tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post2630184284652319901..comments2023-11-05T06:06:12.057-06:00Comments on The 271 Patent Blog: BPAI: Applicants Must Do More Than Recite Missing Features To Traverse Prior ArtTwo-Seventy-One Patent Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02481083706071978817noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-86062354137330581502009-08-13T03:04:12.844-05:002009-08-13T03:04:12.844-05:00Thanks Mr Zura for picking out this case. I see it...Thanks Mr Zura for picking out this case. I see it as an example of a lawyer putting words into the mouth of his/her client that a reasonable person would never utter. This behaviour seems to me to fall short of serving the best interests of the client.<br /><br />Thus, here, the lawyer (who absolutely fails to do any "explaining" whatsoever) has the downright effrontery to assert on behalf of his client that:<br /><br />"the Examiner "failed to explain how the relied upon prior art reference discloses an element of the claim.""<br /><br />One imagines the hapless client under cross-examination, first being shown the Examiner's writings and asked if they constitute any sort of explanation, then being shown his own written assertions (as drafted by his lawyer) and asked whether he still thinks that:<br /><br />"the Examiner "failed to explain how the relied upon prior art reference discloses an element of the claim.""MaxDreinoreply@blogger.com