA that will be signed by your SPE/primary, who in most cases will sign anything you put in front of them,without even reading it, as long as the word "allow" doesn't appear in it. That's not training. "Teaching" you to punch up the form paragraph with the cite to In re Whomever every time you have a claim with a dimension recited, because "that case holds that change in size is obvious" is not training. Especially when your "teachers" have never read the case for themselves, or have never had any real (i.e. non-PTO) training themselves in really understanding how to apply case law precedent.

"And sure it'd be great to fix everything in our sys but come on, that's small potatoes."

Wrong. Dead wrong. There are substantial improvements that can be made in reducing the backlog and pendency by updating the PTO's stone age policies and procedures. The reason you, and the rest of the career lifer PTO (mis)managers don't realize that is because you have no experience outside the PTO. You, and they, certainly have ZERO experience in improving anything. That is as clear as day.

"But look, just put all your ideas down on a piece of paper and go over them with doll, then give him a copy. Put some cost/time estimates etc. too."

That was done. By hundreds of applicants and practitioners in response to the claim examination and continuation rules. And the IDS rules. And the Markush rules. And the appeal rules. And Mr. Doll did what?

As I said, I like you, which is why I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're spouting off this nonsense due to naivete. If a year or two from now you're still spouting such idiocy, well then I'm just gonna assume you're an idiot.

Posted by: JD at February 1, 2009 10:44 AM

JD,

Do you really think time is going to cure 6 of his ways?

He is schooled and cannot bear to admit it. This is a critical deficiency in his ability to learn. He would rather wrap himself in his small time power than actually increase his real power with understanding. Until he can actually say "I'm wrong - you are right" on blatantly obvious legal argument, there is NO hope. Why do you bother? The only aspect of your cause that might bear fruit is possibly that 6 improves the logical construction of his arguments so that his stories stay amusing, rather than so easy to dismantle with the excessively premise-less base of logic that he uses now. You'd be better off pointing him to a good logic primer (not that he'd take your sage advice).

Posted by: sunny side up at February 1, 2009 12:37 PM

"If we're presuming fraud for reals, let's presume fraud for reals not fakes. Don't just let them off the hook for another grand. That would make the whole patent system seem cheapened and would sully our halfway decent name. "You can commit fraud, but if you get caught they'll fine you a little bit he he he". Wtf is that?"

It obviously means that you don't know, nor appreciate the lessons that can be learned from, history. I think Sunny is 100% correct. You had the rationale for "b)" in front of you, as well as the lesson from PTO's history (ask the old timers about the "Fraud Squad"), yet you couldn't put two and two together in a logical fashion because you've been blinded by your own "enlightenment."

6K, if you stop thinking you know everything, you just might be able to learn something. :-)

Posted by: NIPRA anonymous at February 2, 2009 6:15 AM

"Why do you bother?"

Sunny,

I believe in redemption. Even for seemingly lost causes.

At some point, all of these brain washed newbie examiners they've hired since 2003 are going to have to be reprogrammed (those that actually stick around). Somebody is going to have to teach them that quality does NOT equal reject, reject, reject.

Some will come to the light. The rest will just have to be beaten into the dust. Let's hope most see the light.

Posted by: JD at February 2, 2009 7:30 AM

I already responded massively to JD and this dmn site blocked the post "for review by owner". I'm about fed up with this place. He never reviews/posts the comments, and I used to get that message years ago and still haven't seen those messages pop up.

As to your stuff about listening to the rational and learning ridiculousness NIRPA it isn't about me not understanding your rational. That is as good a rational as any. As well as the cost blah blah blah. Doesn't matter. Fraud is fraud. Say it with me F R A U D. Should be harshly punished imo.

Posted by: 6000 at February 2, 2009 8:12 AM

"I'm about fed up with this place."

Me thinks the feeling is mutual.

Hawk, thanks for holding up 6's massive response. It's probably more of the same. Something along the lines of, "Well, gee JD, just talk to them. They'll listen to ya. You bectha."

