« Vapors | Main | BPAI Ballroom »

June 29, 2010

Meaning

A deluge of patent lawyers wanting to explain the import of the Supreme Court's Bilski bonk has besieged my email inbox, and maybe yours too. Let me save you the time. Of the SCOTUS patent rulings in the past decade, the implications of Bilski are the easiest to decipher. What Bilski means is that business methods are patentable. What Bilski means is that the CAFC § 101 standbys, notably State Street and AT&T Corp. are precedentia non grata (yep, just making up Latin, but you get the point). § 101 as "only a threshold test" may mean more a retuning elsewhere than another attempt at pinning down 101 itself.

What is inevitable is that the boundaries of §101 are more open to challenge than for quite some time. And the response is likely to be gingerly developing new 101 tests in the years to come. But Bilski may be something of a ricochet shot.

 The §101 eligibility inquiry is only a threshold test. Even if a claimed invention qualifies in one of the four categories, it must also satisfy "the conditions and requirements of this title," §101(a), including novelty, see §102, nonobviousness, see §103, and a full and particular description, see §112.

"The §101... threshold test" may mean a tightening of the only loose screw left, §112 ¶ 2. Backing 101 "abstract" was the fact that Bilski was ambiguous in its scope, yet the current CAFC bar §112 ¶ 2 only requires that a claim be "not amenable to construction or are insolubly ambiguous." Judge Plager may be the spearhead for revisiting §112 ¶ 2 laxity, requiring that a claim encompass a "particular description" in scope.

Posted by Patent Hawk at June 29, 2010 9:37 PM | § 101

Comments

this article from just three weeks ago on msnbc calling Scalia a pygmy in relation to Stevens really made him go off, so he stabbed Stevens in the back, wouldn't make his majority, even though we know thru horse whisperer comment that he thinks business methods are bunk:

MSNBC’s Alter: Justice Stevens ‘Great Intellect’ ‘Makes Scalia Look Like a Pygmy,’ ‘Hypocrisy’ on GOP Court
By Brad Wilmouth (Bio | Archive)
Tue, 04/06/2010 - 16:08 ET

On Monday’s Countdown show, MSNBC political analyst Jonathan Alter – also of Newsweek – claimed that liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is, in fact, a "moderate" who has such "great intellect" that he makes conservative Justice Antonin Scalia "look like a pygmy." Alter: "Justice Stevens is the great intellect on the court in our generation. He makes, say, Scalia look like a pygmy, intellectually, despite all of his fireworks that Scalia gives off. Stevens was an appointee of Republican Gerald Ford. But he`s always been a moderate who has tried to interpret the law, which is his job, in an intellectually honest way."

Posted by: fliptop at June 30, 2010 12:07 AM

Wow, fliptop, I didn't know MSNBC had any viewers... thanks for bringing that to light. :-)

But I'm sure Justice Scalia isn't as petty (or as insecure) as MSNBC's analysists are. I'd also say that Justice Stevens and Justice Scalia have both served their country admirably, to the best of their abilities (and greater than yours or mine). We owe them both a debt of gratitude.

The key to the opinion may be the last sentence of the Breyer/Scalia concurrence. Make sure your claims recite a MoT, or be ready to attempt a costly (and uncertain) showing in court.

Posted by: nirpa at June 30, 2010 3:10 AM

"The key to the opinion may be the last sentence of the Breyer/Scalia concurrence"

Oh yes - the great concurrence of two justices. Sorry, but that appears to be the least to be taken from the Great (and continuing) Disappointment of the Bilski Saga.

Posted by: Pedantic Pete at June 30, 2010 3:24 AM

"Oh yes - the great concurrence of two justices."

Yes, it was one Justice more than necessary. Make sure your claims recite a MoT, or be ready to attempt a costly (and uncertain) showing in court. :-)

Posted by: nirpa at June 30, 2010 3:36 AM

I never dreamed that "gobbledygook" Scalia would end up saving the US patent system. But maybe you are right. Maybe jealousy drove Scalia into opposing the allegedly more 'insightful' minds of Stevens and Breyer.

Let us thank God for giving Scalia the vices of jealousy and vengence.

