tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post3159824665859948385..comments2024-03-29T12:23:31.959+00:00Comments on The IPKat: P2P: Multum in IpsoVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-58305318032834192872012-09-26T22:03:04.948+01:002012-09-26T22:03:04.948+01:00Back in the days when all the Patent Office's ...Back in the days when all the Patent Office's senior staff from the Comptroller down, had risen though the ranks and actually understood what examining entailed from personal experience, examiners were encouraged to have the office subscribe to pretty well any technical journal that was going to be of interest to the examiner's work, as well as any relevant text books. Official time was allowed for reading technical literature so that examiners could keep up to date with the latest developments, and works visits were encouraged. My examining group saw circulated copies of the leading US and UK learned society journals, as well as various trade journals and magazines. In one of my headings, around 50% of the citations were articles from such journals, copies of which had been put in the classified non-patent literature search files. Examiners could also pop next door to the SRIS, and were allowed to enter first thing in the morning to do their searching in peace before it was open to the general public. <br /><br />I left before the move to Wales, but I understand that space [and therefore cost] considerations led to pretty well all non-patent literature being consigned to the skip. Of course since then, many trade journals and magazines have folded, and in some technical fields there are few domestic companies left to visit. On the other hand there is the internet, but relying on Wikipedia or the like is not without its problems, not the least in establishing actual dates of publication. If your searching is only carried out using key words that you already know, you will not gain the serendipity awareness of new developments in the art that you can get by regularly perusing issues of a journal to see what's there.<br />ex-examinernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-50812990336405027402012-09-26T02:20:39.816+01:002012-09-26T02:20:39.816+01:00There seems to be an assumption underlying P2P tha...There seems to be an assumption underlying P2P that third parties would be keen to bring prior art to the applicant's attention prior to grant. This is not necessarily the case. While I understand that pre-grant opposition is practiced in some industries, when I was an attorney in industrial practice, company policy was not to file third party observations. It was considered to be better practice to keep anything relevant in reserve for possible use in attacking the patent after grant when the patentee's options for amendment were much more limited than in pre-grant proceedings. <br /><br />UK patent attorneys will generally have met in their qualifying examinations, examination questions dealing with amendment of pending applications or patents which will have brought out the more limited scope for claim amendments post-grant as compared with pre-grant. A representative scenario is where you become aware of both an item of prior art and a competitor's product that might not clearly be covered by the subsisting claims, but could become more definitely covered by a pre-grant claim broadening amendment. Letting sleeping dogs lie until after grant removes the option for claim broadening.Ronnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-47978039160580880832012-09-25T15:08:16.762+01:002012-09-25T15:08:16.762+01:00I agree with Suleman. But how could a Peer to Appl...I agree with Suleman. But how could a Peer to Applicant scheme be structured? Ideas, anyone?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81169222919169586662012-09-25T14:30:07.051+01:002012-09-25T14:30:07.051+01:00Whilst Peer to Patent is clearly very laudable, I ...Whilst Peer to Patent is clearly very laudable, I do wish we could have some sort of Peer to Applicant system to help people get patents, rather than just schemes which make it more difficult to get a patent. In biotech at least I feel that very worthwhile research struggles more and more to get good patent protection as case law and Patent Office practice continue to become stricter. Involving more people in finding prior art does not seem 'patent-friendly' in times when research companies are struggling to make ends meet.Sulemanhttp://www.hollyip.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-20492095933948545322012-09-25T14:21:56.058+01:002012-09-25T14:21:56.058+01:00Well, isn't that interesting.
If you select ...Well, isn't that interesting. <br /><br />If you select for the trial a group of applications in a field [computing] where issuance of patents of dubious validity is newsworthy, and which may be of interest to a large number of nerds with time on their hands, or those with a political agenda, you get a response.<br /><br />Of course the nature of that response may reflect the nature of the observers [no breakdown of who these were is given in the report].<br /><br />Of the 11 (statistically relevant?) responses 2 were considered to be helpful, 1 helpful, but equivalent to an existing citation, 5 unhelpful, and 3 neither helpful nor non-helpful. <br /><br />It is noteworthy that one Examiner-inaccessible document was provided - which is valuable in itself regardless of relevance.<br /><br />It would be interesting to compare these statistics with those for "ordinary" third party observations to assess effectiveness. <br /><br />I feel that it is likely that those who bother to use the existing system may be more committed to finding good art than the nerd in the garret in his underpants.<br /><br />Contrast this with the EPO report <a href="http://blog.epo.org/the-epo/successful-pilot-of-new-web-based-service-for-third-party-observations/" rel="nofollow">here</a> that provision of a "do you like my driving" button on the Register has increased third party observations by 50% [which a back of the envelope calculation equates to about 1% of applications - and this across all field of technology, not just the nerd-intensive]. <br /><br />The simple act of making observations easy to file (as now proposed by the IPO) seems worthwhile, and far less fuss than trying to drum up business. <br /><br />Of course, if the IPO or EPO had a "damned if we know how to refuse this one but we feel in our waters it is wrong" button, that might be a step too far. <br /><br />We already have patent to public. Why have peer to patent?<br /><br />Or am I taking the P?Meldrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09841440718012449720noreply@blogger.com