tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post2924904381041738134..comments2023-11-05T06:06:12.057-06:00Comments on The 271 Patent Blog: Study: Experienced Examiners Allow More, Cite LessTwo-Seventy-One Patent Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02481083706071978817noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-29488087482724593922010-11-21T14:31:06.200-06:002010-11-21T14:31:06.200-06:00I agree with anonymous. I do not see a direct col...I agree with anonymous. I do not see a direct coloration between less cited means less work.Cheryl R. Figlin, Esq.http://PatentLawPA.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-37861026056982875362009-01-30T08:24:00.000-06:002009-01-30T08:24:00.000-06:00Regarding the statement that "senior examiners are...Regarding the statement that "senior examiners are doing less work," it is true that senior examiners have less time to do their work in to make production. It really could be somewhere inbetween the two extremes: that the examiner is so much better than the new hires and so cuts right to the point <B><I>or</I></B> that he's only as good as the new examiner but gets the work out the door ASAP so he can keep his job (and I'm sure this varies from examiner to examiner).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-45162900650695397662009-01-30T01:05:00.000-06:002009-01-30T01:05:00.000-06:00Haven't read the Paper but the statement "If Exr c...Haven't read the Paper but the statement "If Exr cites fewer references, that means he/she's doing less work" is outrageous. Has nobody told the good professor the apocryphal tale of the expert, called in to find out why the huge and complex machine isn't working. After some hours of walking round the machine, quietly poking, prodding and listening, the expert places a white chalk "X" on one particular component of the machine. "There lies your problem" says the expert, "and here's my invoice". "What. All that money for one little chalk mark" exclaims the exasperated customer. Experienced PTO Examiners cite fewer references because they only need the best art, ie just one document. After all, per application, there is only one alleged contribution to the state of the art, right? How many references do you see on an EPO search report? I'll tell you. Far fewer than in a USPTO case. There isn't any dispute, that EPO search reports are top quality.<BR/><BR/>But maybe, not having read the Paper, I've missed something?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-80201244843137775942009-01-29T09:32:00.000-06:002009-01-29T09:32:00.000-06:00As usual, Lemley draws his conclusions not from hi...As usual, Lemley draws his conclusions not from his data, but from his lack of real world experience, and lack of knowledge about how things work in the real world.<BR/><BR/>A more senior, more expert person in any field thrashes less. The expert zeros in on the most relevant issues, clears them up and moves on. The experienced examiner is somewhat less likely to overlook the key language in a claim that establishes patentability.<BR/><BR/>The tyro (a) has less judgment, and less confidence, and therefore has to establish a bigger record, (b) under current PTO management, has almost no discretion to allow an application, unless the application is appealed, or the examiner builds a record establishing extraordinary diligence, (c) is more likely to overlook key facts.<BR/><BR/>These two factors work the same way in either the public or private sector. For example, my replies to Office Action are much shorter than they were at the beginning of my career. Less care? No, more efficient choice of what to say.<BR/><BR/>The failure to consider these factors is a huge hold in the paper, that renders the "conclusion" at the end of Lemley's section 5 and list of hypotheses in section 7 just totally bogus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-32827114238975525112009-01-29T03:27:00.000-06:002009-01-29T03:27:00.000-06:00The good professors might like to take a look at E...The good professors might like to take a look at Examiner processes within the EPO, and then compare that with their USPTO findings. In the EPO, every application is handled by a single Exr, but no case is accepted or refused till two equal rank colleagues have signed up to the work (and the ratio decidens) of their colleague. No deference, because those Exrs come from different countries. Scrutiny of quality comes, post-issue, when an opposition comes in, and is handled by that same primary examiner. This time, two new colleagues work together on the case, and pass judgement on the pre-issue work of the primary. After 30 years of these work practices, we have 1) pride in one's work 2) awareness that it will go under the microscope when there is an opposition, and 3) Esprit de Corps. Nice carrots and recognisable sticks, without use of policemen or disposal point tools. Meanwhile, back at the USPTO.................Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com