Date: 12.27.2017 / Article Rating: 4 / Votes: 5710
Www.essayninja.life #Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto

Recent Posts

Home >> Uncategorized >> Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto














Good Place Buy Essay - Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto - McGill University

Nov/Wed/2017 | Uncategorized


ASSIGNMENT HELP ONLINE - Do My Assignment - 24/7 Online Service - Essay on Chaos | Cleveland State University - Salisbury University

Nov 22, 2017 Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto,

Do My Homework for Me Online Homework Assignment Writing - Chaos Manifesto: Think Big, Act Small - AITS CAI s Accelerating IT - Lasell College

Botany paper: a historical introduction. As it is Essay The CHAOS generally known, there exist overall principles of formulation and systematization of an reasons why marijuana should be legalized analytic and syntactic thesis. Nevertheless, every field of about Manifesto a natural study has special features that form a unique pattern, which provides standardization and the god delusion quotes, distinction of about The CHAOS a concrete subject. These norms have several peculiarities. They are significant, lucid and indispensable. Even when an author gets the task of Plato's Belief the Human report writing or reassessment, based on free proposal essay topics, one has to Essay about Manifesto, bear in mind the standards and high requirements that regulate style and format of any type of research report.

To achieve fame at Plato's the Human Soul is Immortal Essay, the international level of the consolidation, your work has to be noticed and approved by academic circles. This is Essay Manifesto practically impossible without steady and patient learning of the School Essay, nuances of about Manifesto administration manners as well as investigation techniques. Impact Essay! The history of about Manifesto botanical studies is closely related to the god delusion quotes, the development of the neighboring disciplines, such as microbiology or morphology. Even an accomplishment of the Essay The CHAOS Manifesto, simplest biological research task, such as writing a biology lab report example, presents the idea of modern tendencies that regulate the reasons why marijuana, situation at present. The format of study reports in botany research has been transformed many times until it reached its contemporary structure. This may sound strange, but the The CHAOS Manifesto, first examples of published scientific botanical reports were written in on Terrorism Essay a free form. Essay! Of course, nowadays this occasion is to kill movie review impossible. About The CHAOS! An understandable and convincing research sample has to be designed according to of the Shirtwaist examples, the modern requirements, with respect to Essay The CHAOS Manifesto, all traditional manners, but without blind replication of the Impact on Terrorism Essay, archaic style and manner of Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto thoughts. A neoteric technological era is based on reasons why marijuana be legalized, the principles that supplement fast traffic of necessary information between large clusters of ordinary clients. Without prompt indexation and classification of the relevancy and academic value of a freshly-published work, this work will be lost in Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto the ocean of digital communication. A provident author will stick to the requirements of a botany papers format to a time movie, avoid any possible crisis.

Primary characteristics of well-performed botanical papers. A customer may face a problem of the selection between two or more works, that seem useful. Of course, a careful researcher is practically always limited in necessary resources for the exploration. Essay About The CHAOS! In this case, the issue of an why marijuana should be legalized argumentative choice transforms from an abstract rhetorical question to a practical problem that requires an Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto immediate reasonable answer. This situation may become an unpleasant obstacle on a time to kill movie, the way of an unprepared customer.

One can always ask - write my paper for me! - but it is Essay The CHAOS troublesome to look for someone who may really choose for you. Below is the list of the main attributes of on Terrorism a nicely written sample that will be useful for an attentive researcher. About! Free Plagiarism Report Free Unlimited Revisions Free Title Page Free Bibliography Free Outline Free Email Delivery. Shirtwaist Factory Fire Of 1911! The list of about cited literature always comprises sources that have been approved by a scientific society. This indicates that the Belief that Soul is Immortal, concrete scientific work has been based on the results of the Essay The CHAOS Manifesto, previous researchers. This kind of samples is reliable and may be used in School Application one's work without a risk. The language of the Essay about, report is clear and understandable. One has to avoid overcomplicated exemplars full of a time review meaningless linguistic constructions. Essay About Manifesto! If the author did not reach the essential level of linguistic purity, one has all reasons to reasons why marijuana should, call into question the value of the sample. Essay About The CHAOS! In this case, there work the reasons, same principles as in the process of writing a good persuasive essay.

Manners of reaching the aim are of the about Manifesto, same importance as the a time review, target itself. The report has been published in a respected and well-known publishing house and Essay The CHAOS, approved by a scientific community on a local and international level. Plato's Belief That Soul! These papers are ready for immediate usage and The CHAOS, do not require any independent expertise to prove their solidity. Belief That Soul Is Immortal Essay! Wide coverage of the chosen theme. Manifesto! If the author concentrates on the beverage report, the specific details without picturing the summation of the performed research, the work will diverge from the forethought plan. Essay About The CHAOS Manifesto! This strategy works excellent while writing a literary analysis essay writing a literary analysis essay; unfortunately, reports that are too specialized and complicated may distract the reader's attention.

The presence of the the evil king, representative materials. One cannot perform even the The CHAOS Manifesto, ordinary task, like a Geography homework help, without specially designed materials and the evil king, software that may assist in the demonstration of one's way of thinking. Essay About The CHAOS Manifesto! Maps, diagrams, plots, graphs make a report more illustrative. The Tragedy Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire Of 1911 Essay! One has to Essay The CHAOS, seek for such kind of a research botanical paper, avoiding cumbersomely executed exemplars. The logical and convincible system of the a time movie review, argumentation. Illogical mistakes, gaps, overlaps are unacceptable in a well-organized scientific sample. The CHAOS! If the author does not stick to the chosen botany papers topics, then this work has no potential value for Optometry Application Essay the scientific study at all. How to Essay, recheck the possible value of any obtained botanical paper.

According to the previously mentioned theses, one has to follow the advice about delusion quotes, evaluation of the research work to separate perfect research papers from the ordinary papers. Essay! This opportunity will be helpful in the future investigation and a time to kill movie, succor to sift out the Essay about, papers of the transient scientific value. To double-check the correctness of the a time movie, obtained conclusions one may use special internet services. Some organizations that are designed to compare different works might assist to Essay Manifesto, find the right location for every scientific work on an international academic pyramid. A wise researcher will not neglect the Essay, possibility to The CHAOS Manifesto, select only the best sources that would be helpful in researcher's work.

Cheap Essay Writing Service at $7 | Order Custom Essays Online - Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto -- CHAOS Manifesto 2012 - Texas Christian University

Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto

WRITE MY ESSAY NOW! - Best Essays and Paper Writing Team! - The Chaos Manifesto Essay - 1555 Words - brightkite com - St. Ambrose University

Nov 22, 2017 Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto,

Pay for Exclusive Essay - Essay on Chaos | Cleveland State University - University of La Verne

Patent Law School Exam: Essay No. 3. 3. (15 POINTS) Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 patent claims may be invalidated as indefinite. The Federal Circuit has interpreted the law to invalidate patented claims only when those claims are “insolubly ambiguous.” The insolubly ambiguous standard is a high standard, and Essay about The CHAOS patent claims are quite unlikely to be found invalid under that standard. More recently, policymakers have considered lowering the standard, but only for pre-issuance patent applications undergoing patent prosecution. Is this proposal a good idea? Why?

Law Professor at the University of Missouri School of a time to kill review, Law. View all posts by Dennis Crouch → 133 thoughts on “ Patent Law School Exam: Essay No. Essay Manifesto! 3 ” Folks, please don’t denigrate the word “ambiguous” According to the Collins English Dictionary the word “ambiguous” has two distinct definitions: 1. The Tragedy Factory Fire Of 1911 Essay! having more than one possible interpretation or meaning.

2. difficult to understand or classify; obscure. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with a patent term having more than one possible meaning – in fact it’s a good thing, in that it allows one write a claim of appropriate scope without being prolix. There is also nothing wrong (at least according to the Federal Circuit) with a patent term that is merely “difficult” (i.e. challenging or demanding) to understand. “The answer is that, except for certain crybaby gadflies – like Mooney, nobody cares because Mooney is crap. Essay About The CHAOS! If somebody actually cared Mooney would be careful and focused, from beginning to end, and beginning with the decision to not bother getting involved in The tragedy of the Shirtwaist Factory of 1911 patents in the first place.” Referring to the original post, what utterly worthless garbage. The above edits are provided to offer a more realistic interpretation of the Essay, original crap post.

The standard IS already lower during prosecution. The policy makers and patent law school professors should find something else to do than gratuitous intermeddling. On a related note, has anyone here been an applicant, an delusion, examiner, and Essay a practitioner as well? I have met many people who are 2 out of 3, but very rarely did I meet someone who was 3 out of 3. “As I said to MM, when you out yourself, I’ll consider outing myself. Impact On Terrorism Essay! Actually, that question is rhetorical since I would never do it.” That’s fair.

How about picking out a random published app and Essay The CHAOS Manifesto give your take on Impact of Globalization on Terrorism Essay Office abuse? “That particular attorney pi ssed me off by actually successfully traversing a legit restriction.” Follow up question. How does a practitioner successfully traverse a restriction if the restriction was legit? Granted that not many people understand MPEP 800, which is rumoured to be currently undergoing major reconstruction, if you correctly assessed the inventions and/or species, followed by estalishing the burdensomeness of Essay Manifesto, searching, how then can the requirements be successfully traversed? I feel that if the groupings you make up are not subject to statutory double patenting rejections when filed in divisionals, the burdensome search is pretty much a freebie test. If he/she/it traversed your burdensome search criterion correctly, you did a pretty bad job of establishing the delusion quotes, burden. Any comments on what happened in the case? “I don’t think I’ve seen a legit restriction, even following the examiner-friendly MPEP, in all my years of practicing. BTW — when I say legit restriction, I don’t mean that the “end result” was proper (i.e., the Essay Manifesto, claims were properly restrictable), I mean that the a time to kill movie, examiner properly discharged the burden of establishing that these claims should be properly restricted”

Right. Essay The CHAOS Manifesto! Never seen one in all your years. I’m not unfamiliar with restriction practice. I don’t need to seek others help with it, although there are those who feel some types of restrictions which are completely legit should be against the evil king an unwritten policy. Ridiculous. You attorneys take the system being so biased towards you in many areas for Essay The CHAOS Manifesto granted and Optometry Essay don’t realize that anytime you actually win “on the merits” there’s a 50/50 that you only won “on a dumas policy” that was put into place so that you don’t btch too much about the parts of the law that aren’t blatantly biased for you.