6'll be first up for reprogramming.

Posted by: JD at February 2, 2009 8:53 AM

6K, ask around as to why the Fraud Squad was disbanded... you'll get your answer... it wasn't because anyone believed that fraud should not be harshly punished.

[But you allude to a big failing of the Bush administration - instead of proscribing conduct that is *clearly* egregious (e.g., filing claims that read on cited prior art - if you think it's rare, just look at 20 published applications), you all rather tried to limit or punish conduct which is *clearly* annoying to you (filing 6 independent claims, submitting 30 references) but might be in fact *clearly* appropriate. Oh that you would have been about proscribing what was truly fraud, rather than proscribing things that were inconvenient for you. The PTO management has been acting in a self-serving manner, at the expense of the country. And yes, some applicants have been acting that way too, but two wrongs don't make a right, and the government should not succumb to the lowest common denominator of society. I won't name names, but they do a disservice to this country by saying the government should resort to all means possible - whether or not illegal - to attempt to proscribe conduct it deems inappropriate or unhelpful - that is what happens in fascist states.]

Posted by: NIPRA anonymous at February 2, 2009 9:15 AM

BTW, I have no idea what this means: "Actually we got affidavits from an affidavit attorney."

Huh?

Posted by: JD at February 2, 2009 9:28 AM

JD,

You comments about docketing are waayy out of date for many AUs in the office. Most are already doing what you "suggest".

My old art unit has been doing it that way for at least 15 years. All new cases are put on master dockets with the SPEs & a limited (5-10) new cases are given out, oldest 1st, as examiners run out of the cases on their docket (actually, it was my suggestion to do that because I was sick of people cherry picking cases & then SPEs moving the old dogs to other examiners, like me, to have to work on). And the PAP is enforced for oldest new & oldest effect cases over 2 PP.

What more could you want???

Yes, not all are done is way, but a large % are. Pretty much all in my TC, for that matter. Of course, you wouldn't want to admit that anyone does it in a way that would meet your "high" standards, would you.

And, no matter what the docketing procedure used, it will not help in reducing the total # of backlog cases. At best it helps in moving the oldest cases (which clearly needs to be done). But it matters not is the case worked on was filed 6/1/08 or 6/1/01, the total backlog will still be 700k++ & growing. THAT is the much bigger problem to solve.

MVS

Posted by: Michael Valentine Smith at February 2, 2009 9:49 AM

"You comments about docketing are waayy out of date for many AUs in the office. Most are already doing what you 'suggest'."

Not in the AU's I'm dealing with. Maybe in your little world.

You need to get out more.

"What more could you want???"

LOL. There's a lot more I could want.

Oooh, examiners have to do their oldest new every other bi-week. Wow. That's tough. At that rate the backlog will be 2M+ by the end of about 2010.

BTW, the backlog is estimated to be 1.2M+. And growing.

"Of course, you wouldn't want to admit that anyone does it in a way that would meet your 'high' standards, would you."

I would gladly admit it. If they were meeting my personal standards, or anybody else's for that matter. But they're not. If they were meeting any reasonably objective standard the backlog wouldn't be 1.2M+ and pendency wouldn't be 32+ months.

The PTA's I'm receiving are routinely 600-1,000 days.

But everybody over there is doing outstanding work. Amirite?

Puh-leeze.

But I'm sure you're running the PTO's tighest ship over there. A regular Lt. Bligh you must be.

Posted by: JD at February 2, 2009 10:15 AM

6000, and others,

My sincere apology. I had not realized that Movable Type had a "pending comments" section, where it would stick non-spam comments for no apparent reason. I hate this software.

I will monitor the comment purgatory religiously, to make sure all (appropriate) comments are posted.

I don't see a blocked comment for you, 6000, by the way.

Sorry.

Posted by: Patent Hawk at February 2, 2009 10:34 AM

JD,

It is YOUR "little world", not mine. The simple mech areas are a lot different than the higher tech arts. Not that you would probably know much about high tech.

