4 Comments

1. There were over 500 comments to the proposed continuation rule change: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/comments/fpp_continuation/continuation_comments.html.

   The comments came from virtually every attorney organization and association, dozens of Fortune 500 companies, and several hundred individuals. Based on a cursory review of these comments, most are opposed to the rule change.

   I’ve heard informally that the number of comments received for the proposed rule set a record for the USPTO, so its not fair to say that only a “few patent bloggers” are paying attention.

   Comment by J. Brown — July 18, 2006 #

2. J.

   >so its not fair to say that only a “few patent bloggers” are paying attention.

   Fair enough…I stand corrected.

   Thanks for including a link to the comments.

   My rant wasn’t as much that people aren’t paying attention as much as expressing my dissapointment no one has put together a thoroughly organized rally against the rules. Not protests in the streets…but SOMETHING more than dropping notes in the “suggestion” box.
   Alas, I don’t have a solution to the problem either…

   –Steve

   Comment by Nipper — July 18, 2006 #

3. When you say:

   “The revised rules would require …….
   … be supported by a showing as to why the amendment, argument, or evidence presented could not have been previously submitted.”

   What suffices for “supported”???

   What if an applicant cannot afford to file claims for all aspects disclosed in the application at the outset? It is — very expensive, afterall! Some of the most significant inventions in fact originate from people who literally have to decide between taking a bus or getting something to eat off a McDonald’s dollar menu. People don’t admit this but it’s true.

   How is the rule change even Constitutional???
   Why won’t the change, if it goes through, not face a challenge on Constitutional grounds?
   Because it amounts to seizing an applicant’s inventions after the applicantion has already been filed, in those cases where the applicant disclosed inventions with portions yet to be claimed, but can no longer be. The patent system up to now has encouraged people to “show all up front”, on the promise that they will be afforded an opportunity to protect what they show. Zillions have done just that. So having done so, in good faith, how is it equitable to now say “Gee, yup you disclosed a large body of inventions but we won’t let you protect anything but that one little piece you claimed already”. That’s tantamount to “fooling” applicants into revealing their inventions –IN GOOD FAITH, and after the horse is out of the barn, denying them the opportunity of legal protection they were ORIGINALLY PROMISED.

   Even if the rule change were to only effect newly filed applications (and not already filed applications), still, there seem to be contradictions to what the Constitution specifies: “to promote the useful arts”.

   That is because applicants henceforth will have to decide on aspects of inventions TO INTENTIONALLY CONCEAL. If you cannot claim it you have no choice but to conceal it. But doesn’t that INVITE accusations of abandonment??? So in other words the new rules “set up” applicants to be accused of abandoning portions of a larger family of inventions (those portions they cannot afford to claim at the time of filing)? And besides, as soon as the issue of concealing portions of the totality of an invention enter the picture, doesn’t that CONTRADICT the Constitution’s “promote the useful arts” statement? The new rules DISCOURAGE, NOT promote the useful arts when applicants are forced to conceal portions of their inventions.

   Still further, with (land) emminent domain the government reimburses the landowner for the land seized from them. Here, an applicant in disclosing an invention, discloses it ONLY because of the promise that they can pursue patent protection for their ENTIRE invention; but if after their good faith filing is made, if portions of their inventions are seized… Are those applicants compensated in any way for the seized portions??? Most certainly not!

   Thus…how is any of this even Constitutional?

   Comment by anybody — July 19, 2006 #

4. PIA (www.piausa.org) is also soliciting funds, advice, etc. for a lawsuit against the Commissioner (for exceeding the authority granted by the law). Long and short of this is that the PTO doesn’t care what anybody thinks. James Toupin (PTO General Counsel) spoke at the spring AIPLA meeting in Chicago- after 3 well-researched, thorough presentations from AIPLA members showing why the proposed rules were not just unfair, but also illegal- Mr. Toupin’s response (no slides, no handouts, nothing but lip service) was essentially this- PTO doesn’t care if you don’t like the proposed rules…you’ll get used to them. He let slip that the rules were a pet project of Commissioner Doll, not that this came as a surprise.

   Given the way the current executive branch pays little more than lip service to the legislature and judiciary, how can this be a surprise to anyone?

   Comment by noptofan — July 28, 2006 #

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Supporters