May 19, 2009
AE = Accelerated Excuses
Start with a well-designed, seemingly effective program; add bureaucratic tanglese; top it off with the ubiquitous "we are always right, as we are the government" mentality, and, what do you get? The USPTO Accelerated Examination (AE) program in actuality. In a non-surprising move, the USPTO has rejected numerous otherwise valid requests for AE on the slightest technicalities. Apparently the easiest way to meet the goal of disposal within one year is to dispose of many without examination, and with no regard to fairness.
It is relatively common practice for the PTO to issue a "Notice to file corrected application papers" for minor inconsistencies in filing documents. For instance, for figures that are deemed "not electronically reproducible because portions of figures missing and/or blurry," or where the application includes "photographs of the invention subject matter that appear capable of illustration and which are illegible after scanning," or even when "the drawing sheets simply contained a very faint mark in its upper margin."
Applicant's normal reaction when receiving such notice of correction is to file amended drawings in a timely fashion. But even when applicant promptly responds, these minor inconsistencies are enough for the powers-that-be to bump an application off the AE train.
From MPEP 708.02(a)(VIII)(C):
The petition to make special will be denied if the application omits an item or includes a paper that causes the Office of Initial Patent Examination (OIPE) to mail a notice during the formality review (e.g., a notice of incomplete application, notice to file missing parts, notice to file corrected application papers, notice of omitted items, or notice of informal application). The opportunity to perfect a petition (subsection II above) does not apply to applications that are not in condition for examination on filing.
Therefore, any notice to file corrected application papers, even for minor inconsistencies results in automatic petition denial. Case closed.
After receiving an AE petition denial, applicant may grasp at straws, petitioning the Director to correct this injustice; just to be shot down once again.
The USPTO website has posted several Director petition decisions for instances such as this; all denied. Most notably 11/766,766, 11/866,896, and 12/019,912; each had minor drawing informalities at filing.
Consistent with USPTO culture, the Director considered an applicant's attempt to be accommodating, by correcting supposed errors in a timely fashion without fighting the PTO on their merit, as an admission of guilt.
Petitioner has responded and corrected the errors. Therefore, Petitioner implicitly acknowledged that the application was not in condition for examination at the time of filing.
So, time to ignore mom's advice. Stop playing nice. If you receive a notice of correction, fight it. Or, kiss all the extra work and expense of filing an AE application goodbye.
Posted by Mr. Platinum at May 19, 2009 5:36 PM | Prosecution
On the flip side of your analysis, I've gone through the file wrappers of several hundred issued AE patents and most are riddled with errors or mis-truths by the applicant.
The biggest AE filer outsources most of their applications to "micro-boutiques" who are under serious financial pressure to get these things issued and it appears that a lot of corners get cut. I don't know whether these are deliberate or due to inexperience and will not speculate.
Regardless, based on the several hundred cases I've reviewed, I'd say the PTO could be a lot harder on applicants with regard to AE's than they currently are being. That said, I'm sorry that you (or your friends) have had some bad experiences. Personally, I've had nothing but good experiences interfacing with the QAS employees on these cases.
Posted by: Public Searcher DIP at May 20, 2009 5:35 AM
"Therefore, any notice to file corrected application papers, even for minor inconsistencies results in automatic petition denial. Case closed."
Not exactly. As you noted, if you receive a Notice to File Corrected Application Papers, for example because of drawing objections, you can petition to have the Notice withdrawn. If the Notice is withdrawn, your Petition for Accelerated Examination will be dismissed with no opportunity to correct.
You are correct that the PTO treats a response to/compliance with a Notice as an "admission" that the application was not in condition for examination upon filing and grounds for dismising the Petition for Accelerated Examination.
My personal experience with this involved a continuation of a national phase application. I filed the continuation with the Petition for Accelerated Examination and the same drawings as were filed in, and accepted by the PTO, the PCT and national phase application. Upon receiving the continuation, the PTO all of a sudden decides the drawings, deemed acceptable in two previous applications, are unacceptable.