The only areas of the law that I can think of off the top of my head that aren’t subject to some dumas policy or other are 102 and 103. They’re the most solid of our grounds of rejection because they’re basically the only portions of the law that haven’t been gutted by Essay The CHAOS the courts. One on one, to the death. Actually the “job search” (which was just me responding to Optometry School Application, people seeking me out Manifesto mostly) isn’t going anywhere atm, unless you consider people still seeking me out it going somewhere. I’ve been busy with working out and a few vid games and going out. The God Delusion Quotes! I’m thinking maybe take the agents exam right fast, a bud of mine just did it and passed with only a few days o studying. Not to be mean to the guy but I kind of feel like I might be a little smarter than him, so I don’t think I should have that big of trouble with it. Thing is, 550$ for something I’m not completely sure I’m going to Essay, use?

Jebus, what a ripoff. “That particular attorney pi ssed me off by actually successfully traversing a legit restriction.” Legit restriction —- hahahahahahahahaha. I don’t think I’ve seen a legit restriction, even following the The tragedy Triangle Shirtwaist Essay examples, examiner-friendly MPEP, in all my years of practicing. BTW — when I say legit restriction, I don’t mean that the “end result” was proper (i.e., the claims were properly restrictable), I mean that the examiner properly discharged the burden of establishing that these claims should be properly restricted. If the attorney successfully traversed, then your restriction wasn’t legit. 6K — you problem (among many) is you think that everything you’ve been taught at the USPTO is correct.

You assume that because your primary, spe or next-door neighbor said this rejection was OK, then it must be OK. A good attorney (remember — you once aspired to about The CHAOS Manifesto, join our ranks; btw — how’s that job searching going?) doesn’t rely on other people’s opinions. He or she may ask for an opinion, but when it is about an issue that he/she is unfamiliar, the good attorney will always verify first. Look at the MPEP for guidance, then look at the god delusion quotes the code, look at the rules, and look at the case law (and when I mean case law, I don’t mean the little one sentence snippets from the MPEP). Only after you review of The CHAOS, those sources should you proceed. Granted, most examiners (you included) are not particularly familiar with the MPEP, most of the case law, the rules, and the code, so you have to rely on your compadres at the USPTO. However, as anybody who has played the “telephone game” can vouch for, as the message gets transmited from one person to the next, that message becomes garbled. Eventually, what I’ve seen from the examiner I deal with (and from you) is an incomplete (at best) and/or incorrect knowledge of the law.

“If any of Essay, your 20 cases are available for public inspection, please post the serial number(s) as well as your take on the abuse.” As I said to MM, when you out yourself, I’ll consider outing myself. Actually, that question is rhetorical since I would never do it. Why do people ask such silly questions? Besides, any intelligent attorney isn’t going to want to comment on about Manifesto any of their pending applications. Movie Review! Anybody on about The CHAOS this board ever hear of estoppel?

As if I’m going to ramble on about one of Impact of Globalization on Terrorism, my cases, opining about stu-pid references that 6K finds, but never gets cited by The CHAOS Manifesto the USPTO. Like my clients (or anybody else’s clients) are going to appreciate that. Trust me, I would absolutely love to identify a couple dozen applications. However, my duty lies with my client’s best interests … no matter how badly I want to shine a light on the USPTO’s incompetence. “Our job is not to ‘follow the law’ our job is issue applications that appear on examination to Essay, be entitled to a patent. The CHAOS! And, as the courts repeatedly remind us, our job is also to issue only a time to kill movie review, valid applications.” Only 6K would write this. Your job . IS. to follow the law … period.

The law states what you are to examine, how you are to examine, and what standards you are going to apply. Everything you do is Essay about The CHAOS based upon U.S. Belief The Human Is Immortal Essay! Code, U.S. case law, and the rules (properly) promulgated by the USPTO (the USPTO has seem to forgotten how to properly promulgate rules these days). I don’t like getting political on these boards, but has 8 years of Bush degraded the ethics of the executive branch this much that even the peons like 6K feel that they are above the law? FYI 6K … if you ever get one of Essay about The CHAOS, my cases … please, I beg of you, write “my job is to kill movie review not to follow the law” anywhere within any of the office actions you prepare. I will make that the centerpiece of any appeal I file. “Why would I feel sorry for these people? Who cares if the Manifesto, PTO ‘screws up’ these applications? The answer is that, except for certain crybaby gadflies, nobody cares because these inventions are crap.

If somebody actually cared the prosecution of the applications would be careful and the god delusion quotes focused, from beginning to end, and beginning with the decision to not bother filing a patent application in Essay The CHAOS Manifesto the first place.” Your ability to consistently not get it is Impact Essay indeed remarkable. Obviously somebody cared about the prosecution of these applications. Manifesto! The applicants in particular. That’s why they appealed them to the Fed. Cir. The fact that the PTO has been unable, despite numerous opportunities, to The tragedy Triangle Shirtwaist of 1911, present prima facie cases against either application, demonstrates that, despite your personal feelings regarding the merits of the inventions, the applications are not crap.

Granted, the applications don’t disclose anything as ground breaking as the protein fragments and Essay about The CHAOS molecules that you apparently deal with, but as pds noted, the PTO’s handling of these cases is indicative of the lousy state of examination at the PTO. That lousy state is only getting worse. I’m not above the law. “Power-tripping and deciding which parts of the law you like and follow and which parts of the law you don’t like and simply ignore IS a critical problem with the Office.” Says who? You.

Face me in one on one combat to the death. Maybe your fellows will learn something when I’m through with you. Send Donaldson if you like. “Our job is not to “follow the law” our job is issue applications that appear on examination to be entitled to a time to kill movie review, a patent.” Um, Are you saying that you are to issue applications that appear on Essay about examination to be entitled to a patent by NOT following the Impact of Globalization on Terrorism Essay, Law’s rules on just what “entitled to a patent” means or how you are to perform the examination? No matter how much you like to think otherwise, you are NOT above Law. “The parts about “law” come into play only in the context of a court room and in situations where there is a supposition that a court room might someday be visited.” “Only” you are wrong. I’m pretty sure that the Essay The CHAOS Manifesto, law should be applied during prosecution and that you do have to follow the law. Someone quoted Donaldson recently to that effect — something that the courts also repeatedly remind you. Further, it is NOT your job to the evil king, decide what is law and what is lawlol.

Power-tripping and deciding which parts of the about, law you like and Belief the Human follow and which parts of the law you don’t like and simply ignore IS a critical problem with the Office. Essay About Manifesto! If the School Application, offensive guard simply decides that he will be a receiver and runs a post pattern, guess what – the Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, play doesn’t count and your team is Plato's that the Human Essay penalized. pds, excellent reminder to Malcom. Malcom, you are still stale. For the case you guys cited above, I’ve looked over the art and I have a hard time seeing why the previous rejections didn’t go to appeal on about The CHAOS Manifesto perusal. The Evil King! I haven’t looked at The CHAOS the smith reference yet, but the Julius ref is da rn near exactly what is needed and it clearly shows getting stuff out through the ho le in the top. “I don’t think you’re as bad as you make yourself out to be ;p” I’m not really, except in this case with the Shirtwaist Factory fire examples, bgard claim they want rejoined. I will light that mo fo up with page upon page of rejections, none of which will involve art.

“Let me ask you an honest question though. Suppose that the claim is in condition for allowance, but the attorney pisses you off. Would you pass the case to allowance or would you bury the case in appeal?” It depends. So far I haven’t buried any apps in appeal that I truly believe are in condition for allowance. But, if the right attorney came along anything is within the realm of possibility. One particularly juicy case where I could have done this arose just this last week, I chose to issue. The case was not in condition for allowance because the first ind blatantly covered things inherent to nearly all embodiments of 1000’s of references of prior art but the evidence just wasn’t there. The art was too unspecific to base a rejection on. But, that’s fine, some litigator can tank claim 1, the rest of the inds are probably legit. That particular attorney pi ssed me off by actually successfully traversing a legit restriction.

The case should not have involved all that it ended up involving. Took probably 4 days to search that sht the Essay The CHAOS, first time, and 2 or 3 after their amendments. “Instead, I think the Patent Office should actually have a slightly lower standard, where close cases should be decided in favor of the applicant.” Thereotically, there would be 2 camps in USPTO management. Camp 1 would want to grant maximum authority to Plato's the Human Soul is Immortal, examiners. As such, the affirmation rate at the Board should be 100%, wherein examiners only send up clear cut rejections. The rest should be negotiated with the applicant and Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto allowed. Camp 2 would want to grant minmum authority to examiners. As such, the affirmation rate should be close to the actual rate of allowable applications.

Perhaps 50%? Perhaps some other number reflective of the true allowance rate in view of the applications and the prior art? In discussing this with my colleagues, I have found folks in both camps as well as somewhere in between. Any comments on Plato's the Human Soul Essay the USPTO’s official goal for appeal affirmation? I personally believe that the USPTO is only a first filter.

Some examiners go too far and reject all close calls. If examiners were to The CHAOS, allow all close calls and let the Plato's Belief Essay, courts sort out the mess, the backlog would be greatly reduced, but the problem would then be directed to the courts. Not necessarily a bad thing depending whom you ask. One of Essay The CHAOS, my colleagues commented that patent reform is like playing chess in Application many different dimensions. You change one variable and the system reacts by changing many related variables. “I promise you pds, you have never had to The CHAOS Manifesto, deal with the likes of me. If you had, you probably wouldn’t want to talk about Factory fire Essay examples it. Manifesto! We’d have to call you PTS from now on, for post traumatic stress.” I may have dealt with a few of your incarnations. I don’t think you’re as bad as you make yourself out to be ;p. “If an applicant wants a patent that’s somewhat questionable, the Patent Office should err in a time movie review favor of the applicant and allow it.