Of course, you didn't answer (no surprise!) how changing the docketing would affect the backlog. Again, I will state "it matters not is the case worked on was filed 6/1/08 or 6/1/01". You didn't respond how your "brilliance" would make this magically happen. Do older cases help the backlog more than new ones??? (And, don't try the PTA argument. I know that doing newer instead of older will create longer PTA for those older cases. BUT, that DOES NOT effect the overall backlog. One case is STILL one case.)

Oh, and I am not a SPE or "running thing" "over there". It is rather ironic though that you call me a "Lt. Bligh" (no longer a Captain??) for saying that things were run according to the PAP & moving the oldest cases when THAT IS EXACTLY what YOU were advocating. Never happy are you, JD. Man, it must $uck to be you!

MVS

Posted by: Michael Valentine Smith at February 2, 2009 10:35 AM

"Not that you would probably know much about high tech."

I have cases pending in every TC in the PTO. Some TC's are a little better than others. A little. Not much, but I'm willing to give credit where it's due.

The PAP? LOL That's one of the big problems over there. Using 1970's docketing procedures to implement a 1980's CBA.

The backlog will only be reduced by getting examiners to do more new cases. I've got lots of ideas on that. Too many to go into here.

Of course, as was clear from my post, the concern is more than just the backlog. Pendency is as big a concern as the backlog. And they're related. Can't solve one without solving the other. Or did you miss that nuance?

"Oh, and I am not 'running thing' 'over there'."

Thank goodness for small favors.

William Bligh was a lieutenant when he commanded the HMS Bounty. Guess I shouldn't have expected you to know that considering that you can't seem to get the names from any books straight.

Posted by: JD at February 2, 2009 11:03 AM

"Huh?"

We were taught affidavits from an affidavit practice specializing attorney that works for the office.

"And, no matter what the docketing procedure used, it will not help in reducing the total # of backlog cases. "

This seems to be 100% completely above his head for some reason. I don't know why.

"Oooh, examiners have to do their oldest new every other bi-week. Wow. That's tough. At that rate the backlog will be 2M+ by the end of about 2010."

Stop RCE's and we'll do more new... this is simple JD, why do you act like there is some magic thing that just isn't being done? There is only one thing stopping the corps from burning through new cases. OLD ONES. KILL THEM. The problem then goes away.

Posted by: 6000 at February 2, 2009 11:05 AM

JD,

I did not "miss" the nuance. The topic of backlog & moving the oldest cases/docketing are different. You are just backtracking to try to change the meaning of what you previously said. Like usual.

As for Bligh, AGAIN, you are not correct. His rank at the time of the Bounty iuncedent was "Commanding Liutenent", which is a promotion up from "Liutenent". And, since he was the commander of the Bounty, he was the "captain" of the boat by conventional terminology. He ultimately reached the rank of Vice Admiral of the Blue, though he is still usually referenced as "Captain Bligh", particularly when referenceing the Bounty incedent. See, among many, many other citations, wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Bligh

Want to play again?? I am sure you will loose. Again.


MVS

Posted by: Michael Valentine Smith at February 2, 2009 11:29 AM

"Stop RCE's and we'll do more new... "

Agreed. But you can't stop RCE's until you change the PAP and the production system. And when you change the PAP and the production system, that's when you get the examiners to do more new cases.

I'm very much in favor of something similar to the EPO's summons to oral proceedings. But in order to do something like that, you have to force the examiners to stand behind their rejections. We don't have anything anywere near that now. When/if the PTO does something to make appeal an actual option (instead of re-opening 80% of the time), that will also reduce RCE's.

You can't expect applicants to pay the Notice of Appeal and Appeal Brief fees, and the time to prepare the Brief, just to have prosecution re-opened 80% of the time with a new, usually even more inane, rejection. Why pay $1,080 in Notice/Brief fees, and the cost of preparing the Brief, just to get some new lame OA? An RCE is only $810. And a rather nominal fee for the attorney's time. You're going to get a new OA anyway 80% of the time, so why pay more?