The (mis)management of the PTO is beyond incompetent and corrupt. They all need to be purged.
Posted by: JohnDarling at May 20, 2009 5:37 AM
"If the Notice is withdrawn, your Petition for Accelerated Examination will be dismissed with no opportunity to correct."
I meant to say if the Notice is not withdrawn, your AE petition will be dismissed.
If your petition to have the Notice withdrawn is granted, your AE petition will then be considered on its merits.
It appears from reading the petitions decisions noted above that the argument, "well, these drawings were accepted in the parent application" will be successful if you argue it in response to the Notice to File Corrected Application Papers, but not if you comply with the Notice and then make that argument.
I guess nobody at the PTO has ever heard of the APA's ban on arbitrary and capricious decision making. The notion that what happens, or what is accepted, in parent applications has no bearing on continuations is the epitome of arbitrariness and capriciousness.
Disgraceful. Simply disgraceful.
Posted by: JohnDarling at May 20, 2009 5:48 AM
"The (mis)management of the PTO is beyond incompetent and corrupt. They all need to be purged."
After nearly 30 years of private practice, I am tending to agree with you.
The PTO will do anything to avoid conducting excellent 102/103 searches and making quality rejections.
Posted by: John Prosecutor at May 20, 2009 9:17 AM
Well thanks, John. I'm doing my best to start a revolution. But as Thomas Paine said, "Time wins more converts than reason." Eventually everybody will come around to my way of thinking. It's only a matter of time.
Posted by: JohnDarling at May 20, 2009 9:49 AM
"They all need to be purged."
And in place of a Corrupt Administration you will have a Lord, not corrupt, but bright and terrible as the dawn, treacherous as the sea, stronger than the foundation of the earth. All shall love him and depair.
Do you pass the test JD?
In other news, I tried to get back to your post on PO JD, but the dam thing got lost to the site while I was posting to multiple threads :(.
"The PTO will do anything to avoid conducting excellent 102/103 searches and making quality rejections."
Wait a minute, what are you trying to say is wrong with this picture?
"I guess nobody at the PTO has ever heard of the APA's ban on arbitrary and capricious decision making."
I certainly know I haven't! Coin flips rule the day!
"The notion that what happens, or what is accepted, in parent applications has no bearing on continuations is the epitome of arbitrariness and capriciousness. "
In all seriousness though JD, you were an examiner, you know good and well that any new case is a new case. Period, end of story. It has nothing to do with the parent except that it gets its date therefrom. Maybe.
If the pto messed up on your first case and printed a big black blob as a figure, then that doesn't mean that they're A OK to mess it up again, and it doesn't mean that you didn't make a mistake in your filing. Or let's say the original case printed out just fine, but the current case is having an issue for one reason or another, still doesn't mean you didn't make a mistake in the later case. It's tough. I get it. You don't like it. I get it. There's room to be nicer. I get it. But it isn't arbitrary, or capricious. Stop making sht up to btch 'bout after you made a mistake and didn't catch it after two or more cases.
The definition of "arbitrary and capricious" is not "JD doesn't like it".
In fact, the definition is:
ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS - Absence of a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.
Which, in our present scenario does not seem to be the case, as there is a rational connection between the fact that your figure will prent out as a blob in the second case and the decision to knock your case out of AE. Specifically, the connection, inter alia, is that they knew it would make you upset.
My first act as supreme ruler of the universe will be to abolish the APA. That decision is based solely on the fact that lawyers bich about it way too much, taking up perfectly good time that could have been spent discussing, for instance, turkey beards.
Posted by: 6000 at May 20, 2009 11:20 AM
"Do you pass the test JD?"
If I was running the PTO, you and everybody over there would be in complete and total despair. Just imagine the wailing and weeping you would hear from the legions of knownothingdonothinguselessdeadweightGS-15's over there. Their lamentations would be heard in heaven. But they would be ignored, for all of them are ultimately going somewhere else. As they should. The wages they've been paid for their sins will buy them a one way ticket to a very nasty place.
"ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS - Absence of a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made."
Drawings filed in PCT application and 371 application reviewed by PTO and found completely acceptable.
Same drawings filed in continuation with AE petition found unacceptable.
Please explain to me the rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.
Then again, please don't.
"In other news, I tried to get back to your post on PO JD..."
Great. I can't wait to hear your new found knowledge on the standards for granting summary judgment. How many altlaw.org searches did you have to do before satisfying yourself that you're now an expert on the subject?
"In all seriousness though JD..."
You do retain the ability to amuse. Sometimes. At least in that respect you're far, far ahead of most of the slaves and stooges over there.
Posted by: JohnDarling at May 20, 2009 11:54 AM
I would like to hear your answer to the point 6000 raised.
IF your drawings were erroneously approved in the original cases (for the sake of argument, let us say that the approval was clearly wrong), would the PTO (or any other office or official) be legally obligated to promulgate that error? Or can the error be raised in the later filed (AE) case?
Can you proved any citations to support your position & enlighten the rest of us? It would be appreciated.
Posted by: fred jones at May 20, 2009 2:13 PM
When did you stop beating your wife and kids?
Seriously, you must be new to the blog scene if you accept a premise from 6000 (aka 6 aka 6k aka examiner 6000 etc.) for anything but a step into the briar patch. 6 is beyond redemption, but does play a better fool provacateur than others who cannot leave the homeland.
So let's go ahead and assume a fact situation totally in disregard to the one presented and answer the question.
fred, when did your wife stop beating you?
Posted by: Noise above Law at May 20, 2009 3:13 PM
I am all too familiar with 6000 & his usual B$. I am also all too familiar with the way johndarling argues. But that does not effect the question I raised.
I supposed in my question that the original drawings were erroneous so as to prevent the normal response that "there was nothing wrong with the original drawings". I was specifically trying to get away from the rhetoric that would, and has, come from the specifics of that particular case and wanted to know the legalities of the broader issue. I am trying to take it way from that specific case and any question if those drawings were or were not proper/erroneous.
Again, if an agency, or other entity, makes an erroneous decision are all future rulings on that issue legally bound by the original erroneous ruling or can the issue be raised anew at an appropriate time (e.g., upon a new filing of an application using the same drawings)?
Posted by: fred jones at May 20, 2009 4:32 PM
But your point is too easily lost as your changing of the fact pattern not only "gets you away from the rhetoric", it also leave all the relevant specifics of the particular case.
It would be better if you simply set up a completely new hypothetical to flush out your point of view.
Posted by: Noise above Law at May 20, 2009 4:41 PM
Why, why treat the customer this way? Why? Cause fuck em' that's why!
Posted by: 6 at May 21, 2009 12:09 AM
"I supposed in my question that the original drawings were erroneous..."
Don't assume, Fred. You know why.
"Again, if an agency, or other entity, makes an erroneous decision are all future rulings on that issue legally bound by the original erroneous ruling or can the issue be raised anew at an appropriate time (e.g., upon a new filing of an application using the same drawings)?"
No. But when an applicant relies on an agency's prior decisions, and the agency then says, "Oh, well, our prior decisions were wrong" I don't have a problem with that either. What I have a problem with is the agency saying, "Oh, well, our prior decisions were wrong, and because you relied on them, now you're screwed." Yeah, I got a problem with that. There's no reason the PTO can't acknowledge their prior decisions were wrong and provide the applicant an opportunity to correct their reliance on those prior decisions. To take applicant's efforts to advance the application as an "admission" that the applicant was at fault, dismiss the petition with no opportunity to correct, and waste what the PTO knows is a lot of time, effort, and money spent on the part of the applicant is exactly what I said it is: disgraceful.
So you know how I argue, huh? Well Fred, I know how you argue too. It's the same garbage I see every day from the PTO. Same stench.
