tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post7567951589560794915..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: T 1625/06 – Gimme Moreorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-64375693220706256242010-11-15T19:46:45.641+01:002010-11-15T19:46:45.641+01:00Another applicant once attempted the affidavit thi...Another applicant once attempted the affidavit thing on me. We had refused essentially on Article 56 (and mentioned Article 83 too), the document filed was a series of assertions imputing me with hindsight, selective reading, etc., and that the invention wouldn't have been obvious to the signatory.<br /><br />The funny thing was that the literary style of the "affidavit" rather curiously resembled the representative's. Furthermore, when I looked up the signatory's name in the Internet, I saw that his command of the English language was nowhere near the one demonstrated in the document, or it had improved tremendously in only a year or two. Furthermore, his technical field had really little in common with the application's, so the alleged invention would have indeed, in all probability, not been obvious to the signatory.<br /><br />The rather long document was completely disregarded by the BoA (WIMRE - IIRC). In addition to upholding the assessment on I.S., the Board found added subject-matter I had overlooked.<br /><br />I suppose that applicants only try things that work at the USPTO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com