The examiner can make a record of the questionable nature of the patent (i.e., the claims may potentially be found obvious over…, etc.) in the file wrapper. Let the patent holder beware; enforce with caution.” While I agree with most of your comments, how do you feel about The CHAOS examiners creating file wrapper estoppels? “The first thing that would be required for the god delusion the case to Essay The CHAOS, wind its way to the Fed. Delusion Quotes! Cir. would be you convincing the other appeal conferees that you could send the case up to Manifesto, BPAI relying on Official Notice. Very unlikely to happen. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.

Most likely (99.9+%) you’ll be told to re-open and cite a reference.” Some of the god delusion, my own cases went to appeal with ON. How many would you require to overcome “highly unlikely”? “See MPEP 707.07(d): Nor should he or she (i.e. the examiner) express doubts as to the allowability of allowed claims or state that every doubt has been resolved in favor of the applicant in granting him or her the Essay, claims allowed.” I am interested in comments about this issue as discussed above. “If you knew anything about In re Bogese and the law, you would now that it dealt with an EXTREME example of applicant abuse that isn’t even possible for of the Triangle fire examples any applications filed after June 8, 1995, after which the patent term changed from 17 years from issue to 20 years from filing.

This case was about dealing with “submarine” patents. Most aplicants do not want delay because of the 20 years from filing patent term. For every “In re Bogese” case you can find over the last 10 years at the USPTO, I can look at my current docket (and mine alone) and find you 20 examples of Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, USPTO abuse.” I said directly that this is one, albeit extreme, case. I never said that it was representative of all cases. If any of your 20 cases are available for public inspection, please post the review, serial number(s) as well as your take on the abuse. “Stop sticking your head in the sand … the about The CHAOS, USPTO is anti-patents.” This is one of many instances where you attack me in some form. I simply asked for clarifications. If you don’t want to acquiesce, then you don’t have to reply.

“Your statement is just as much evidence as the examiner’s is right?” When both sides lack any real evidence, I suppose allegation from one is Plato's Soul Essay as good as allegation from the other. Let me ask you an Manifesto, honest question though. Suppose that the claim is in condition for to kill movie allowance, but the attorney pisses you off. Would you pass the case to The CHAOS Manifesto, allowance or would you bury the case in appeal? You don’t have to answer if you don’t want to. I was just curious. “So, this admission that the Office screwed up its job in not applying the Law and Impact Essay allowing bad patents is a rationale for changing the rules of the game? This is the rationale for STILL not doing your job and following the Law?”

Yes and yes. Essay About The CHAOS Manifesto! Although your statement is off by a little bit, you must be mistaking us for some other agency. Our job is not to Plato's Belief is Immortal, “follow the about The CHAOS Manifesto, law” our job is issue applications that appear on examination to be entitled to the evil king, a patent. And, as the courts repeatedly remind us, our job is also to issue only valid applications. That is the part that is difficult. The parts about “law” come into play only in the context of a court room and in situations where there is a supposition that a court room might someday be visited. If your app is so bad there is no chance, then don’t look forward to having the Manifesto, law looked at all that closely in regards to your application.

” The job’s too tough so let’s change the Law? Man up, fix the critical problem. The critical problem is NOT the Plato's is Immortal, Law” No, you’re right, the Law is not the problem. It is actually the “lawlol” that is the problem. The lawlol has arisen from the courts. The CHAOS Manifesto! Like in KSR, those are mainly the things that need changing. The God Delusion Quotes! As soon as those get put back into good order, I predict that filing will go down to Essay about The CHAOS, a reasonable level once attorneys get a firm grasp of what they have a prayer at getting a patent on under the more restrictive lawlol to come. Examiners applying the Law are quite different from those applying the lawlol.

Just today I had my spe recommend a 112 1st on a claim that was an originally filed claim to make app put support in the spec So bad. Impact Of Globalization! I tried to explain to him about how that’s not how 112 1st is current interpreted, but I don’t think he wanted to be wrong so I let it go. And, we have the personal assurances from Chief Judge M that things are a changin’ so that congress doesn’t have to lay the about Manifesto, smack down. “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and Plato's Belief the Human useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and Essay about The CHAOS loss of right to patent. A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —…”” Funny how your bicycle application appears to be anticipated by this reference clearly showing a steel beam. #128521; Lost your “rightlol” right there.

Sorry. “When you out yourself, I’ll consider outing myself. However, until all that happens, then we are stuck arguing about the patents/patent applications that Dennis provides us.” OH COME ON, borrow a juicy one from your buddy at the evil king the office, I’m sure at least one wouldn’t mind showing off a quality piece of work that is supposedly being stonewalled. I should add, the one app that I was afraid I might actually be stonewalling irl unjustifiably I recently found a 102b for. I consider myself vindicated. Mah trigger finger is itchy. “As I said before, you don’t practice before the USPTO.

I don’t care how many applications you have reviewed. Until you have to deal with the likes of 6K on a daily basis, you won’t understand all the unstated BS rules the USPTO employs.” Respectfully, as said above, I have prosecuted over 200 applications in classes 705 and 707. I was prosecuting before business method became its own TC. I deal with many examiners on a daily basis. “See the Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, BPAI decision in 09/077,337 (pages 8-9, iirc). All that is required to traverse Official Notice is a demand that the examiner support the taking with substantial evidence.”

Based on my current dealings with the Board, I personally believe that they are 50/50 on ON traversal. I know some examiners that do not use ON at delusion all. Essay! If the Applicant does not traverse, the Board pretty much lets anything stick as admitted art. If the Applicant traverses in some form, then I think the Board is Belief that is Immortal 50/50 depending on what documentary evidence the examiner furnishes. “Yes.

My experience is that every time an examiner takes Official Notice, I simply respond by The CHAOS Manifesto requesting that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of the taking. A Time To Kill Movie Review! I NEVER state, or even argue, why the about The CHAOS, facts noticed aren’t considered to that the Human Essay, be common knowledge. Why? Because I’m not required to. That’s why.” Even if the MPEP had the Essay The CHAOS Manifesto, effects of Impact of Globalization, law, anything is appealable I suppose. I never said that the MPEP is 100% correct. Essay About Manifesto! I wanted different opinions on this particular topic and cited the MPEP as a source. Delusion! If one assumed that I believe that the MPEP is 100% correct all the time, one would err. “My bad, I meant to cite: I thought a little bit more about the Essay about, original point a claim with multiple interpretations being indefinite or definite.

As said above, natural language will always have some form of ambiguity. I also thought about the “broadest reasonable” standard. This implies that there may be more than one reasonable interpretations, and the examiner should adopt the broadest one for School Essay examination. Under this guise, a claim with two reasonable interpretations would only need to have the broadest interpretation addressed by the examiner. What happens if the two interpretations are equally broad? Any comment? I’m just thinking aloud. I neither agree nor disagree with any particular person. If you disagree with me please just ignore. “Since process clams are now required to be tied to a particular machine or transform a physical article to a different state or thing, are process claims indefinite if they can be performed in different physical locations and on different models of Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, a particular machine? Also how does the insolubly ambiguous standard affect the no structure limitations rule in process claims?”

No, and there is the evil king no rule against Essay about The CHAOS structural limitations in a method claim so long as they are incorporated into the method step instead of recited by themselves, so not at all. “As I said before, you don’t know the difference between holding and a dicta ” Actually I do, and I’m using the Impact on Terrorism, dicta. “If the Manifesto, claimed invention ecompasses obvious subject matter (i.e., the overlapping portion), then it doesn’t matter about the non-overlapping portion. I know, I know … difficult concepts for you to a time to kill, comprehend when you already have your mind set on your desired result.” I already comprehend this, and I go further. I’m probably going to have to investigate the cases that the about The CHAOS, court cites in their dicta and use one of those, but I bet this works out in of the Triangle examples my favor as I doubt the judge simply wrote his dicta without thinking what so ever. “The reason why (even MM) should care whether or not the Essay about Manifesto, PTO “screws up” is that if the USPTO screws up an School, (allegedly) crap application, then it is Essay The CHAOS Manifesto indicative that the Plato's Belief the Human Soul is Immortal Essay, USPTO will also screw up an important/valuable “flowery” application.” LOL. Yes, the about Manifesto, USPTO screws up. But not nearly as often applicants screw up and it doesn’t matter how many comments you type up complaining about the USPTO that basic fact isn’t going to change. The behavior of Impact Essay, applicants towards the PTO is about about as senselessly greedy as Charles Manson trying every day and The tragedy Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911 twice on Sunday to get McDonald’s to deliver a custom-made Big Mac to San Quentin.

“A good measure of a fair government (and good law) isn’t how it treats the best, it is how government treats the worse.” The “worst” end up with thousands of issued patents every year that they don’t deserve so the government is working quite well for Essay about Manifesto “the worst.” If the on Terrorism, USPTO were Homeland Security, half the janitors in the Pentagon would be working for al Qaeda. The fact that some Afghani guy who can’t produce a birth certificate or provide any proof of citizenship finds that his job application at Area 51 was “delayed” for an inexplicable reason is The CHAOS not a sign that the “system” is working against the public interest. “The answer is that, except for certain crybaby gadflies, nobody cares because these inventions are crap.”

JD … I was going to write that MM would say this, but it would have been only stating the the god delusion, “obvious.” The reason why (even MM) should care whether or not the PTO “screws up” is that if the USPTO screws up an (allegedly) crap application, then it is indicative that the USPTO will also screw up an important/valuable “flowery” application. The “perceived value” should not be the basis for how the government evaluates a patent application. Essay Manifesto! God knows, if MM ever gets arrested for …. well, let’s not go there — this is a family message board …. we would hope that the government treats MM the same no matter his disagreeable nature and questionable character. A good measure of a fair government (and good law) isn’t how it treats the best, it is how government treats the worse. Either MM doesn’t care how the USPTO treats applicants or MM is Impact on Terrorism advocating that someone from The CHAOS Manifesto government can arbitrarily decide what applicants deserve better treatment and what applicants do not. “But if you’d like to The tragedy Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911 Essay, see an example of an Essay Manifesto, “awesome” invention that is the evil king getting worked over by the PTO, check out 10/190,039. It’s a “simple” mechanical case. So simple that even somebody as mechanically inept as you can understand it.”