Posted by: JohnDarling at May 21, 2009 3:22 AM
"There's no reason the PTO can't acknowledge their prior decisions were wrong and provide the applicant an opportunity to correct their reliance on those prior decisions."
Except for ... Fuck em', that's why!
But in all seriousness, we have perfectly legitimate business to attend to. You knew the AE deal just as well as anyone, and you failed to meet the conditions of that deal. Nobody ever gave you any reason to "rely" on previous agency decisions. There is not one person, agency form, etc. etc. that says: You may rely on our judgements to be correct.
Besides all this nonsense JD, I've seen the kinds of errors which we're discussing here. There's a 99% chance that you came in with some garbage figures and then expected to get AE done. Out of the cases bearing figures issues that I've seen a good 99% clearly deserved it. Out of the whole sample of cases I've seen another 10% or so deserved it and never got it. I'm sorry you were unaware that there are a substantial number of drawing errors which slip through the system, and relied on the PTO's infinite perfection.
I understand how you must feel. Betrayed, angry, and let down that your pto isn't perfect. But you simply have to take that into account when filing AE cases. Or any other case for that matter. It's reality man.
And then I also understand how you feel about the draconian enforcement of the deal in AE apps. But, simply put, the deal is apparently only worth it if you actually take the time and trouble to put the case into condition for instant examination. You clearly seem not to have done this. We didn't ask you to submit the application. Don't act like it is incumbent upon us to see that you do things correctly, or we even want to see you do things correctly, and help you account for your mistakes. We're not popcopy.
"So you know how I argue, huh? Well Fred, I know how you argue too. It's the same garbage I see every day from the PTO. Same stench."
That is, it exposes JD as being wrong. He hates that stench. With a passion.
By the by JD, you're not screwed. Your app will get examined just like everyone else.
Also, why do you reckon it is that the gov doesn't just ask that you go get inspected and get a registration when a policeman pulls you over for having no inspection, and your registration is expired? They tell you specifically, instead of paying 25$ for the registration only, you'll pay 150$. Sure, sometimes the judge will dismiss the charges outright and save you court costs, but not always. It's the gov. You're screwed, end of story.
Why you expect so much more out of the pto than you would expect out of any other branch of the executive gov I will never understand.
Posted by: 6 at May 21, 2009 5:31 AM
I understand and accept that the PTO is thoroughly corrupt and incompetent. Your existence is all the proof one needs of that.
But I don't have to like it.
I expect the same level of professionalism from the government that I expect from myself. You obviously do not. That's why I'm out here and you're in there. And probably why you'll remain there for the rest of your life. Congratulations.
Posted by: JohnDarling at May 21, 2009 5:49 AM
I almost forgot, the test is whether or not you understand that your coming to power would be a bad thing, and thus do not pursue or promote it, or the aims which made your coming to power a bad thing.
I do not believe you are prepared to pass that test.
And I didn't expertize myself on the summary judgement. I'll take your word for it. But there still seems to be a disconnect between what the fed circ. said and what happened in so far as nobody disputes the materiality of the fact (at least between the parties I don't believe they did) of the price, at least in so far as it is acknowledged to be part of the scope and content of the prior art, and perhaps even in so far as the fact might be material to the common sense determination in play. So how can there be an issue of material fact, much less a "genuine" issue of material fact when the opposing side hasn't even made an issue out of it? The fed circ says that it "is reasonable" to expect the prioe might affect one of ordinary skill in the art. Sure, it might. Nobody disputes that. But the judge decided that it didn't. I'm supposing this is where the standards for summary judgement kick in and dictate that the judge had to differ to the guy presenting that evidence because he was the non-moving party or some such. Seems to me like it's not a question of if the fact was material even though I personally say it isn't, because the parties don't dispute it.
So the only thing I can come up with is if they're using the terminology of "genuine issue of material fact" as a catch all that includes the situation where the DC didn't provide the patentee with the full benefit of all his facts when he was the non-moving party. Seems like there was some such rule that I'd heard about. Either way, it has been too long since I looked into the matter of SJ, so if this whole thing rests simply on that then fine, I totally accept that.
