Comments on: Friday food for thought: What would the CCPA and Chief Judge Markey say about ‘continuation abuse’ and PTO efforts to cure it? http://unitedstates.promotetheprogress.com/friday-food-for-thought-what-would-the-ccpa-and-chief-judge-markey-say-about-continuation-abuse-and-pto-efforts-to-cure-it/577/ Still clinging to first-to-invent Sun, 07 Sep 2008 16:25:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1 By: MaxDrei http://unitedstates.promotetheprogress.com/friday-food-for-thought-what-would-the-ccpa-and-chief-judge-markey-say-about-continuation-abuse-and-pto-efforts-to-cure-it/577/#comment-133 MaxDrei Sat, 09 Sep 2006 13:50:15 +0000 http://unitedstates.promotetheprogress.com/friday-food-for-thought-what-would-the-ccpa-and-chief-judge-markey-say-about-continuation-abuse-and-pto-efforts-to-cure-it/577/#comment-133 Comment from outside USA: Three facts: 1) the USPTO is far from mastering its workload 2) in any patent family printout, on an important invention, we see in every Patent Office of the world, including EPO, just an original and maybe one or two divisionals whereas, in the USPTO, and only the USPTO, we almost invariably see the original and (typically)19 divls and continuations. What's that: 10 times more work within the USPTO than is appropriate or necessary?? 3) outside USA, belated writing of not-before-included combinations of technical feature combinations is seen as unfair advantage to applicant over the public that is trying, on the basis of the USPTO publication of the original application, to predict what area will be protected by the issued patent. So, ROW well understands USPTO motivation to curb liberal treatment of Applicants on continuation practice. BTW, can't the USPTO shut out continuations with the argument that the new claim fails the "written description" requirement? And, in any case, either the new Rules are ultra vires, or they are not. Presumably the USPTO is not wasting its reputation writing new Rules that are ultra vires? Comment from outside USA: Three facts: 1) the USPTO is far from mastering its workload 2) in any patent family printout, on an important invention, we see in every Patent Office of the world, including EPO, just an original and maybe one or two divisionals whereas, in the USPTO, and only the USPTO, we almost invariably see the original and (typically)19 divls and continuations. What’s that: 10 times more work within the USPTO than is appropriate or necessary?? 3) outside USA, belated writing of not-before-included combinations of technical feature combinations is seen as unfair advantage to applicant over the public that is trying, on the basis of the USPTO publication of the original application, to predict what area will be protected by the issued patent. So, ROW well understands USPTO motivation to curb liberal treatment of Applicants on continuation practice.

BTW, can’t the USPTO shut out continuations with the argument that the new claim fails the “written description” requirement?

And, in any case, either the new Rules are ultra vires, or they are not. Presumably the USPTO is not wasting its reputation writing new Rules that are ultra vires?

]]>