« Unexpected | Main | Dubious »

May 14, 2009

The Problem

The backlog in the USPTO is one enormous statement of managerial incompetence. Nothing more. Singularly, what the Office has sorely lacked, and still lacks, is competent leadership. Jon Dudas was the Dubya of patents. For both, this nation is paying an incredible price, and will for years to come. Unless and until effective management is on board, with its eye on the ball of examination quality, and all that entails, all the other recommendations are stillborn to spurring solutions.

Inspired by Tessera CEO Hank Nothhaft in the Silicon Valley MercuryNews, who had some thought-provoking things to say, though, oddly for a CEO, quality management wasn't one of them.

Posted by Patent Hawk at May 14, 2009 9:10 PM | The Patent Office


Personally I don't see why we haven't just put hawk in as director already and simply called it a day as he ran the entire organization into the ground.

Posted by: 6000 at May 15, 2009 12:49 PM

"...as he ran the entire organization into the ground."

C'mon 6, I know it's Friday and all, but try to put a lucent statement together, OK?

Posted by: Noise above Law at May 15, 2009 1:23 PM


Don't you mean "lucid"?

I guess someone's had an early start.

Hey 6, Wait up for me...

Posted by: Einstein drinking with 6 at May 15, 2009 2:27 PM


If I were USPTO Director, I would improve productivity by blocking access to patent blogs so examiners couldn't fritter away their time on patent pornography. It's bad enough, the screwy things those bloggers write, but then get a whiff of the comments on those blogs....

Posted by: Patent Hawk at May 15, 2009 4:02 PM


Nice self-deprecation. So this place is self admittedly patent pornography? That might explain some of the friends you are making.


This round's on me.

Posted by: Larry Flint drinking with 6 at May 16, 2009 10:55 AM

Reducing the backlog is very simple: Force the legions of knownothingdonothinguselessdeadweightGS-15's back to examining.

They have "administrative SPE's" now that check examiner time sheets. Paying GS-15 salaries to peeople to make sure the examiner doesn't claim too much other time for issuing that restriction requiremnt.


Go look at the roster of these TC's and see the idiotic titles they given these useless deadweights: subject matter expert, business process specialist, QAS.

Beyond ridiculous.

Send them all back to examining.

GS-15 production for GS-15 pay.


Posted by: JohnDarling at May 18, 2009 5:11 AM

Let's be honest, hawk, D, Noonan et al. are the larry flints of the patent world.

Sadly though your idea for increasing productivity in that regard would actually only hinder it. At present you guys are the best of the best for legal news as well as legal pron. It balances out.

Also it is great motivation to see what happens when we do our job poorly. For instance, there is some pending litigation v microsoft that probably didn't ever need to happen but for some examiner needing to get home for dinner who didn't have the balls to raise a Bilski rejection preBilski.

But JD, if we had no QASs then who would assure you of our quality? Don't you need to be assured? Not only as a practicioner, but as a member of the public as well? Furthermore I imagine you need people who you can really trust to assure you, and that doesn't come cheap.

And what about subject matter experts? If we didn't have any of those we wouldn't have any experts in subject matter! That stuff doesn't come cheap man!

(I actually laughed out loud irl)

btw jd, you should get Gene to ask peggy about some of those gs15's. Whenever he asks her a question she gives him a feel good answer and he loves the office and feels all tingly in his special spot. His mind. I think.

Posted by: 6000 at May 18, 2009 9:44 AM

6K wrote:
"...didn't have the balls to raise a Bilski rejection preBilski."


I am starting to think that your balls should be taken away from you, for the benefit of mankind

Posted by: angry dude at May 18, 2009 10:04 AM

Hehh, does this sound familiar?


I wonder who Bush appointed to run the Copyright Office?

Posted by: niRPa at May 19, 2009 3:06 PM