Uh, that’s an obvious piece of crap if I ever saw one. And the fishing pole case is just another example of an inept clueless patent drafter wanking off trying to get some o dat ol timey patent action. Why would I feel sorry for these people? Who cares if the PTO “screws up” these applications? The answer is that, except for certain crybaby gadflies, nobody cares because these inventions are crap. If somebody actually cared the prosecution of the applications would be careful and Essay Manifesto focused, from beginning to Application, end, and beginning with the decision to not bother filing a patent application in the first place. Interesting case you cited. Essay About The CHAOS Manifesto! Classic USPTO. The BPAI affirms the the evil king, examiner’s 102 rejection. However, once appealed, the solicitor realizes that they are stuck with a bad decision and want to remand it. To be honest, once the Essay The CHAOS, USPTO asked for the remand, I knew they were going to get it.

The FC isn’t going to opine on something they don’t have to. I see that a final rejection has been issued after remand. Let’s see how the of the Triangle of 1911 Essay examples, BPAI treats this knowing that they’ll scrutinized by Essay The CHAOS the FC. “The last time I asked Teh Big Whiners here to delusion quotes, provide some examples of Essay Manifesto, their awesome inventions getting screwed over, we were presented with incredibly smelly and impossibly lame great great great great great grandchild of a continuation. I’m still waiting to see the good stuff.” The examples I provided met the of Globalization, exact criteria you specified. An objectively baseless rejection. Of course, faced with that proof, you changed the criteria. Essay About The CHAOS! And then claimed that because the two examples had a large number of continuations pending, they were somehow disqaulified as meeting your request.

Although you never said anything about that in to kill movie setting forth your initial request. Nor did you explain why the number of pending continuations had any bearing on why the about The CHAOS Manifesto, particular rejections were not objectively baseless. Typical for of the Factory fire Essay you. But if you’d like to see an example of an “awesome” invention that is getting worked over by the PTO, check out 10/190,039. It’s a “simple” mechanical case. So simple that even somebody as mechanically inept as you can understand it. The rejections are appealed to BPAI. Essay Manifesto! BPAI affirms.

Case is School appealed to Fed. Cir. Appellant files brief. PTO requests a remand. Acknowledges rejections that were affirmed by Manifesto BPAI are POS. Typical PTO. Wait until the applicant/appellant has gone through the Essay, time and expense of briefing the case, and then admit all the Essay about The CHAOS, work done by the PTO up until that point is worthless garbage, and request an opportunity for a do over.

Like I always say, the PTO considers it their right to have an unlimited number of opportunities to get it wrong. Check out page 12 of the (associate) solicitor’s 9/7/06 brief. Particularly the part where she claims that if the Fed. Cir. will remand she’ll personally monitor the application to make sure the Optometry Essay, case is expeditiously handled. The remand is granted. 8+ months later another lame OA is issued. That’s certainly expeditious handling. Although it’s not publicly available in PAIR, check out the fishing pole application 10/899,352 (In re Wheeler) that’s discussed on the Patent Prospector site today. Anticipation rejection. Affirmed by BPAI. The CHAOS! Reversed by Fed.

Cir. We’re now at the point where the PTO, and BPAI, can’t even establish a prima facie case of anticipation against a fishing pole. The Evil King! Or recognize when the examiner’s case is a complete POS. But there are no problems with objectively baseless rejections being issued by the PTO. Let me guess, these examples don’t qualify either. “I’m still waiting to see the good stuff.”

When you out yourself, I’ll consider outing myself. However, until all that happens, then we are stuck arguing about the patents/patent applications that Dennis provides us. “So, this admission that the Office screwed up its job in Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto not applying the Law and allowing bad patents is a rationale for changing the rules of the game? This is the Impact Essay, rationale for STILL not doing your job and following the Law? Blame the applicants when the Office doesn’t know and properly apply the Law?”

Wow, that’s some serious crybaby right there. News flash: e6k is a patent examiner, or at least he plays one here. Unless you get off satisfying e6k’s sadistic tendencies, why get bent out of shape arguing with the guy? He can’t do dick to change the about, PTO. The last time I asked Teh Big Whiners here to movie, provide some examples of their awesome inventions getting screwed over, we were presented with incredibly smelly and impossibly lame great great great great great grandchild of Essay about Manifesto, a continuation. I’m still waiting to a time to kill, see the good stuff. Execution, Execution, Execution, “PDS, remember, the reason we’re “anti-patent” aka would like fewer allowed patents, is because of the whole public getting pissed about too many blatantly obvious patents slipping through. Never forget that.” So, this admission that the Office screwed up its job in Essay about Manifesto not applying the Law and a time movie review allowing bad patents is a rationale for changing the rules of the game? This is the The CHAOS Manifesto, rationale for STILL not doing your job and following the Law? Blame the applicants when the Office doesn’t know and properly apply the Law?

The job’s too tough so let’s change the Law? Man up, fix the Belief that Essay, critical problem. Essay The CHAOS! The critical problem is a time to kill review NOT the The CHAOS Manifesto, Law. “It’s not like all examiners follow the rules anyway.” HELLO – we have identified the problem. Know the Belief Soul, law – do your job, stop the Power-grabbing, anti-patent campaigns. Ethical abandonment to force applicants to dance just because the Examiner can and try to meet the Examiner’s expressed opinions that run counter to Essay about Manifesto, the Law: “35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable. Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of to kill, this title. 35 U.S.C.

102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of Essay, right to of the Triangle Shirtwaist of 1911, patent. A person shall be entitled to Manifesto, a patent unless —…” We need a new Head Coach for this team… Since process clams are now required to of Globalization, be tied to a particular machine or transform a physical article to a different state or thing, are process claims indefinite if they can be performed in Essay different physical locations and on different models of the god delusion, a particular machine? Also how does the insolubly ambiguous standard affect the no structure limitations rule in The CHAOS process claims? “And your point is? If the art is good, no amount of MPEP is going to help you. It’s not like all examiners follow the rules anyway.” Herein lies the problem. The art is rarely good.

If the art is good, I usually don’t need an examiner to The tragedy of the Triangle fire Essay examples, explain why it is good. Moreover, if the art is good, I’m not going to waste my time (and the client’s money) arguing. Instead, I’m going to amend or recommend that the application be abandoned. However, I rarely have to about Manifesto, amend, and my recommendations for abandonment are few and far between. Instead, I’m stuck with examiners trying to put lipstick on a sty full of pigs. This is where the a time to kill movie review, MPEP and plain, old case law help me to show the Essay about Manifesto, examiners the errors of their ways. If the examiners ignore the rules, then they will get appealed, and since (from my experience) a very large percentage of applications I appeal never get an examiner’s answer, I would say that at least someone at the USPTO knows a solid argument when they see it. “Unlike you, I know the MPEP, and I know all the goodies in the evil king it that are to applicants’ favor.” And your point is?

If the art is good, no amount of MPEP is going to help you. It’s not like all examiners follow the rules anyway. “If applicant didn’t request documentary evidence, it probably would go to BPAI. If applicant did make a request, it would get re-opened and the examiner would be told, “Go find a reference.”” Well it didn’t in my preappeal I just got through having the other day. Appeal might follow so we’ll see. Essay! Of course, that applicant dropped his request after he made it one time and I refused him, citing the MPEP (and some Zurko iirc, since he cited some).

“I would imagine that 95% of the Soul is Immortal Essay, public thinks that patents are a good idea …” All of the “public” that I know of that aren’t serious applicants already who have done some homework think the patent system is a get rich quick lottery, or a way to make themselves feel “accomplished”. That is if we’re not counting the ones that know they don’t know wtf it is and admit it. “In any event, I do hope that you can at least see that I am not relying on the judgement of Essay about Manifesto, obviousness for delusion the overlapping portions of the ranges, but rather the judgement of obviousness of the not overlapping portions, i.e. the actual different portions.” As I said before, you don’t know the difference between holding and a dicta … in fact, you probably think holding is something what occurs during a football game which causes a flag to be thrown. “We agree, however, with the Board that the disclosure in the McGill patent of a carbon monoxide concentration of Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, “about 1-5%” does allow for concentrations slightly above 5%.”

Thus, Woodruff found that there was overlapping ranges. As for your distinction between overlapping/nonoverlapping portions, as I told you a couple of The tragedy of the examples, days ago, obviousness is based upon the claimed invention, as a whole. If the claimed invention ecompasses obvious subject matter (i.e., the overlapping portion), then it doesn’t matter about the non-overlapping portion. I know, I know … difficult concepts for you to comprehend when you already have your mind set on The CHAOS Manifesto your desired result. Regardless …. you lose, yet again. “I promise you pds, you have never had to deal with the Impact, likes of me.” I’ve had to deal with far worse.

Although you are somewhat lazy, you aren’t entirely lazy. About! Some of the worst examinations are examiners who won’t explain anything. As for you, you would be EASY to take care of. You try to be a lawyer … and guess what? you aren’t, which means that you don’t understand case law, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory of 1911, difference between dicta and a holding, and Essay Manifesto your reading comprehension is awful. Factual errors are harder to argue, but because you make so many legal errors, it would be easy to cut your arguments to shreds.

Heck, I would prosecute some of your cases for free … just for the fun of it … and I’m serious. Unlike you, I don’t shirk my responsibilities and take the easy way out. You would be bit-ching and moaning about me for The tragedy Triangle of 1911 Essay weeks after you got my first response. Unlike you, I know the MPEP, and I know all the goodies in it that are to applicants’ favor. “PDS, remember, the Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, reason we’re “anti-patent” aka would like fewer allowed patents, is because of the whole public getting pissed about too many blatantly obvious patents slipping through.

Never forget that.” Remember the Impact on Terrorism, old expression about “throwing the Essay, baby out with the bath water.” BTW — I doubt that even the most ardent of delusion quotes, patent critics can name no more than a dozen of Essay The CHAOS, these “blatantly obvious patents.” Moreover, if they are blatantly obvious, my response is the following: (i) the examiner did a shi tty job and (ii) request a reexamination of the patent. With over 7,000,000 issued patents, you are going to Plato's Belief the Human is Immortal Essay, find some stinkers. Heck, with only a few thousand US patent examiners, we get the stinkers to Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, show up on this board. As for Optometry Application the “whole public,” I guess most of those are (i) people who were afraid their Blackberries would stop working and (ii) the open source crowd. I would imagine that 95% of the public thinks that patents are a good idea … however, the USPTO responds to the 5% squeaky wheels. “Also, why do you think an official notice wouldn’t make it through the Essay about, board?”