As to the "subject matter as a whole" in 103 I believe there is still substantial controversy between us. For another day.
Posted by: 6000 at May 21, 2009 7:10 AM
"I expect the same level of professionalism from the government that I expect from myself. You obviously do not. That's why I'm out here and you're in there. And probably why you'll remain there for the rest of your life. Congratulations."
Professionalism? You call submitting the piles of crp that I see all to often to the PTO and calling them "drawings" professional?
Don't even go down the professional route JD, you lose there too. In so far as we're talking about applicants and attorneys in general. Perhaps you're a paragon of professionalism. But, from the limited exposure I've had to your cases you're not that much better than your fellows. Maybe a bit. I'll grant you. But not that much. Same goes for me, but then again, I'm not getting all high n mighty all of a sudden.
Posted by: 6000 at May 21, 2009 7:14 AM
Oh and I forgot, but let's not forget as a whole, the question isn't one of fairness, or professionalism, or meanness, the qusetion is one of whether or not the decision was arbitrary and capricious, as you had alleged.
The connection between the facts and the decision made is that when you submitted an application that wasn't in condition for examination you did not comply with the rules of that particular program. You were thus removed from the program.
No arbitraryness, no capriciousness. All is in order.
On the other hand, sure I agree with you, it's mean. It's unnecessary. Talk to the guys in charge.
Also, you know what else is unnecessary? Attorneys playing dumb with regards to prior art, or technical knowledge. I have to deal with it. I don't like it either. Is that professional?
Why do you guys do it? Because f em' that's why.
Posted by: 6000 at May 21, 2009 7:22 AM
There's a genuine issue of material fact when one side says, "There's no issue about this fact" and the other side says, "Yes there is."
That's the simplest explanation I can provide.
Not sure what exposure you've had to any of my cases. But all of my work with the PTO is a matter of public record, so anybody can review it. I invite you to. You will learn bibles of truth.
For the record, I spoke to 3 people at the PTO about my petition for AE. All of them were very polite and professional. No issues there. However, when I asked what recourse I had, one of them told me, presumably off the record, but I appreciated the honesty, that I could file a petition to review the decision to dismiss my AE petition. I was also told that the petition would be denied. No matter what the facts or circumstances were. I was told that the PTO had decided to simply deny any petitions regarding their AE decisions because they were annoyed at the allegations presented in the GSK litigation, for example the allegations that the requirements for the ESD and the "showing" required for a 3rd or higher continuation or a 2nd or higher RCE were vague and indefinite and subject to arbitrary and capricious decision making. So the decision was to simply deny all petitions regarding the AE program decisions to "prove" that the PTO does not act arbitrarily or capriciously. Of course, the irony of that is that such action is the height of arbitrary and capricious decision making. As nice as the folks I talked to were, I think the irony of the situation was lost on them.
So yes, I firmly believe that the PTO acted arbitrarily and capriciously in that instance.
"On the other hand, sure I agree with you, it's mean. It's unnecessary. Talk to the guys in charge."
Thanks. There's hope for you yet.
But you've been giving that "talk to the guys (gals?) in charge, they'll listen..." advice for about 2 years now. Not sure where you get that idea. What actions taken by the PTO since you've been there convice you that the management has any interest in listening to the suggestions of its "customers"?
Posted by: JohnDarling at May 21, 2009 7:45 AM
"I was told that the PTO had decided to simply deny any petitions regarding their AE decisions because they were annoyed at the allegations presented in the GSK litigation, for example the allegations that the requirements for the ESD and the "showing" required for a 3rd or higher continuation or a 2nd or higher RCE were vague and indefinite and subject to arbitrary and capricious decision making. So the decision was to simply deny all petitions regarding the AE program decisions to "prove" that the PTO does not act arbitrarily or capriciously. "
Can't help but lol @ u lawyers as a whole and the sht you keep backing yourselves into. This is a voluntary system that you're subjecting yourself to, it isn't even like you're getting pulled in by the po po and you guys still end up screwing yourselves by arguing too much in one area.