Posted by: step back at June 30, 2010 5:14 AM

You are too generous step back.

Scalia simply could not ignore that fact that 273 meant "business methods" are real - at least according to Congress. And since nowhere else in the Supreme's Bilski opinion is the argument of Constitutional Rights discussed, going against the clear voice of Congress could only be penned by the outgoing Stevens. The real question for the futute is how the three signers to the Steven's opinion could reconcile the view that 273 means nothing (if the view that Congress does not include Business Methods under 101).

Posted by: Pedantic Pete at June 30, 2010 5:38 AM

PP,

On the question of 273 and the Stevens 4 in Bilski v. Kappos, the answer is very simple.

Human beings can act irrationally.
Supreme Court justices are human beings.
Ergo they can cook up any irrational argument they want to do away with the existence of 273.

(IIRC, the Stevens minority opined that 273 was written as a rushed "stop gap" measure, just in case the untenable business methods are actually upheld. For that matter, I guess the US Constitution was written as a "stop gap" measure.)

Posted by: step back at June 30, 2010 8:05 AM

Well it is good to see at least PH has misinterpreted the decision. There will be some fun times ahead after all.

In the mean time you might want to read some of those things in your email hawk.

Posted by: 6000 at June 30, 2010 9:51 AM

I'm sure we can all agree that it is at least somewhat ironic that congress having responded to the CAFC releasing evil into the world by trying to mitigate that evil would in the end validate that evil in the eyes of a court later.

The fact is, congress looked to the courts to figure out what was patentable. And they still do. Then the courts pass the buck back to congress and rely on nonsense to support the evils that their lower court unleashed.

Posted by: 6000 at June 30, 2010 9:54 AM

6000,

I've seen the reference to Congress passing the buck to the courts to figure out what was (is) patentable in the Stevens concurrence (dissent). Stevens points out that this thought is based on a reference in Graham to a quote from a Jefferson letter to McPherson. As prestigious as a letter may be, such does not have (nor should it) the force of law.

At the least, it strikes me as unconstitutional based on Article 8 for the judiciary to make law from the bench on what is such a critical aspect of the patent system (what gets in the front door). My gut reaction is that the Supreme Court, ever vigilant on matters of Constitutionality, recognize this and refuse to bite on the apple of temptation in making such a foundational law.

Posted by: Pedantic Pete at June 30, 2010 12:50 PM

The irony is that with Section 273, Congress in characteristic fashion voted "present" on business method patents, and tried to remedy their ill effects rather than root out their cause. (AIPA 99 was widely lobbied by many forces - business method patents were becoming booming business; Section 273 merely reflected that lobby, nothing more, nothing less. The "problem" Congress saw was not the "business method patents" themselves, but rather lay in the fact that all companies had previously held/practiced business methods as trade secrets since these methods were thought/known to be unpatentable. After State Street, business methods were now patentable by a later inventor who promptly filed an application, and many companies thus faced liability for their secret use of well-established though closely-held business practices. It was this business liability that Section 273 meant to address, not business method patents as a whole)

And of course, if Congress chose not to not root out the cause of business methods, neither should the Supreme Court (Justice Stevens et al.), if it is to follow Congressional intent.

The passage of Section 273 was in fact tacit (meaning passive, easy) acceptance by Congress of business method patents.

Posted by: nirpa at July 1, 2010 4:25 AM

Hopefully, the prior use concept in 273 will be extended to all subject matter when first to file is approved.

Under F2I, one's prior use of a device or method, etc. can be asserted against infringement via invalidity. Pop!! The whole patent disappears.

By definition, this won't be possible under F2F; however, prior use (not just prior conception) should be retained as a defense against infringement.

Posted by: Babel Boy at July 1, 2010 11:07 AM

"The passage of Section 273 was in fact tacit (meaning passive, easy) acceptance by Congress of business method patents."

I suppose that's why Leahy is ready to take up arms against business methods now... riiiiight. Face it Nirpa, the people in congress are tards more or less, they didn't mean to legitimize business methods by passing 273. That's like saying a baby intentionally sht his pants. Stuff just happens on accident sometimes.

That's also like saying congress really really really wanted Thomas-Rassert to pay 1.8 million dollars or whatever huge amount in that infringment trial. Pull your head out of your as man.