If applicant didn’t request documentary evidence, it probably would go to BPAI. If applicant did make a request, it would get re-opened and the examiner would be told, “Go find a reference.” “…just like you don’t say ‘a prima facie case of anticipation’. You could … but you just don’t.” I almost always note the examiner’s failure to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. It’s no different than obviousness.

Same with enablement, or written description. It’s good practice to cite the requirements for establishing a prima facie case, of whatever the issue is (e.g. obviousness, anticipation, etc.), and then explain why the examiner’s rejection fails to School Application Essay, establish a prima facie case. “clear prima facie case of Essay The CHAOS, nonpatentability” Is a rejection under 112 even said to Plato's Soul is Immortal Essay, be prima facie under any circumstances? That seems out of Essay The CHAOS, place. The only reason we use those words is for 103 iirc. You don’t say “a prima facie case of indefiniteness” just like you don’t say “a prima facie case of to kill review, anticipation”. You could … but you just don’t. “Instead, I think the Patent Office should actually have a slightly lower standard, where close cases should be decided in favor of the applicant.” You should have made your name: Anonprosecutor2008. “Let the patent holder beware; enforce with caution.”

I would agree with you that the about Manifesto, system should be changed to work thus, but the current system of forcing them into having a patent that deserves a presumption of validity would require a complete overhaul by congress to accomodate such a change. “Bogese didn’t involve RCE’s. Of The Fire Examples! RCE’s weren’t available yet in Mr. Bogese’s time.” I didn’t say they were. I said the only reason you have them is because the pto used its inherent authority to give you a gift. “RCE’s are the evolution of CPA’s, which were the evolution of FWC’s” Thanks for confirming my point. Also, why do you think an official notice wouldn’t make it through the board? An Official notice made it through the board in your vaunted Zirko without so much as a second glance. And then it made it through the SCOTUS.

I’ve also seen the scattered willy nilly around decisions, they’re not easy to spot though, the court just skips over them and barely mentions it unless the Essay about The CHAOS, applicant raises it as an issue. You could be right, some people might be told to reopen. Delusion Quotes! It’ll depend on the simplicity of the notice taken most likely. “The examiner can make a record of the questionable nature of the patent (i.e., the claims may potentially be found obvious over…, etc.) in the file wrapper.” Can’t do that. See MPEP 707.07(d): Nor should he or she (i.e. the examiner) express doubts as to the allowability of allowed claims or state that every doubt has been resolved in Essay favor of the delusion quotes, applicant in granting him or her the claims allowed. “Don’t forget that first step, it’s the part that counts.

It’s also the part JD will likely leave out, and be SOL because of.” I’ve never argued that an examiner’s statement is Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto not substantial evidence. All I’ve ever done to traverse the a time, taking of Official Notice is request the required documentary evidence. Works every time. “This is true that the examiner rarely requires him to. Because we’re an Essay about Manifesto, amicable lot. Personally I go through the trouble just to Plato's that the Human Soul is Immortal Essay, taunt them into appealing the matter to the CAFC.” Let’s see about that. About! The first thing that would be required for the case to wind its way to the Fed. Cir. would be you convincing the other appeal conferees that you could send the case up to BPAI relying on Official Notice. Very unlikely to happen.

Not impossible, but highly unlikely. Plato's Belief The Human Is Immortal! Most likely (99.9+%) you’ll be told to re-open and Essay Manifesto cite a reference. The next thing that would have to happen is you’d have to be affirmed by the god delusion quotes BPAI. Okay, we can all stop laughing now. “You know what is funny JD? The only about Manifesto, reason you EVEN HAVE RCE’s is because of the pto using its inherent authority pre-1952 to give them to you. Delusion! Ungrateful self-entitled upstarts these old timers are.” Bogese didn’t involve RCE’s. RCE’s weren’t available yet in Mr. Bogese’s time. RCE’s are the about The CHAOS Manifesto, evolution of the evil king, CPA’s, which were the evolution of FWC’s.

The good thing about being an old-timer is you have some understanding of history. Mostly because you witnessed it first hand. I’m just responding to the original post, since I haven’t had time to read all of the comments yet. In short, I don’t agree with having a higher standard for 112 at the USPTO than the Essay The CHAOS, courts would use. The Patent Office is supposed to allow a patent application to the evil king, issue as a patent unless the Essay, resulting patent would fail to be enforceable. The Patent Office is therefore supposed to examine applications and Triangle fire of 1911 Essay examples should only reject those applications where there is a clear prima facie case of nonpatentability. So, the Patent Office is supposed to act as a filter that prevents patents from issuing that would otherwise be easily invalidated by the courts. In my opinion, if there is a reasonable chance that the courts would uphold a patent as valid, then the Patent Office should not be blocking its issuance.

Thus, in my opinion, the Patent Office should not have a higher standard than the courts for compliance with 112 (or any other statute). Instead, I think the Patent Office should actually have a slightly lower standard, where close cases should be decided in favor of the Essay The CHAOS Manifesto, applicant. Unfortunately, the Patent Office has become more of an obstacle than it was intended to be. Examiners seem content to block a patent even where it’s a close call. Where applicants feel they can reasonably rebut such a borderline rejection, they refuse to Belief the Human is Immortal Essay, give up and continue to about, pursue a patent.

As a result, examination of each application takes longer than it should and we are left with the Optometry School, current backlog. If an Essay about The CHAOS, applicant wants a patent that’s somewhat questionable, the Patent Office should err in favor of the applicant and allow it. The examiner can make a record of the questionable nature of the patent (i.e., the claims may potentially be found obvious over…, etc.) in the file wrapper. Let the Plato's Belief that, patent holder beware; enforce with caution. “That MPEP section you cite is the PTO’s made up nonsense. It has no force of law.” It does however have the force of 6k behind it. That force requires many $, and Essay about The CHAOS many months to even attempt to overcome. And don’t worry JD, as soon as you challenge it as not having the force of law to the CAFC, it will have the Plato's that Soul, force of law. ‘See the BPAI decision in The CHAOS 09/077,337 (pages 8-9, iirc).

All that is required to traverse Official Notice is a demand that the examiner support the taking with substantial evidence.” Thanks for the citation JD, I figured you had that one on hand. Of The Examples! JD knows this is the case where the Manifesto, attorney specifically stated that the examiners statement WAS NOT substantial evidence, and then incidentally demanded that he produce it. The Evil King! Don’t forget that first step, it’s the Essay about, part that counts. It’s also the School, part JD will likely leave out, and be SOL because of. “Why? Because I’m not required to. That’s why” This is true that the examiner rarely requires him to. Essay About The CHAOS Manifesto! Because we’re an amicable lot. Personally I go through the the evil king, trouble just to taunt them into appealing the Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, matter to the CAFC.

PDS, remember, the Optometry, reason we’re “anti-patent” aka would like fewer allowed patents, is because of the whole public getting pissed about too many blatantly obvious patents slipping through. Never forget that. “Most aplicants do not want delay because of the 20 years from filing patent term.” She’s right about the The CHAOS, “abuse” though. Belief Soul Is Immortal! But by Essay The CHAOS Manifesto “abuse” cases she means “cases where I didn’t present an application that appeared to The tragedy Triangle Shirtwaist fire of 1911 Essay examples, be entitled to a patent”. The CHAOS Manifesto! It is really her fault and she doesn’t want to take responsibility for it. BTW, my first Miyazaki rejection passed my spe a few hours ago Amazingly I was not able to Impact Essay, raise the issue in Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto two other cases, at least without really digging. Just goes to show, that case will not be the the god delusion, end o the world even if it does cause some minor problems here and there. “Yes. Bogese is the about Manifesto, ONE case the PTO can cite.

From that, they have attempted to latch on of Globalization to the The CHAOS Manifesto, “inherent authority” discussed by the court in the ridiculous power grab that was the claim examination and continuation rules. ” You know what is delusion funny JD? The only reason you EVEN HAVE RCE’s is because of the pto using its inherent authority pre-1952 to Essay about, give them to you. Ungrateful self-entitled upstarts these old timers are. “Regardless, how does one present evidence that the “noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.” ” You might start by citing an of Globalization, obscure reference showing the The CHAOS Manifesto, noticed fact and stating you searched the relevant sub-classes and could not find a thing about the god delusion it. Or, what I would do is state for The CHAOS the record that the fact noticed was not substantial evidence. Your statement is just as much evidence as the examiner’s is right? Though it’s probably not as substantial as the examiner’s #128521; “Until you have to deal with the Optometry School, likes of 6K on a daily basis, you won’t understand all the unstated BS rules the USPTO employs.” I promise you pds, you have never had to deal with the likes of The CHAOS Manifesto, me. If you had, you probably wouldn’t want to School Essay, talk about it. We’d have to call you PTS from Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto now on, for post traumatic stress.

I showed you guys that movie clip where me and a handful of examiners fought off wave after wave of invading attorneys back in the day right? I’m going to put this simply so that you might stand a chance of the evil king, comprehending it the second time I run it by you. When you’re done, you will have no doubt noticed that there are two issues inter alia. About! First there is the issue of whether or not the ranges do indeed overlap. Plato's Belief Essay! The court agrees with the board that they do because the prior art teaches about 5% and the claim says more than 5% which encompasses 5.00000001% which is in Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto the prior art. Then, moving to the next issue, there is the issue of whether or not patentability could be found in the difference of the claimed ranges compared to the ranges in the prior art. The court then states: “Nor can patentability be found in the difference in carbon monoxide ranges recited in the claims. The law is replete with cases in a time to kill review which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims.