"And, no matter what the docketing procedure used, it will not help in reducing the total # of backlog cases."

I'm talking about an entirely new set of docketing policies and procedures separate and apart from the PTO's rinky-dink "oldest new" and "oldest effective" and "amended" categorizations. You seem to be missing that.

I'm also talking about changes to the PAP. The current crop of (mis)managers won't renegotiate the CBA and the PAP because they don't have any ideas. Except "flat goal." Sheesh. What genius came up with that one? Probably got a bonus and a promotion for "thinking ouside the box."

"We were taught affidavits from an affidavit practice specializing attorney that works for the office."

So some career lifer mid-level-(mis)management stooge who's never written an affidavit in his/her life taught you about affidavits? I'm sure that was real special. The insights provided must have been razor sharp.

"I am sure you will loose."

Did you mean lose? It's a good thing you're such an expert in "high tech" because you're a lousy speller.

BTW, it's spelled lieutenant.

You're in the perfect job. Stay right where you are. Your complete lack of ambition is serving you quite well.

LOL

Posted by: JD at February 2, 2009 12:06 PM

JD,

Yeah, I am a bad speller. BFD. I forgot to spellcheck it. (Like YOU never had a typo.)

Still, it doesn't change the FACTS or that you were WRONG!!! AGAIN! Oh, you missed that part. Typical of you. Retreat & attack minor issues when you are being kicked all over on the main points.
That seems to sum up all of your posts & probably you as a person, too.

And you really have jumped around a lot in jobs too, sounds like. 4 different firms in about 10 years? At one 6 years (you say). That leaves the rest at about 1.3 years each. Sounds like they other ones got rid of you a lot faster. They must have been quicker to learn what they had in you.


MVS

Posted by: Michael Valentine Smith at February 2, 2009 12:48 PM

And on top of that, WHY, in bog's (on purpose) name does YOUR ambition have to be the same as MINE or anyone else's?? I do what I want with my life & you do what you want with yours. Sound like a good idea to me. Most normal people DESPISE lawyers, too. So, if your "ambition" is to be in the most despised profession, then you have been successful. Congats.


MVS

Posted by: Michael Valentine Smith at February 2, 2009 12:51 PM

Those weren't typos. And you know it.

BFD? Knowing how to spell demonstrates an attention to detail that is apparently beyond you. I guess you'd rather just spell words however you "think" they should be spelled instead of how they are actually spelled.

Like I said, you're in the perfect job. Stay put.

Yes, I make my fair share of typos when posting. But I know how to spell. And I know when I don't know how to spell a word. I can also look up the correct spelling in a dictionary. Maybe you could get the PTO to buy you one of those. 6'll teach you how to use it.

Mr. Bligh was a lieutenant when he commanded the Bounty. That's what his officers and crew called him, not captain. So no, I wasn't wrong.

I've changed firms for better personal opportunities. I guess you wouldn't understand that. You don't regard yourself as capable of self improvement. Kinda explains your predicament.

"Most normal people DESPISE lawyers, too."

You should read some de Tocqueville. You might learn something. It's quite obvious that it's been a long time since you've challenged your limited understanding of things. Too comfortable punching up form paragraphs and misspelling words when left to fill in the blanks.

Oh well.

BTW, I thought you plonked me.

I'm eagerly anticipating your next post in which undoubtedly you'll plonk me again. Just to show up in another couple days/weeks/months with your misspelled babblings.

LOL

Posted by: JD at February 2, 2009 1:18 PM

You're correct in that I plonked you last year. It's a new year, so gave you another chance to redeem yourself. Should have left you plonked. For some there is no hope.

You still do love to switch topics when you are loosing, I see.

