This is XMNR's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following XMNR's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
XMNR
Recent Activity
Except this was inter partes, so both patent owner and third party had appeal rights.
Toggle Commented Jan 8, 2013 on Zumbiel v. Kappos at Patent Law Blog (Patently-O)
1 reply
I heard 400 through Sept. 15. Also, word-on-the-street re:IP Reexam is "better the devil we know..."
1 reply
I'm not sure this would work since the examiner's name does not appear on the PGPub.
1 reply
Is it not true that applicant may designate an application filed as a result of a restriction as CON and, conversely, a straight-up continuation (no restriction) as a DIV?
1 reply
I'm sorry, did you see a complaint here? I just pointed-out that there was a difference between dealing with prior art vs ODP rejections. Don't put words in my mouth.
1 reply
True; however, if I find 100 102(b) references, I can make one rejection and cite the others as cumulative. If I find 100 ODP references, I have to make 100 ODP rejections.
1 reply
As I understand it, the USPTO does not participate in the student loan forgiveness program, which irks one of my law school graduate examiner friends to no end.
1 reply
XMNR is now following The Typepad Team
Oct 20, 2010