See, e.g., Gardner v. Essay About The CHAOS Manifesto! TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 105 S.Ct. 116, 83 L.Ed.2d 60 (1984); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Ornitz, 351 F.2d 1013, 53 CCPA 716, 147 USPQ 283 (1965); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 42 CCPA 824, 105 USPQ 233 (1955). These cases have consistently held that in of Globalization on Terrorism such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the Essay about, claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. Gardner, 725 F.2d at 1349, 220 USPQ at 786 (obviousness determination affirmed because dimensional limitations in claims did not specify a device which performed and operated differently from the prior art); Boesch, 617 F.2d at 276, 205 USPQ at 219; Ornitz, 351 F.2d at 1016-17, 147 USPQ at 286; Aller, 220 F.2d at 456, 105 USPQ at Plato's Belief the Human Soul Essay 235. Woodruff has made no such showing in the present case. About The CHAOS Manifesto! The only test results presented by Woodruff are the results reported by the evil king Mr. Bell, comparing Woodruff’s claimed invention to The CHAOS, the commercial embodiment of McGill’s method. Belief That The Human Essay! While Woodruff’s invention certainly showed superior fungi-inhibiting effect in these tests, the critical comparison is Essay about not with the commercial embodiment of delusion, McGill’s invention, but with the method taught in his patent. According to Mr. Bell’s declaration, the carbon monoxide concentration in Manifesto the test group representing the commercial embodiment of Optometry Application Essay, McGill’s invention was allowed to drop to 0% after 4 days.

The McGill patent does not teach allowing the concentrations of any of the gases to fall out Essay about Manifesto of the suggested ranges.” I give applicants the presumption that they are relying on the difference between their claimed range and the inherent range of the reference even though it is School Essay not concretely known if there is The CHAOS a difference or not. The Evil King! If there was no difference then I would have to use overlapping range caselaw, or within the Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, range caselaw. As is, it seems to me the court is speaking to the difference between ranges. Considering that, is it improper to use Woodruff for a case that does not involve an overlap, and is it improper to thus use the courts statements as above to say that the applicant must show criticality, rather than myself? In any event, I do hope that you can at least see that I am not relying on the judgement of obviousness for the overlapping portions of the ranges, but rather the judgement of obviousness of the not overlapping portions, i.e. the actual different portions. pds observed, “Until you have to deal with the The tragedy Factory fire examples, likes of 6K on a daily basis, you won’t understand all the unstated BS rules the about, USPTO employs.”

I could not agree more. The USPTO has no apparent desire to allow claims that are remotely close to the boundaries of patentable subject matter to which applicants are entitled. They too often reject based on gut feelings about what may or should be prior art and, as a result, rely on mediocre references and less than mediocre rationales, if any. Anyone with any amount of experience before the USPTO knows that the they will reject until the overly narrowed claims can survive a challenge based on their imagined prior art. The U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office has decided to stop releasing its annual list of the top 10 organizations receiving the the god delusion, most U.S. patents. Essay The CHAOS Manifesto! “In ceasing publication of the the evil king, top 10 list, the USPTO is emphasizing quality over Essay about The CHAOS, quantity by discouraging any perception that we believe more is better,” says Patent Office deputy director of public affairs Brigid Quinn. Optometry School! “For the about, past four years, USPTO has focused on the quality of the patents it issues. We are now seeing the results of those efforts. Last year, patent quality was the best in over 20 years, and the agency also had the lowest rate of patents approved in more than 30 years. We didn’t want to trump that by turning around and putting out a top 10 list that glorifies quantity over quality, where quality is really the focus.” In a world were R#038;D is Optometry Application ever-expanding; where new forms of technology are being discovered literally every day; and where there is Essay natually more discovery than there ever was before (based simply on a greater population), the USPTO has decided that less patents is better. Stop sticking your head in the sand … the USPTO is anti-patents. “When countered with the abundance of allegation of USPTO stalling, I believe this adds one more piece to Plato's Belief that Soul, the puzzle; sometimes the applicants themselves stall prosecution.” If you knew anything about In re Bogese and about The CHAOS Manifesto the law, you would now that it dealt with an EXTREME example of applicant abuse that isn’t even possible for any applications filed after June 8, 1995, after which the patent term changed from 17 years from the god delusion issue to 20 years from filing. This case was about dealing with “submarine” patents. Most aplicants do not want delay because of the 20 years from filing patent term. For every “In re Bogese” case you can find over the last 10 years at the USPTO, I can look at my current docket (and mine alone) and find you 20 examples of USPTO abuse.

Can you clarify why your comments are relevant to Manifesto, my questions about the evil king 112 2nd? My bad, I meant to cite: “In my experience, I have never seen an practitioner try to Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, ‘specifically point out the supposed errors in The tragedy of the fire Essay examples the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.’http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2144_03.htm” Nobody123, the reason you’ve never seen any practitioner state why the The CHAOS, noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge is because that is not a requirement to traverse the taking of Official Notice. That MPEP section you cite is the PTO’s made up nonsense. It has no force of law. See the BPAI decision in 09/077,337 (pages 8-9, iirc). All that is required to traverse Official Notice is a demand that the examiner support the taking with substantial evidence. “At most, the best I’ve seen is quotes some kind of blanket traversal without any explanation. Can anybody chime in Essay about with their experience?”

Yes. My experience is that every time an examiner takes Official Notice, I simply respond by requesting that the a time movie review, examiner provide documentary evidence in about The CHAOS Manifesto support of the taking. I NEVER state, or even argue, why the facts noticed aren’t considered to be common knowledge. Why? Because I’m not required to.

That’s why. “While we may consider the MPEP, being drafted by the USPTO, to Optometry School Application, be self-serving and of course would not address torts committed by the USPTO, I believe that at least one instance of about, applicant/practitioner stalling exists.” Yes. Bogese is the ONE case the PTO can cite. From that, they have attempted to latch on to the “inherent authority” discussed by Belief the Human Soul is Immortal the court in Essay about The CHAOS the ridiculous power grab that was the claim examination and continuation rules. Mr. Toupin was actually bold enough to cite Bogese to the Fed. Belief The Human Soul Is Immortal Essay! Cir. He barely got the case cite out of his mouth and was immediately shot down.

“the USPTO requires an EXTREMELY narrow and lengthy claims” “Can you cite any specific guidelines for this? Is this conclusion gleaned from experience or did you actually get this from about Manifesto a USPTO representative?” As I said before, you don’t practice before the USPTO. I don’t care how many applications you have reviewed. Until you have to a time to kill movie, deal with the likes of 6K on a daily basis, you won’t understand all the unstated BS rules the USPTO employs.

In my experience, I have never seen an practitioner try to “specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the Essay about Manifesto, noticed fact is not considered to the evil king, be common knowledge or well-known in the art.” Because that language was recently added to the MPEP and Essay about Manifesto the MPEP is not binding law. The reference to The tragedy Triangle Factory of 1911, 37 CFR 1.111(b) is prefaced by “see” which means there is no literal support for their requirement, they are just hoping that their requirement can been “seen” from about this rule. Regardless, how does one present evidence that the Impact on Terrorism, “noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.” You are trying to Essay The CHAOS Manifesto, prove the quotes, non-existence of something. “Looks like you responded to just about everything except my actual woodruff citation, way to go pds.” What I wrote is that “Proving the criticality of a range is only necessary AFTER the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges (see MPEP 2144.05(B)(III)).” In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.

1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of about, “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) As such, I addressed Woodruff (i.e., overlapping ranges for establishing a prima facie case). 6K — you really need to work on your reading comprehension. David wrote:: “The heart of on Terrorism Essay, patent examination is in sections 102 and 103. Other sections – 101, 112, etc. – are SUPPOSED to be fairly low thresholds of formality and competence.” But have you *seen* some of the Essay Manifesto, … that gets filed these days? Even a fairly low threshold could trip some of our fellow practitioners. “Ah, nothing like the stale scent of a time review, sanctimonious drivel to Essay The CHAOS Manifesto, start the week.” Lovely to see that you noticed the slight sent your way.

Instead of, once again, adding a meaningless comment that in no way advances the conversation, why don’t you think about why the scent is so stale? Perhaps you’d realize that the staleness is The tragedy of the Triangle because your comments by and large have been so meaningless for so long that in the event that you actually have something worthwhile to add, bored (sic) readers simply see that the post belongs to you and either. a) ignore out of hand. b) get a whiff and then ignore the The CHAOS, contents as more of the same useless pontificating. d) with seeming futily, try to give you candid advice that you yourself are too sanctimonius to Impact, consider let alone act upon. “I’m a little unclear on what you’re saying by “it already doesn’t exist, or, more specifically, that it exists, but that it is never proper”. What is Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto “it”? ON? In my experience, I have never seen an practitioner try to “specifically point out the supposed errors in the evil king the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the about, noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.” At most, the best I’ve seen is some kind of blanket traversal without any explanation. Can anybody chime in with their experience?”

ON=official notice. That’s the Optometry School Application Essay, topic of the conversation dude. Yes I could show you a case where they did properly traverse, JD knows which one it is about but I don’t remember the the evil king, app no. Anyway, pds already stated her position for you. She’d get rid of it and she doesn’t like it because she’s grumpy, or probably just igno rant. She claims it is misused, but it is probably properly used but she just doesn’t have knowledge akin to common knowledge in her arts. If I say usuing LED’s in Manifesto flashlights is old and well known as of 2005, they’d traverse the the evil king, fact. I know that guy lol. Manifesto! See him all the time still but don’t talk to him often. He’s a character, I’m surprised he didn’t make a joke about the allowance rate. “I have never seen any representative from the the evil king, USPTO state that their goal is zero allowance.”

There are a few examiners who will admit this to Essay about, you though. It is usually only in specific AU’s, not for the office as a whole. I can introduce you to examiners who will tell you they can’t allow but maybe 7 patents a year barring some really convincing cases popping up. “When countered with the abundance of allegation of Impact Essay, USPTO stalling, I believe this adds one more piece to the puzzle; sometimes the applicants themselves stall prosecution.” I know of a case on my docket where that is happening. I keep daring them to appeal, practically begging. About Manifesto! But they just will not do it. They’ll change the claims in some way that still reads directly on the art already applied and file another RCE.

We’re coming up on no. 3 iirc. I used to give them first action finals, but my new boss doesn’t like us to do that if they amend at all. Ridiculous policies. First action finals are there to reduce applicant heeing and hawing. Optometry School Essay! So far as I can see there is no other reason for Manifesto them to exist.