Posted by: 6000 at July 1, 2010 5:26 PM

6K, from the Conference Report (accompanying the AIPA) when 273 was enacted:

The subtitle [273] clarifies the interface between two key branches of intellectual property law -- patents and trade secrets. Patent law serves the public interest by encouraging innovation and investment in new technology, and may be thought of as providing a right to exclude other parties from an invention in return for the inventor making a public disclosure of the invention. Trade secret law, however, also serves the public interest by protecting investments in new technology. Trade secrets have taken on a new importance with an increase in the ability to patent all business methods and processes. It would be administratively and economically impossible to expect any inventor to apply for a patent on all methods and processes now deemed patentable. In order to protect inventors and encourage proper disclosure, this subtitle focuses on methods for doing and conducting business, including methods used in connection with internal commercial operations [of businesses]....

Reread Section 273 - there was no push-back from Congress against the existence of business method patents at the time. The intent of 273 was to put companies who wanted rather to rely on trade secrets on an even playing field with companies that might patent, in light of State Street which Congress and the Bar and the PTO (the patent issued in 1993) as well as inventors' groups (at the time) had embraced.

I suppose that's why Leahy is ready to take up arms against business methods now... riiiiight.

Hindsight is 20/20 - he now has an additional 11 years of wisdom under his belt. If you reread section 273, you should be able to decipher that in 1999 Congress only intended to make business method patents unenforceable against prior users, while keeping them enforceable (even if there were said prior users!!) against the rest of the world.

(9) INVALIDITY.- A patent shall not be deemed to be invalid under section 102 or 103 of this title solely because a defense is raised or established under this section.

Posted by: nirpa at July 1, 2010 6:47 PM

"I never dreamed that "gobbledygook" Scalia would end up saving the US patent system."

Neither did my patent attorney brother and I, but God Bless him for it.

Posted by: EG at July 2, 2010 7:37 AM

"Trade secrets have taken on a new importance with an increase in the ability to patent all business methods and processes. "

Exactly, they were following the court's lead entirely. The USSC should have had it's hands untied save for congress's ridiculous response to a lower court.

I get why the USSC used it the way they did in the decision, but I doubt if there was a member amongst them that didn't realize how st upid it was how that played out. It's a failure of the system, plain and simple.

"In order to protect inventors and encourage proper disclosure, this subtitle focuses on methods for doing and conducting business, including methods used in connection with internal commercial operations [of businesses]...."

Guess what would also have protected them? Not having unleashed business methods in the first place. What would have done that was a higher court overruling the nonsense in SS back when SS was decided and not having unleashed evil in the first place.

The only real question that this situation brings out is, why did they not apply for cert in SS, or why didn't the USSC grant that cert and stop this nonsense in the beginning? The whole thing stems from that mistake.

"Reread Section 273 - there was no push-back from Congress against the existence of business method patents at the time. "

The two sentences you just wrote prior to this one was push-back from congress against the existence of business method patents at the time. Maybe you aren't 100% clear about what "push-back" means?

"If you reread section 273"

I don't need to reread it, I know exactly what it says. I can in fact nearly recite it by heart. It's plain as day to us "simple folk" wtf congress was doing. All it reasonably could, politically speaking, to limit the blowback of the Fed Circ's poor decision drafting/making.

However, as you note, hopefully Leahy and others in congress have their eyesight honed down to 20/20 by the recent decision and hindsight and thus get in gear.

"with an increase in the ability to patent all business methods and processes. "

As per congressional comments, just how do you think that congress feels it is valid for a court to "increase [] the ability to patent all business methods and processes"? Hmmm? Do courts write lawls? Why should their ever have been such an increase in the first instance? I'll tell you why, because of a mistake that the Fed. Circ waited 10 years to correct.

Fact is, the courts bonked it on the day of SS and we're still paying for it.

Posted by: 6000 at July 2, 2010 11:00 AM

"I don't need to reread it, I know exactly what it says. I can in fact nearly recite it by heart. It's plain as day to us 'simple folk' wtf congress was doing. All it reasonably could, politically speaking, to limit the blowback of the Fed Circ's poor decision drafting/making."