I agree that is ironic, but then again, do we not have to look to the totality of the facts before us? The PTO needs to appear as if they're making judgements based on the clearly established rules without exception, because those are the most clear "facts" about any case. Not only do they need to appear to do so, they really should do so, and so, that's what they did. You have to admit that it is "bending" the rules to allow you into the AE program, even if that is what you want, and even if it is totally reasonable to do so. If the rule needs tweaking then so be it. But it would be arbitrary and capricious to have allowed you in when considering the fact of the words of the rule. We're caught in a catch 22 of arbitrary and capriciousness with no answer being clearly the right one without changing the rule which I imagine takes awhile. They're playing it safe after having seen the damage done by not playing it safe in other cases. Reasonable.
"But you've been giving that "talk to the guys (gals?) in charge, they'll listen..." advice for about 2 years now. Not sure where you get that idea. What actions taken by the PTO since you've been there convice you that the management has any interest in listening to the suggestions of its "customers"? "
Well, let's start off with, for instance, the AE program even being in existence, then we can move on to the more recent interview before first action program (which is being expanded btw as it appears successful), and we can top off our salad with OA's that weren't completely on the mark being withdrawn by spe's.
The things that you're up against usually, it seems to me like, are instances where there are rules in place, harsh ones no doubt in some instances, and you're trying to argue mitigating circumstances. We're not judges in a courtroom here, we're an admin agency trying to get things done, sometimes there's a need for rules and a need to adhere to them so as to not get into bs later by not doing so.
Personally I would probably bother to look into the messes you guys make and try to be reasonable in sorting them out. Then I'd get burned for making some arbitrary and capricous decision one day because it is too complicated to get right every time. Then I might take the path that they're currently taking. Face it, it is you guys own bching biting you in the behind which is perhaps even more ironic than the limited facts you presented above.
Last word is your if you have anything further, I tire of the subject.
Posted by: 6000 at May 21, 2009 1:33 PM
Firstly, I will say that I DO agree with you that it does not appear to be proper (or "fair", but then life isn't "fair" so "fairness" isn't a consideration) to change a decision and thereby basically $crew the applicant. If the decision is reversed/changed and then, through no fault of the applicant, the AE denied the applicant should be allowed to correct whatever the PTO changed their decision on. The applicant acted in good faith based on previous PTO decisions & should not be penalized. Seems pretty clear cut to me. And it seems that 6000/6 is again arguing out his a$$ & not based on facts or proper procedure.
Now, as to some of your less accurate and less savory statements.
I did not "assume" anything. I proposed a hypothetical situation and changed the facts that you presented. I did not assume what certain facts were in your particular case. You need to read things more carefully.
And, how in the he11 can you know "how I argue" when I doubt you have ever seen any of my work (I work in an area you have clearly indicated that you do not normally prosecute in) & I have never posted here before (though I read a lot here & elsewhere).
Posted by: Fred Jones at May 21, 2009 1:38 PM
"The applicant acted in good faith based on previous PTO decisions & should not be penalized. Seems pretty clear cut to me. And it seems that 6000/6 is again arguing out his a$$ & not based on facts or proper procedure."
Please explain how the fact is not that there is an error and also explain how it is not proper to follow the rules when there is an error. Also, perhaps you can explain briefly what "decision" the PTO made in the current situation which the applicant has cause to "rely" upon, and further, perhaps you could explain what cause there is to "rely" upon any agency action except in so far as the statute demands (presumption of validity).
If you please, I will wait.
Posted by: 6000 at May 21, 2009 2:16 PM
It's nice to see we found some common ground. The PTO's actions in some applications filed in the AE program have been unfair. And 6 is an idiot.
I'm sure we'll find more common ground in the future.
Posted by: JohnDarling at May 22, 2009 3:00 AM
You must have exceptionally low thresholds if you accept that 6 being an idiot stand for common ground.