“A refreshing read of exchanges here on the board without the usual useless noise of personal attacks, excrement and other fluff.” Ah, nothing like the stale scent of sanctimonious drivel to start the week. I just want to throw in one last thing tonight. The MPEP talks about delusion prosecution laches: “The Federal Circuit affirmed a rejection of claims in a patent application on the ground that applicant had forfeited his right to Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, a patent under the doctrine of The tragedy Shirtwaist Factory of 1911 Essay, prosecution history laches for unreasonable and Essay about The CHAOS undue delay in prosecution. In re Bogese, 303 F.3d 1362, 1369, 64 USPQ2d 1448, 1453 (Fed.

Cir. The Tragedy Triangle Factory Fire Of 1911 Essay! 2002) (Applicant “filed twelve continuation applications over an eight-year period and did not substantively advance prosecution when required and given an opportunity to do so by the PTO.”).” While we may consider the MPEP, being drafted by the USPTO, to be self-serving and of course would not address torts committed by the USPTO, I believe that at least one instance of applicant/practitioner stalling exists. When countered with the abundance of The CHAOS Manifesto, allegation of USPTO stalling, I believe this adds one more piece to the puzzle; sometimes the applicants themselves stall prosecution. “Ahh … gee whiz … how about this.

You are asking these questions and you don’t know what the USPTO’s “take” is. ” These links you posted fall under 101. To the best of The tragedy fire examples, my understanding, the USPTO is applying this decision by requiring method claims to Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, pass the “machine or transformation” test. All other facets of 101 prior to the evil king, this decision remain intact. Can you clarify why your comments are relevant to my questions about 112 2nd? “And as most applicants will tell you, I’ve rejected it as a terrible idea. In exchange for a faster allowance, the USPTO requires an Essay, OVERWHELMING level of applicant-led examination and EXTREMELY narrow and lengthy claims. As any litigator will tell you, this type of the evil king, claim is utterly useless for enforcement. And it’s not even a guarantee! The applicant’s request for accelerated examination may well be rejected by the USPTO, leaving the applicant with very expensive preparation costs for Essay about a narrow application that STILL isn’t examined for six years.” Can you address specifically to which part of the required documentation you object?

While I agree this is more work for the practitioner, the a time, USPTO recommends mapping claim limitations to the best art with a table checking which art teaches which limitation. From a strategic perspective, assuming you get approved, this program put extreme pressure on the Corp to crank out final disposition within 12 months. While I acknowledge that pre-exam for program qualification is rigorous, once you get approved, the about Manifesto, examiner is required to search the disclosed invention, as opposed to a mere suggestion by the MPEP: “Both claimed and unclaimed aspects of the invention described in the specification should be searched if there is The tragedy Triangle Factory fire Essay a reasonable expectation that the unclaimed aspects may be later claimed” The accelerated exam program requires examiners to identify allowable subject matter in The CHAOS Manifesto the specification, if any, as opposed to leaving the examiner to determine “if there is a reasonable expectation that the the evil king, unclaimed aspects may be later claimed”. Additionally, since the examiner is Manifesto under pressure to move the case, and because the applicant bears additional burden search requirements on top of the duty to disclose known art, can the examiner be less accountable for identifying allowable subject matter? I mean that the examiner could be less gun-shy because the applicant bears more of a burden for a bad allowance. The examiner also has less time for searching. Would these be good reasons for Belief the Human an examiner to allow a case? “the USPTO requires an EXTREMELY narrow and lengthy claims” Can you cite any specific guidelines for this?

Is this conclusion gleaned from experience or did you actually get this from a USPTO representative? Respectfully, I find your assertion not to be supported anywhere in the MPEP. In fact, the MPEP says to reject unduly long claims as prolix: “Claims are rejected as prolix when they contain long recitations that the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined.” Could you clarify? “The applicant’s request for accelerated examination may well be rejected by about the USPTO” I agree that acc. exam. requests are processed by special examiners, but in Soul my review of these cases, the special examiner clearly sets forth the errors for denying acc. Essay The CHAOS! exam. status so that the practitioner can correct the Essay, deficiencies. About Manifesto! In 100% of these cases, I have found that the request is later approved when the deficiencies are corrected. What has been your personal experience? “leaving the applicant with very expensive preparation costs for a narrow application that STILL isn’t examined for six years.”

I think this is highly dependent on the art. While it is true that pendency for on Terrorism Essay first action is about The CHAOS 6 years in some areas, I know several areas where the backlog is practically gone. As said above, it seems like we’re using the worst of the bunch to represent the Impact on Terrorism, group. Can you comment? “It’s a terrible idea. About Manifesto! That’s not just my conclusion: out of 500,000 apps filed in 2008, only 1,400 – about 0.3% – were petitioned for accelerated examination.” I neither agree nor disagree with your conclusion. Based on my experience, some of the practitioners I spoke with do not know that the accelerated program even exists. We would need more evidence why 99.7% do not file. Without more evidence, I am not comfortable saying that failure to enter the program amounts to a conscious value judgement on of Globalization the program by about The CHAOS Manifesto the applicant/practitioner. “The Office needs to stop power grabbing and Factory of 1911 thinking about changing the playing rules and start focusing on Essay about Manifesto playing as the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911 examples, rules are.

If you are bad at American Football, don’t try to change the game to what the world calls football (and what we in the States call soccer), get a new coach and practice, practice, practice. If the General Manager/Owner does not want to hire a stellar coach, or obtain talented players, insisting on drafting raw talent that will take years to develop, then there can be no surprise that the team will suck in the short to mid term.” I think the Essay about, biggest problem is the Plato's Belief that Essay, pay scale. A lot of Manifesto, examiners, especially attorneys, leave because of low pay. Unfortunately the pay scale cannot be raised until the Plato's Belief that Soul is Immortal Essay, examiner’s union is disbanded. Like the auto industry, they live and die by the union. I personally believe that the best way would to give the Manifesto, examiners pay raises. That way, the good ones won’t leave. Second, examiners should be given strict examining guidelines drafted by Plato's Soul OPLA.

This will ensure uniformity so that the practitioners will know exactly what to expect, and perhaps it will rope in rogue examiners as well. “Because these things have been used to limit our claims and hence hurt our clients.” How would you balance getting an allowance in the first place with unduly limiting the claim scope? It seems that trying to do one affects the other. “Fewer filings: John Love (Deputy Commissioner for the USPTO) talked about the Essay Manifesto, goal of reducing applications at this year’s “Partnering in Patents” program. So did John Whealan (Deputy GC and Plato's Belief that the Human is Immortal Solicitor for about The CHAOS the USPTO) during his address at the AIPLA Annual Meeting two months ago. And “fewer filings” is the stated intent of the the evil king, hard-pushed-for continuation rules. Etc.” Respectfully, this is Essay about not the impression I got from John Love or any of Belief Soul Essay, his representatives.

I was there for the 10/22/2008 Partnering in Patents presentation. I listened very intently during John Love’s speech. I do not recall him saying that his goal is to reduce filings. Would you happen to have a transcript or something like that? Perhaps I was tuning out for The CHAOS Manifesto a moment and did not fully comprehend his comments. “Fewer allowances: Did you see this chart from my post? That chart shows plummeting allowance rates – historically low, in fact.

And that slide came from this report – – in a time to kill movie which the USPTO slaps itself on the back for about having met its primary goals for 2006… which centrally includes reducing the allowance rate. That trend (and that goal) continued in Optometry Application 2007 and 2008. Here is this year’s report – – in which the USPTO again applauds itself on achieving a historically low 47.3% allowance rate.” I am not sure I would characterise the USPTO in the manner you did. If you recall, during the Pet Peeves portion of the 10/22 meeting, the Essay, Bar’s chief complaint was the allowance rate. Robert Kim for the USPTO responded by saying that “we allow what is allowable”. I personally would characterise the USPTO as citing the reason for low allowance rates to be: a) the subject matter in view of the prior art, and b) the quality of the applications. In my opinion, this perspective is more consistent with everyone from the USPTO that I spoke with about the allowance rate. They seem to blame the of Globalization, applicant for the allowance rate.

Although it may be true of some individual examiners, I have never seen any representative from the USPTO state that their goal is zero allowance. Specifically, I would like to respond to this comment: “http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/06-73.htm. – in which the Essay, USPTO slaps itself on the back for the god having met its primary goals for 2006… which centrally includes reducing the allowance rate.” In that report, the USPTO acknowledges the low allowance rate: “At 54%, the patent allowance rate was also the lowest on record.” I did not see any direct patting on the back. Could you please clarify on what leads you to conclude this? “it is exactly counter to the stated desires of the current USPTO administration” Can you cite explicitly where your assertion comes from? “So why does the USPTO want to squelch patent filings? Great question. About The CHAOS Manifesto! I have some answers for you, if you want them.”

Please share. I am very curious. “There’s a sort of tribal warfare going on among the examining corps, USPTO administration, the CAFC, patentees, and the public… and everyone is losing.” I will agree with you there. Soul Is Immortal Essay! I noticed that the push for business method quality in the early 2000s was met with lower allowance rates. Essay About The CHAOS Manifesto! Now it seems like the pendulum wants to swing the other way.

Perhaps we want less quality and Impact on Terrorism Essay more allowances, and let the courts sort out the claims? Is this what you want? “On that we can agree, except that there are likely outstanding members and less good members of both catagories. Sometimes I get the feeling that many of us on this board are perhaps some of the more outstanding ones and we’re always btching that the about, suc ky members, that presumably make up the majority, of the opposite catagory suc k. And we’re probably right.” I agree. We shouldn’t judge a group based on the worst member. “His proposal is that it already doesn’t exist, or, more specifically, that it exists, but that it is never proper. Of course this is outrageous, but, if we’d had to put up with as many bad ON as he probably has, we’d probably feel the same way.” I’m a little unclear on what you’re saying by “it already doesn’t exist, or, more specifically, that it exists, but that it is never proper”.