Caught you being wrong re Bligh, & you change the attack rather than admit when you were wrong. Shows the signs of a very little mind & a even littler person. You ACTUALLY try to hide behind that "Well he was called lieutenant". Doesn't matter what he was "called", it matters what the FACTS are. You SHOULD know that! If you want to use that, then the argument that most people still refer to him as "captain" is more persuasive & I am even more correct.

As to the rest of your mindless meanderings, I "know" how to spell, just don't always get it right when I am typing. Forgot the spellcheck & you harp on THAT?? Easier than arguing the facts when you are WRONG.

As to "ambition", MY "ambition" is not to be a attorney or to make 300-500k+. I make enough, have a good wife & kinds & a nice house. Working at the office allows me the flexibility to LIVE and to do things that matter to me & those I care about. That is plenty of "ambition". Those that have "ambition" to just make more $$$ are more power are really going the wrong direction in this world. There a lot of more important things than that. About time you realized that. Particularly at your advanced age.


So, going to admit you were wrong?? I doubt it. You don't have it in you to EVEN admit that.

MVS

Posted by: Michael Valentine Smith at February 2, 2009 2:08 PM

"You still do love to switch topics when you are loosing, I see."

Do you mean losing?

And you know how to spell? Or are you a bad speller, as you stated previously? You can't even keep your babbling consistent between consecutive posts. I'd love to see your work. I'm sure it would provide endless hours of laughter.

You're right, some people are beyond redemption. Redemption requires a desire for personal improvement. That's sadly lacking in your case.

If I was wrong, I'd admit it. But I'm not, so no need.

"Particularly at your advanced age."

LOL. I'm sure you're a 20-something year old mid-level-(mis)management stooge. Congratulations on rising to such a prestigious level at such a young age.

"Working at the office allows me the flexibility to [LIVE and to do things that matter to me & those I care about] never bother to learn how to spell correctly and just mindlessly sign my name to whatever form paragraphs I routinely punch up without bothering to think."

There. Typo corrected.

Posted by: JD at February 2, 2009 2:41 PM

JD,

At times, I have actually missed B$-ing with you like this. It shows how good & reasonable some of the attorney's that we deal with are in comparison to you. You are a sterling example of the worst type of attorney and person. You are a bitter, self-centered, & self-important being with no real sense of what is important in this world.

Really, you have my pity. I would really like to know what happened in your past to make you so bitter about everything? It must have been very traumatic. I would really suggest that you seek psychological help to get you over those issues. I mean that in all good faith and honestly. You need the help. Get it/ You'll be a better & happier person if you do.


MVS

Posted by: Michael Valentine Smith at February 2, 2009 2:53 PM

"It shows how good & reasonable some of the attorney's that we deal with are in comparison to you. You are a sterling example of the worst type of attorney and person."

You've never handled a response of mine. Too bad. You might actually learn something. Then again, you're willfully, gleefully and invincibly ignorant, so you probably wouldn't.

My responses to OA's are always polite and professional. On sites like this, I'm not bound by Rule 3, so I may have a tendency to loosen up a little. (That's Rule 3, aka 37 CFR 1.3. Maybe you could look that one up.) Your inability to understand that my posts on these sites are different than my work product is symptomatic of your simplistic reasoning. Do you do the sloppy misspelling and non-existent proof reading and self editing in your PTO work that you do on these sites? Oops, I think you do. Well, not all of us are like you.

"I would really like to know what happened in your past to make you so bitter about everything?"

My desire to learn and do new things bumped up against a brick wall of willful, gleeful, and invincible ignorance. Sort of like yours.

A little annoying, but not traumatic.

Wow! The "you need help" schpiel. That's weak. Even for you.

I learn something new every day. You've been unthinkingly filling out the same form paragraphs for years. And you have many years of that to look forward to.

You have my sympathy.

Posted by: JD at February 2, 2009 3:31 PM

Mr. Christian, please have Mr. Valentine bend over and assume the position for punishment!

Posted by: Captain Bligh at February 3, 2009 4:12 PM