The magnitude of RCEs and continuation filings rankles Junior Q & HW:

Sixty-five percent of the applications reported by the USPTO as abandoned in its 2010 fiscal year were not in fact abandoned but were refiled, and 42% of the applications filed at the USPTO in its 2010 fiscal year were such 'refiled' applications. Their elimination, which could be done by simple statutory amendments, would lead to an increase in USPTO resources available for examination of original applications by more than 70% without any increase in staff or budget. And the quality of the patents issued by the USPTO should be enhanced by allowing it to devote its examination resources only to original applications.

Mr. Wegner calls this a "critical problem." Why are Junior Q and happy Hal hopping hot about continuations?

RCEs are a quick mulligan, letting a prosecutor adjust for new information found, or presented by an examiner. Surely it should be against the law to allow lawyers to correct their mistakes to the benefit of inventors. It's just wrong to let inventors off easy because they chose some smooth-talking lawyer who bunged up prosecuting their invention.

The patent office has in place financial disincentive to file a large number of claims, so as not to overburden enterprising examiners, who readily insist upon restriction requirements for the same invention whenever presented with lots of claims. Fighting a restriction requirement is a major pain. Much easier, and practically as cheap, to file multiple applications at 20 claims per shot. Shame on slothful prosecutors who take the easy route.

If an applicant draws an incompetent examiner, which the patent office is chock full of, then all the eggs are in one bad basket. Prosecutors are highly paid professionals, who should be able to tough it out before bureaucratic imbeciles bent on denying rightful inventions patent protection.

Continuations allow time to pass for further contemplation about a claimed invention. New information, better claims. That is so wrong.

"Rework"? If it's the same invention, then all an examiner has to do is make sure that the claims are in proper form for allowance. A spot check, if you will. After all, the examiner found all the relevant prior art during parent application prosecution. If you believe that, let's talk tooth fairy.

"Increase in USPTO resources"? RCEs and continuation applications represent the same revenue as an initial application, but require less total examination, withstanding that a fresh prior art search should be undertaken by the examiner of a continuation (though not an RCE). With the extra money from "refiles", hire more examiners. Invention is what the patent office is supposed to be all about.

The only puzzle is who's ox Jr.Q&W are really trying to gore. What these boys have got here is dissembling that's resembling a corpo-political hack job. Could it be, from a kill-continuations statute, that corporations, with their stable of high-end prosecutors, would have an even better edge over individual inventors, who's resort is their local less-polished prosecutor; but those small fry then go on to vex large corporations with their inventions? Say it ain't so (but you betcha').