You are simple, 6tard.

So Congress couldn't amend section 101 in response to the Fed. Cir.'s decision in State Street to exclude business methods back in 1999 because it wasn't politically possible? What makes you think it's politically possible in 2010?

LOL

U R DUM.

Posted by: pong at July 2, 2010 11:35 AM

"What makes you think it's politically possible in 2010?"

I didn't say that it was tard. But I do hope that it is.

BTW, I saw your nonsense get smacked down at the board, I was loling all the way home. All that blabbering about having to "knock down" the prima facie case of obviousness sure did you a lot of good didn't it lololololololol.

Posted by: 6000 at July 2, 2010 12:08 PM

Guess what would also have protected them? Not having unleashed business methods in the first place.

6K, omgosh, you don't know who unleashed business method patents on the world?? Srsly?? You would have simply loved examining during the golden age of patenting (during the Clinton/Lehman era).

The perspective following State Street, from
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/08/cyber/cyberlaw/28law.html

The patent office has awarded an increasing number of patents for business models in general since 1996, when it issued new guidelines detailing its approach to issuing patents for computer software and hardware....

"For the first time, an appeals court clearly stated that rejecting a patent claim simply because it claimed a 'method of doing business' was wrong," said Karen Buchanan, associate solicitor in the Office of the Solicitor at the Patent and Trademark Office.

Buchanan said the decision clearly supported the patent office's growing practice of awarding business model patents. At the same time, she conceded that this practice is especially problematic in cyberspace. Because the medium is so new, she said, patent investigators have not always had an easy time determining the relative novelty of a business model.

Posted by: nirpa at July 2, 2010 12:09 PM

So you're saying that the PTO started the mess because it issued a lot of "business method" patents pre-SS?

I would agree with you that the PTO must take some responsibility in that event, but the burden lays squarely at the feet of the Fed. Circ. to stop that nonsense immediately as soon as they get the chance.

They failed.

The fact that the PTO had a minor failure doesn't mitigate that fact at all in my mind because I have little confidence in examiners to allow ONLY valid patents anyway. Just looking around at myself and my fellows that I personally know I can tell you that my confidence level is abysmally low. I have even less confidence in the people that make policy. They're great people I'm sure, but the policies issuing forth from those folks over the last 20 years are mind-bogglingly bad and a feedback system to get them to change their minds is either non-existant or hard to find/use (hat tip to the newest director to getting something like that in place, he did get at least something right). The only people I have the slightest confidence in is the courts, and even there they have fallen flat for a couple of decades. It is a human endeavor after all, so I try to include that there will have to be errors. Even so, low confidence all the way around based on all of the previously mentioned track records.

Besides, what might be more telling is how many business methods were rejected at the same time as lots started to get allowed. Fact is, the application rate overall went up during that period, and did so very quickly. That's going to lead to more mis-issued patents as well as validly issued patents.

""For the first time, an appeals court clearly stated that rejecting a patent claim simply because it claimed a 'method of doing business' was wrong," said Karen Buchanan, associate solicitor in the Office of the Solicitor at the Patent and Trademark Office."

Yeah, and the manner in which they did so was so obviously off base it is a travesty it took a decade to get it sorted out. I wonder how many billions were wasted on litigation etc of claims that were blatantly invalid under the proper analysis. Great work all the way around. /golfclap.

Posted by: 6000 at July 2, 2010 12:27 PM

I would agree with you that the PTO must take some responsibility in that event, but the burden lays squarely at the feet of the Fed. Circ.

The Federal Courts end up doing what the PTO Solicitor says 8 or 9 times out of 10. (That's why software was generally not patentable in the 60s, 70s, and 80s - because your Solicitors would appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court if necessary.) But something changed in the 90s, 00s, and today....

Posted by: nirpa at July 2, 2010 12:46 PM

"BTW, I saw your nonsense get smacked down at the board, I was loling all the way home. All that blabbering about having to 'knock down' the prima facie case of obviousness sure did you a lot of good didn't it lololololololol."

You are a tard.

I was the one who told you that evidence of secondary considerations does not have to knock down a prima facie case. The BPAI has finally gotten around to issuing a "precedential" decision to basically confirm what the law has been for years. Thanks.

