This is Earl Gray's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Earl Gray's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Earl Gray
Recent Activity
Dear Doctor, My old man used to say, "The first thing a good salesman does is to x-ray your wallet." Your title made this diagnostic test unnecessary. My guess is you got ripped off. Beyond just padding the bill there are any number of ways to draft, prosecute and examine patents fraudulently. You might be the victim of this as well. Here are some examples: 1. Amend a claim for a combination into a single means plus function element/claim. (There is an issued case with this weird looking claim, the result of an examiner's amendment. 2. Insert a step within a device claim, usually toward the middle or back of the claim. There are thousands of these. 3. Following a restriction requirement and widrawal, rejoin inventions from different classifications into a single bogus set of claims under one issued case. For example a dishwasher/chainsaw patent. This is a crooked examiner/SPE move I've discovered. 4. Add critically important matter to the inventor's unpatentable disclosure, then sabotage the claim relative to Section 112. A smooth quid pro quo. Thousands of these as well. 5. In an amendment changing "comprising" to --consisting of-- as the transitional phrase. There is a PTO examiner that has run amuck and forced at least 6 different applicant,s attn's into performing this unspeakable bit of sabotage. Good luck with uncovering anything crooked in your case. Earl Gray
1 reply
As a pro se applicant I get bogus rejections all the time (all of them so far). Nothing could have prepared me for my first OA. A single 102 rejection. U.S. 6,299,921 What appeared to be a "cooling step" in the flow chart caused me grief, this goes to the heart of my invention. How to get around this art? Answer: by reading the patent, which it seems no uh "professional" bothered to do, including my examiner, the examiner that rubberstamped the case and the prosecutor who never read the case. And if the prosecutor billed his client for reading the application before or during prosecution, I'd call that fraud. Even with my limited brain power I read the patent which I call a Tutonic monument to prolix obfucation. The drawing has 4 parts. The flow chart is either a) sabotage, b) a practical joke, or just plain, though relentless typos. Look at the flow chart it has 6 corpses rotting in the noon day sun, "cooling" being one of them. Also this device "looks" for nothing though the flow chart looks like hell to anyone that actually bothered to read the patent. Earl Gray, pro se
1 reply
"re beverage example: me thinks the "sweetening means" addition gets the WDR unless examiner training has changed since my days there eons ago, and even though it may be "enabled". hope you still have time to file the CIP." Won't need it, I'm gonna' appeal.
1 reply