The Red Queen’s Race
Aug. 4th, 2018 02:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ndrosenSomething appeared on my Expedited docket early this week, and I dealt with it. It was another Information Disclosure Statement in an allowed case; fortunately, nothing there required me to go back and reject the claims; I was able to do a quick supplemental Notice of Allowability instead.
I also got something on my Special Amended docket, namely a decision by the Board of Appeals affirming my rejection of an application. I learned something new: This was an Affirmance rather than an Affirmance in Part, although the Board did not affirm all of my rejections; the reason it did not count as Affirmed in Part is that the Board left all of the claims rejected. Confused? I had rejected the claims on two grounds: first, the original specification did not show that the inventors were in posession of the currently claimed invention at the time of filing (35 U.S.C. 112); secondly, the claimed invention was not significantly more than an abstract idea (35 U.S.C. 101, using the Supreme Court decision in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank. The Board decided that I was wrong about the first point, but right about the second.
So I now have one Special Amended on my docket; the applicant gets two months to respond to the Board decision.
I also finished a first action rejection on my oldest Regular New case earlier this week, and I’ve been working on my next Regular New. I’ve done my searching, and I’ve done a substantial part of the writing, so I hope to finish before 3:00 PM Monday.
I also got something on my Special Amended docket, namely a decision by the Board of Appeals affirming my rejection of an application. I learned something new: This was an Affirmance rather than an Affirmance in Part, although the Board did not affirm all of my rejections; the reason it did not count as Affirmed in Part is that the Board left all of the claims rejected. Confused? I had rejected the claims on two grounds: first, the original specification did not show that the inventors were in posession of the currently claimed invention at the time of filing (35 U.S.C. 112); secondly, the claimed invention was not significantly more than an abstract idea (35 U.S.C. 101, using the Supreme Court decision in Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank. The Board decided that I was wrong about the first point, but right about the second.
So I now have one Special Amended on my docket; the applicant gets two months to respond to the Board decision.
I also finished a first action rejection on my oldest Regular New case earlier this week, and I’ve been working on my next Regular New. I’ve done my searching, and I’ve done a substantial part of the writing, so I hope to finish before 3:00 PM Monday.