Posted by: Noise above Law at May 22, 2009 5:10 AM
At this stage of PTO-patent bar relations, I'll take anything I can get. :-)
6 is typical of the never-practiced-a-day-in-their-life-monday-morning-quarterbacking-hindsight-addled stooges over at the PTO. His dispensing of practice advice would be mildly amusing if it wasn't so insulting.
There's a very simple explanation why I'm out here and 6 is in there: I know I can and he knows he can't.
Posted by: JohnDarling at May 22, 2009 5:57 AM
Please be careful making any assumptions concerning what 6 "knows" - very unproven grounds there.
Posted by: Noise above Law at May 22, 2009 6:46 AM
"There's a very simple explanation why I'm out here and 6 is in there: I know I can and he knows he can't."
For a man that spent 9? years here you surprise me by using this line, or a variation thereof, at least once a week with reference to different people.
What precisely do you know you can that I know I can't? Be a jackass that blames their problems and mistakes on everyone other than themselves? You're right. I have a hard time doing that and I know I do, whereas it is plain to see you have little trouble doing it. I'm sure that's good for business so keep it up.
I just brought up a couple of your old patents JD to give us all something to lol about. What did I find? Humble beginnings, toilet paper man. 5464170 bring back memories? I wish I could have cut my teeth on something as simple as this sht. I also wish I could review the record of this piece of work online. Surely we'd see a real quality office action. Or was this a first action allowance? Hmmm.
And man, you did a lot of those toilet paper dispenser cases didn't you? With a gig like that, it must have been pretty tough to tear yourself away from here. I on the other hand get to come in to work and consider complex technical issues in addition to your everyday bs issues.
I don't believe this. That a guy from the toilet paper dispenser arts would talk smack about any current examiner in a complex field is more ironic than anything in this thread so far. I doubt if you could even do my job at my age had you been handed it. "Mr. Darling received his Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering (Magna Cum Laude) from Tulane University in 1989." Run of the mill mech e. You wouldn't have a prayer at doing this job any sort of near right at my age. On the other hand, it looks like you have picked up some learnin over the years. That's a credit to you at the least, but you might check yourself when dealing with what would be overwhelmingly your intellectual better, even if you happen to have enough years on them such that your experience outweighs their wit on occasion.
Pitting me v. you at my age would be a no contest slaughter in my favor. And that's being generous to you, not arrogant towards myself.
JD calling me an idiot, ridiculous.
Posted by: 6000 at May 22, 2009 9:12 AM
"...but you might check yourself when dealing with what would be overwhelmingly your intellectual better..."
You are an idiot.
"Pitting me v. you at my age would be a no contest slaughter in my favor."
When I was your age, and experience level at the PTO, I had the sense to know I didn't know much about the law. Can't say the same about you.
"Run of the mill mech e."
And you're what? A run of the mill electrical. Gee, I'm impressed.
I'm sure the deposition processes applications or whatever you're examining are really complex. PhD level stuff I'm sure.
You have the typical arrogance and conceit of all of the self-professed "technical experts" over there at the PTO. Your ignorance of the law is debilitating though.
And in the unlikely event you ever make it out of there, and one of those "run of the mill" mechanical cases lands on your desk, I'd love to be there to watch you flounder around with it. Those simple mechanical cases are the hardest to prosecute. You may find that out some day.
I'll give you mad props on your mastery of baby talk and video game playing. You're the outright winner in those categories. Real intellectual pursuits those are.
Saw your post on dissents at the BPAI over on Patently-O. The fact that you consider learning the law to be a cost of doing your job, rather than an investment in learning to do your job properly is all I, or anybody else, needs to know about you.
"On the other hand, it looks like you have picked up some learnin over the years."
Exactly. But are you going to be able to say the same about yourself 6-7 years from now?
Somehow I doubt it.
Good luck though.
Posted by: JohnDarling at May 22, 2009 10:06 AM