tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post5747939339352586914..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: T 1289/10 – Quarantine Horrorsorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-85360140509430550592011-07-06T12:22:37.414+02:002011-07-06T12:22:37.414+02:00I guess too, Myshkin and, on your pedant's poi...I guess too, Myshkin and, on your pedant's point, yes of course you are right. <br /><br />As far as I can make out, if your pocket is deep enough in the USA, you can always buy more time. Thus, US patent attorneys typically have difficulty grasping that some due dates at the EPO are indeed inextensible, no matter how deep your pocket. <br /><br />This simple difference of understanding needs to be grasped by EPO attorneys who find themselves writing to the USA. Europeans typically advise in their letters to America that you can file an appeal up to date X. It might be more effective to write more forcefully that, after date X, you can't file an appeal (however many lawyer hours you pay for). The vital message to get across to an American is that the due date really is one of those so-called DROP DEAD dates. Otherwise they will assume that an extension of time can always be contrived, somehow or other.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-52318975968424255272011-07-06T02:48:57.321+02:002011-07-06T02:48:57.321+02:00@MaxDrei:
I know I'm just being a little pedan...@MaxDrei:<br />I know I'm just being a little pedantic now, but since the ten day period of Rule 126(2) comes before and not after the two month appeal period, a deadline given to the client that is two months after the date of the refusal is not the start of the ten day period.<br /><br />However, I guess that not mentioning the ten day period to the client may help to convince the client that he should really stick to the deadline he was given :-)Myshkinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-17893195167889956252011-07-05T12:07:52.951+02:002011-07-05T12:07:52.951+02:00Of course the case is also interesting on that dil...Of course the case is also interesting on that dilemma, what due date to give the client. I mean, should it be start or the end of the ten day Rule 126(2) period? This particular firm of EPO representatives chose the end date. I suspect its choice owed something to T_0264/88.MaxDreinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-80781706325548847012011-07-03T21:29:55.906+02:002011-07-03T21:29:55.906+02:00"The fees quotation is also interesting in th..."The fees quotation is also interesting in that it shows that patent office fees are almost peanuts in comparison to preparing and prosecuting an application, relatively speaking."<br /><br />And those are peanuts compared to what some big companies are willing to spend, e.g. on the <a href="http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/apple-and-microsoft-beat-google-for-nortel-patents/" rel="nofollow">Nortel patents</a>.Myshkinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-69190209823593897612011-07-02T00:26:21.693+02:002011-07-02T00:26:21.693+02:00Having spent a significant part of my existence on...Having spent a significant part of my existence on the opposite side, I very much appreciate the candour of the <a href="https://register.epo.org/espacenet/application?documentId=EP2ZERNQ8586234&number=EP04753910&lng=en&npl=false" rel="nofollow">assessment</a> made by the representative on the second page:<br /><br /><i>... we must caution you that we feel the decision from the E.D. was fair, and feel it remiss of us not to bring this up. The prior art for this case is extremely pertinent, and we have grave concerns that bringing out any inventive feature would prove difficult, or at best leave the Applicant with such a narrow scope of protection, that this would be perhaps commercially useless.</i> <br /><br />I'm purring with pleasure, even though it wasn't one of my cases.<br /><br />The representative adds:<br /><br /><i>We would also caution that the BoA are typically much harder to convince of an inventive step, as they are more inclined to combine documents without using the rigid "PSA" followed by the E.D.</i><br /><br />I wouldn't be so categorical about the BoA, from my own experience appeal outcomes go both ways; both positive and negative decisions of mine (or "ours", I should write collegially) have been reversed -- but many more were upheld. It would IMO much to do with the differences in chemistry between members of a board and of a division. The more formalistic, approach of the appeal procedure is also a factor. Search and examination sometimes resemble triage, I must admit.<br /><br />As to the conclusion :<br /><br /><i>If the applicant wishes to pursue an appeal, we would strongly recomment that significant claim amendment is undertaken, and that clear features which distinguish over the art are included in the claims.</i><br /><br />I can only second that, and at every stage of the procedure. If it were only that easy...<br /><br />The fees quotation is also interesting in that it shows that patent office fees are almost peanuts in comparison to preparing and prosecuting an application, relatively speaking.<br /><br />I would have been much blunter in the E-mail in outlining the consequences of missing the 10 days+2 months deadline. <br /><br />The corresponding US case, which can be brought up in PAIR under the publication number 20060260952, was the object of a final rejection, and the applicant did not pursue the matter any further. (I did not compare yet the grounds of the respective patent office decisions).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com