I'm coming to the PTO next week to have an interview with NAL's old boss. Seeing as how you're right down the hall, maybe I'll stop in and say hi.

Posted by: pong at July 2, 2010 1:10 PM

"I can tell you that my confidence level is abysmally low."

When did this forum become a counseling session?

Grow some.

Posted by: Pedantic Pete at July 2, 2010 2:13 PM

nirpa,

The following was found at Gene Quinn's IPWatchdog from a blogger named scrappy:

A little Congressional Intent, as preserved in the Congressional Record – Senate, November 17, 1999, pages 29969, 29970.

It sure looks like Congress wanted to protect the business method patent owner, while balancing those rights against the interests of earlier inventors who had relied on trade secrets.

SUBTITLE C.FIRST INVENTOR DEFENSE

Subtitle C strikes an equitable balance between the interests of U.S. inventors who have invented and commercialized business methods and processes, many of which until recently were thought not to be patentable, and U.S. or foreign inventors who later patent the methods and processes. The subtitle creates a defense for inventors who have reduced an invention to practice in the U.S. at least one year before the patent filing date of another, typically later, inventor and commercially used the invention in the U.S. before the filing date. A party entitled to the defense must not have derived the invention from the patent owner. The bill protects the [business method] patent owner by providing that the establishment of the defense by such an inventor or entrepreneur does not invalidate the patent.

The subtitle clarifies the interface between two key branches of intellectual property law – patents and trade secrets. Patent law serves the public interest by encouraging innovation and investment in new technology, and may be thought of as providing a right to exclude other parties from an invention in return for the inventor making a public disclosure of the invention. Trade secret law, however, also serves the public interest by protecting investments in new technology. Trade secrets have taken on a new importance with an increase in the ability to patent all business methods and processes. It would be administratively and economically impossible to expect any inventor to apply for a patent on all methods and processes now deemed patentable. In order to protect inventors and to encourage proper disclosure, this subtitle focuses on methods for doing and conducting business, including methods used in connection with internal commercial operations as well as those used in connection with the sale or transfer of useful end results – whether in the form of physical products, or in the form of services, or in the form of some other useful results; for example, results produced through the manipulation of data or other inputs to produce a useful result.

The earlier-inventor defense is important to many small and large businesses, including financial services, software companies, and manufacturing firms – any business that relies on innovative business processes and methods. The 1998 opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank and Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group,[citation omitted] which held that methods of doing business are patentable, has added to the urgency of the issue. As the Court noted, the reference to the business method exception had been improperly applied to a wide variety of processes, blurring the essential question of whether the invention produced a “useful, concrete, and tangible result”. In the wake of State Street, thousands of methods and processes used internally are now being patented. In the past, many businesses that developed and used such methods and processes thought secrecy was the only protection available. Under established law, any of these inventions which have been in commercial use- public or secret – for more than one year cannot now be the subject of a valid U.S. patent.

Subsection (b)(9) specifies that the successful assertion of the defense does not mean that the affected patent is invalid. Paragraph (9) eliminates a point of uncertainty under current law, and strikes a balance between the rights of an inventor who obtains a patent after another inventor has taken the steps to qualify for a prior use defense. The bill provides that the commercial use of a method in operating a business before the patentee’s filing date, by an individual or entity that can establish a section 273 defense, does not invalidate the patent. For example, under current law, although the matter has seldom been litigated, a party who commercially used an invention in secrecy before the patent filing date and who also invented the subject matter before the patent owner’s invention may argue that the patent is invalid under section 102 (g) of the Patent Act. Arguably, commercial use of an invention in secrecy is not suppression or concealment of the invention within the meaning of section 102(g), and therefore the party’s earlier invention could invalidate the patent.

Posted by: Anon at July 2, 2010 4:06 PM

"You are a tard.

I was the one who told you that evidence of secondary considerations does not have to knock down a prima facie case."

And I was the one who told you that there was no such nonsense going on in the first place. I saw how the board read your silly appeal. They're like "hmmm, well it appears as if this person has made up something to argue against that nobody has ever argued against him, but we're going to construe his argument this way in order for it to make any sense:" Gj making up arguments that were never presented against you. Nice loss too lolololol.

