The Supreme Court is likely to sideline patent cases

The 29 September issue of Barrons has an article by their D.C. reporter, Jim McTague, on patent issues at the Supreme Court next year. He got his gossip from Seth Waxman (author of one of the more scientifically-poor anti-Bilski briefs) of Wilmer Hale. McTague writes: ... points out that the [Supreme Court] has an unusual docket because, for the first time, there are no patent cases scheduled [for the 2008-2009 term]. Not only are patent cases a regular feature of the court's calendar - they also represent the most significant body of law for U.S. business today. Is that really true - patent law is the "most significant body of law"? If so, that's ironic, because much of patent law governs the activities of one of the most significantly mismanaged government agencies - the PTO. Maybe there would be less of a need for patent caselaw if the PTO was run by professionals. McTague writes further: ... thinks the Supremes want to give the lower courts and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office time to digest prior decisions and actions now making their way through the lower courts, including attempts to patent business processes. The Supreme Court is passing on patent cases while the justices take some remedial college courses on basic science and engineering.

A rehearsal for writing claims

In Europe , with its stuffy, literary, and sanctimonious bragging style of patent claims, characterized by refers to the point of innovation. Here in US we claim the aspect of invention by using having or featuring.

Again, first time you mention something it is always a, otherwise an examiner will return a no antecedent basis response.

Consider a dependent claim: Anything introduced there in the preamble is henceforth (in the claim or independent) the. Anything introduced after the preamble is said.

Identification is a noun. Identifying is a verb. Steps in a method claim are verbs.

Examiner's hard drive crash costs him his job

Also in the September issue of the PTO Examiners' Union's newsletter: Examiner fired after computer crashes When managers in Technology Center 2700 offered next to no catastrophic time after the hard drive crashed and burned for a probationary examiner who was producing at 100 percent, the examiner's production unsurprisingly suffered and the USPTO fired him because he had "not progressed at the expected rate". Maybe the examiner could have progressed at the expected rate with a crashed hard drive if the examiner was working from a beach in Hawaii. Any patent reform that does not start with an overhaul of PTO management is corrupt patent reform.