Like I told you originally, the 2nd thing you said is how the first thing is accomplished. And that is the lawl bucko. They didn't confirm anything other than that exactly what I said is the law is precisely it. Now if you'll get your mind out of imagination land where the PTO is supposedly bullying you around with their blatantly improper analysis technique you can join us here on earth where they look over rejections just fine. Or are you gonna appeal to the Fed Circ? I hope you do, I could use some more lols. In your appeal be sure to accuse the 2nd board panel of requiring you to "knock down" a prima facie case too lololololol.

"I'm coming to the PTO next week to have an interview with NAL's old boss. Seeing as how you're right down the hall, maybe I'll stop in and say hi."

Don't make it after 12, you never know if you'll catch me after that. Call before you come if you want me to clean up the ol' office, still messy since end of the quarter. And if you want to hear a totally juicy piece of gossip about NAL's old boss send examiner6k@yahoo.com a mail. Oh, and after the interview maybe you could get her to give NAL a refresher on what is functional language, what is method step language, and what is intended use. lololololol. NAL will probably never grasp the difference, just like she can't understand product by process claims, but hey, it's worth a try, and she's more apt to listen to her old mentor. Of course, it could be her old mentor's fault she is the way she is today :(

But hey, dude look on the bright side, now you'll be associated with a precedential decision for all time. Don't worry about the fact that you look like an incompetent attorney get you down, you're like one of 20000.

"many of which until recently were thought not to be patentable"

Until a court said ""oops" my bad, they're patentable, then ten years later said "oops" my bad, they're not really very much, oh and what I said before, ignore that". Then a higher court said, "too late, congress done blessed it in the interim by trying to protect people from the evil you unleashed".

Frakin' buck passing.

Posted by: 6000 at July 2, 2010 11:56 PM

"But something changed in the 90s, 00s, and today...."

All the good solicitors got old and died and were then replaced by idiots? I don't know where you are going with this. Are you going down the political route?

Posted by: 6000 at July 3, 2010 12:02 AM

Yeah, anon, that scrappy dude just seems to take stuff I write, put his name on it, and post it over at IPWatchdog. [Hehh, I heard a rumor he applied to the PTO as one of those "former examiners" they were seeking in March and they rejected his application outright! Well, at least that management decision should help 6K's abysmally low confidence level! Poor 6K.]

I will say the analysis of the state of the law in the Congressional Record wasn't exactly right perhaps... my guess is it should have said, "Under established law, any of these inventions which have been in commercial use - public or secret - for more than one year cannot now be the subject of a valid U.S. patent --by the commercial user--." This was the heart of the dilemma raised by State Street. If a company had been using a trade secret in commerce for more than 1 year, they were arguably prevented from subsequently getting a patent on it based on CAFC decisions (D.L. Auld Co.) Slower third parties, however, who independently developed and promptly filed were not barred from getting a patent on it by the secret commercial use of another (W.L. Gore).

So the dilemma (without a prior user defense) was:

1) Innovation Corp. uses a secret innovative (business) method to commercialize goods for more than 1 year.

2) State Street is decided.

3) Innovation Corp. is now (arguably) barred from filing an application on the method.

4) Slow Corp. develops the same innovative method and files an application on it for which no public prior art exists.

5) Slow Corp. gets the patent and prevents Innovation Corp. from using the age-old method.

This was the situation that the prior user defense in 273 meant to remedy (e.g., providing protection for Innovation Corp. while still allowing Slow Corp. to assert its method patent against the rest of the world). Otherwise, the only way Innovation Corp. could have protected itself (after State Street) from a later Slow Corp. patent was to publish its trade secret immediately and lose any competitive edge it had gained from the method. Prisoner's dilemma for Innovation Corp. for sure.

P.S. 6K, I was talking about politics - people (solicitors) with no patent experience being put in positions controlling PTO policy by people (Directors) with no patent experience. Hopefully that will be changing going forward, since change has already started at the top, thankfully.

Posted by: nirpa at July 3, 2010 6:31 AM

"And I was the one who told you that there was no such nonsense going on in the first place."

LOL. So the Board felt it necessary to issue a precedential decision explaining the proper analysis why? Because all the retards over there were doing it properly all along?

Your tardness grows by leaps and bounds every day.

"Don't worry about the fact that you look like an incompetent attorney get you down, you're like one of 20000."

Can't think of a higher compliment coming from a retard like you. All 20,000 of us are so glad that a legal genius like you has chosen to stay at the PTO rather than compete with us.

ROFLMAO

Posted by: pong at July 3, 2010 10:01 AM

"LOL. So the Board felt it necessary to issue a precedential decision explaining the proper analysis why? Because all the retards over there were doing it properly all along?"

As has been explained on these boards before, there are a number of reasons that a decision is made precedential that have nothing to do with whether or not the office was doing things right all along. If you weren't such a tard, you'd know that.

In case you didn't notice, the board told you that what you wanted done had already been done. Just like it is in all cases. That is, they didn't change anything. You apparently just wanted the analysis written out for you in longhand, longwinded language. Goodluck getting that after this decision any more than you did before.

Oh, and stop stealing my insult you unimaginativetard.

"All 20,000 of us are so glad that a legal genius like you has chosen to stay at the PTO rather than compete with us."

Compete with you? There would be no "competition" lol. You'd (as well as the other 20k) have already managed to have "lost" any such competition by yourself via shooting yourself in the foot before I would even care to take an action.

"Hehh, I heard a rumor he applied to the PTO as one of those "former examiners" they were seeking in March and they rejected his application outright! "

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111!1

But why did they reject it outright? Did they KSR him? lolololol.

Posted by: 6000 at July 3, 2010 2:06 PM

Oh and by the by, I made "decorative" pieces for a table with joining functionality on the edges before I lacquered them with an acrylic lacquer and set them out in the sun to dry for woodshop in the 10th grade (1998?). Most of my classmates did nearly, if not specifically the, same thing, just as woodworkers had been doing for decades before us. I doubt using dry acrylic lacquer powder instead and metlting it before setting it out in the sun is outside the realm of our dear ol' KSR.

I still have the table I made btw.

Posted by: 6000 at July 3, 2010 2:50 PM

Clear as Stevens' choice of words signifying clarity...

Although Corporations have been given the rights of a personal voice, I do not believe that computers have yet ascended to have the status afforded a legal entity, and thus a place to be charged in the courts. That right still belongs to people (and corporations) that use the aforementioned computers.

Posted by: Pedantic Pete at July 4, 2010 7:08 AM

"As has been explained on these boards before, there are a number of reasons that a decision is made precedential that have nothing to do with whether or not the office was doing things right all along. If you weren't such a tard, you'd know that."

I'm sure the BPAI panel saw the examiner's "analysis" of the Declaration, which amounted to the examiner stating, without much more, "The Declaration is not persuasive" (page 14 of the FR iirc) and thought, "Wow, this guy really knows his stuff. But maybe we should issue a precedential decision just to confirm what all the examiners already know. Just for poopies and ha-ha's, cuz it's not like we don't have a 29 month backlog we could be working down."

I'm sure that was the thinking.

"Oh, and stop stealing my insult you unimaginativetard."

Only a retard like you thinks adding "tard" to any word is "imaginitive." Well, for you I guess it is.

"Compete with you? There would be no 'competition' lol."

I'm not worried about competing with anybody who writes like this:

"You'd (as well as the other 20k) have already managed to have 'lost' any such competition by yourself via shooting yourself in the foot before I would even care to take an action."

Congrats on that excellent woodshop project. It's clear you found that easier than grammar.

"Oh and by the by, I made 'decorative' pieces for a table with joining functionality on the edges before I lacquered them with an acrylic lacquer and set them out in the sun to dry for woodshop in the 10th grade (1998?). Most of my classmates did nearly, if not specifically the, same thing, just as woodworkers had been doing for decades before us. I doubt using dry acrylic lacquer powder instead and metlting it before setting it out in the sun is outside the realm of our dear ol' KSR.

I still have the table I made btw."

Didn't you tell us once before that your sophomore science project anticipated some patent?

Keep up the great work.

LOL

Posted by: pong at July 7, 2010 6:14 AM