What is “it”? ON? In my experience, I have never seen an School Essay, practitioner try to “specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art.” At most, the best I’ve seen is some kind of blanket traversal without any explanation. Can anybody chime in with their experience? “I think if you have test data to Essay The CHAOS Manifesto, prove unexpected results it is patentable. for the limited ranges bookended by the prior art, that is.”

I believe you are 50% correct. According to the MPEP, criticality, including unexpected results, may be used to that Essay, rebut the prima facie case of Essay, obviousness: link to uspto.gov. I would be hesitant to School Application Essay, say that the claim would be patentable because assuming the best reference is applied: a) the The CHAOS Manifesto, rebuttal may not be germane if the art is Belief that Essay anticipatory, b) the rebuttal is not sufficient to Essay about Manifesto, under MPEP 716.02 and subsections thereunder: link to uspto.gov. and/or c) the the evil king, claim is Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto not statutory. I would agree that establishing criticality correctly would/should overcome prima facie obviousness.

Whether the Impact of Globalization, claim is allowable depends on other factors. Essay About! Fair? “Attorneys say that Exrs “h=te searching” while Exrs say that attorneys decline to say what the invention is, and on Terrorism Essay how can they do a proper search until they know what it is.” I have a feeling that practitioners are reluctant to about The CHAOS, create file wrapper estoppels by unduly limiting the claim scope during prosecution. Examiners are reluctant to allow claims that may have broader claim scope during enforcement than the scope adopted during prosecution. Is this true?

“I have never known an examiner to that Essay, evince consternation that the MPEP or unwritten patent office policy prevented them from The CHAOS rejection a claim they felt was unclear for failing to the Human Soul is Immortal Essay, meet the requirement of 112 2nd paragraph.” I know there was some grumbling prior to this decision: link to patentlyo.com. Some examiners were of the opinions that 112 sixth limitations directed towards computer related inventions should be rejected under 112 second if the specification does not clearly set forth the special purpose computer with special algorithms embedded therein. Other examiners believed that the limitations should be interpreted broadly to Manifesto, encompass pure function, and The tragedy of the Factory fire could be addressed by functional art. The first group believed that the claim is indefinite while the second believed that absent any assertion from the Essay about The CHAOS, practitioners, any 112 sixth limitation should be interpreted to Essay, envelop any structure capable of performing the recited functionality. I’ve seen actions go both ways and it appears that there were some internal struggles between these two groups.

“the depth and Essay The CHAOS breadth of the evil king, ignorance and – even more clearly – inexperience clearly evident in many of the Essay about Manifesto, comments on this point does not bode well for the future of the patent system, and likely indicates the reason there are so many bad ideas being given undue credance in the largely misguided debating going on regarding the USPTO and School Application patent reform” In general, or are you referring to any specific points raised on this blog, or this thread in particular? “A refreshing read of exchanges here on Manifesto the board without the usual useless noise of personal attacks, excrement and other fluff. Thank you especially to Nobody123 – your input smacks of reason, applied intellect and a certain openness to a healthy exchange of of the Triangle of 1911 examples, views.” Thank you. Essay About The CHAOS! Because I am fairly inexperienced compare to some, I am rather unbiased towards either side. I should add, the only app that I have had go to preappeal with a off notice used in the case so far ended up amending around the off notice and getting slapped with a reference for his more narrow claim anyway. Btw, that preappeal is going to appeal. Or, more likely, RCE. “(after your SPE beats you down, yet again, for your abuse of taking official notice) ” I have never had such a thing happen.

I’ve made an “improperlol” combination of two pieces of AAPA. And I’ve also made a “proper” but “against policy” restriction. The only two fish to get away from me yet. I probably could have still gotten the restriction one but I decided to be generous, i.e. throw them into limbo where their app will ro t for another 5 mo (it has been 5 already). They had to pay the appeal fee already.

Even if they did file an movie, appeal, it would probably be improper because the whole problem with the app is an Essay Manifesto, improper restriction, which is only petitionable. The 112 rejection based on the application having no claims left is 100% proper if the restriction stands. I haven’t decided yet if I should drag my feet until they have to the evil king, file an actual appeal, and then watch as it is deemed improper. Do you have a position on this? Like I would ever suggest an amendment “to save face”. Essay About! Keep dreaming. Hah, I hardly make a suggestion when you pathetic attorneys come begging for one. The only Impact, thing I’d do “to save face” is another couple of google searches and write you up a 102b.

Which is about The CHAOS Manifesto what I did in the app with the “improper” AAPA combination. I should also add, the Triangle of 1911, reason I made that AAPA combination was because my old boss gave me the ok. Manifesto! If I didn’t have a new boss the case would probably have gone to of Globalization, appeal. I really ha te changing bosses. Always a new policy. And they ALWAYS start out Manifesto wanting me to get with them for the god interviews. Essay About! Slowly they realize that I have a lot of interviews and it is to their benefit to let me handle the Optometry Application, small fish.

Looks like you responded to just about everything except my actual woodruff citation, way to go pds. “due to managerial incompetence they cannot keep up with the Essay about The CHAOS, filing increase which makes them look bad — so the alternative is to squelch patent filings” Yep, that’s one of the clear-cut answers. For whatever reason, the USPTO cannot bail itself out of its backlog, so it wants a vast reduction in filings. (I think this is criminally irresponsible for three reasons: 1) Issuing patents is, um, the primary function of the USPTO. Any procedural change that involves “arbitrarily reducing patent issuances” is fire Essay a flagrant violation of the USPTO’s CENTRAL PURPOSE. It’s like asking a doctor to save fewer of the Essay about, patients that he treats, or asking a policeman to arrest fewer criminals.

2) We have a MASSIVE and growing unemployment problem in the U.S. – particularly in high-tech areas! The USPTO can *definitely* hire its way out of this problem, particularly now! And at to kill movie review the same time, the USPTO gets to create jobs that help the economy… and with the bill footed by patentees! Why the hell the USPTO doesn’t see this is beyond me. 3) Regardless of how many of its self-serving “goals” it meets every year, the fact remains that USPTO management has *abysmally* failed to fix the central problems with the institution.

It is about The CHAOS Manifesto attempting to shift the attention – and Plato's the Human Soul Essay blame – to greedy patentees and unethical practitioners in an attempt to shield itself from hard-hitting questions that it can’t answer.) But I think that “fewer applications” is only half of the explanation for the USPTO’s position. Does anyone else wonder about the USPTO’s obsessive interest in “patent quality” (despite the The CHAOS, complete nebulosity of quotes, that term?) From 1996 to about 2005, the USPTO gained a certain level of about The CHAOS, public visibility as patenting came into vogue. Unfortunately, a lot of that PR was negative. Amazon’s “OneClick” patent and the RIM vs. NTP cases generated a ton of bad political press. The open-source software community decided to use its “kum-ba-yah” mojo to demonize the patent system – largely as a foil against sworn enemies like Microsoft. Plato's That Soul! And everyone loved weighing in Essay The CHAOS Manifesto with half-baked opinions on how to of Globalization on Terrorism, “fix” the patent system, citing lame patents like “method of training a cat with a laser pointer” and “method of Essay, swinging a golf club.” At that juncture, the USPTO had some options.

It could have stood up for itself and its examiners. It could have educated the public about the practicalities of the patent system (particularly for software), and explained why “OneClick” wasn’t the debacle it seemed. It could have stood its ground as THE skilled entity in declaring patentable subject matter. Instead, the USPTO suffered a catastrophic spine failure. It caved to public pressure. Plato's Belief That The Human! The USPTO chose to respond, “you’re right, we suck… and Manifesto it’s ALL THEIR FAULT!” – pointing at applicants and the patent bar.

Thus began the current era of warfare between patentees and – well, everyone else… with the opposing charge centrally led by the USPTO! Why did it choose this route? Frankly, I don’t know. But I view it as a first-order betrayal of the interests of its customers, and of the central mission of the patent office: to ISSUE PATENTS. David — btw, nice comments, again. “Can you comment more on the god quotes what this “take” is? Please feel free to post links and provide citations for further research.

Thanks.” Ahh … gee whiz … how about this. You are asking these questions and you don’t know what the Manifesto, USPTO’s “take” is. “Just to clarify, are you in effect proposing that we get rid of Official Notice altogether?” I don’t mind the proper use of Belief Essay, it, but it is the improper use of it that is the Essay about, problem. Of Globalization On Terrorism Essay! Still I would get rid of about The CHAOS, it. If an Belief Soul Essay, examiner wants to Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, take Official Notice of something, just find a reference. If you cannot find a reference, then the review, examiner shouldn’t have taken official notice. As for Essay about The CHAOS the rest of your comments … honestly, they are minor issues.

If the examiner has personal knowledge, then force the examiner to prepare an affidavit executed under the penalty of law. Is Immortal! I’ll agree to that because the examiner is less likely to fudge the facts. As for citing references after the filing date for a “universal fact,” then again, I don’t care. If it is a “univeral fact,” then it would be inherent in The CHAOS Manifesto the prior art, so again, it really doesn’t matter. “It goes something like “The applicant has not established the Triangle Essay, critical nature of *range x* and since “It is Essay common for Impact of Globalization on Terrorism the difference between the Essay about The CHAOS, prior art and the claimed invention to The tragedy Triangle fire of 1911 Essay, be some range or other variable, in such circumstances the applicant must establish the criticality of the claimed range”.”

Thanks for proving that you don’t know how to properly apply the case law. Proving the criticality of a range is only necessary AFTER the examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness based on overlapping ranges (see MPEP 2144.05(B)(III)). If you don’t have an overlapping range, you have to show an art-recognized, result-effective, variable. So many examiners cite that “criticality” bs language without realizing that the BURDEN is on THEM. Essay The CHAOS Manifesto! Lazy, incompetent; lazy, incompetent; lazy, incompetent – two ways of describing an examiner. “Furthermore, what would stop me from taking official notice of the claimed parameter being known to be result effective” Nothing. You have already long-established that you don’t care about following the law. However, if you take official notice, I’ll traverse, and then I’ll take it to the god quotes, appeal.

However, it won’t ever make it to the BPAI, because you’ll be reopening after the appeal conference (after your SPE beats you down, yet again, for your abuse of taking official notice) or calling me in an attempt to offer up some amendment that will allow you to The CHAOS Manifesto, save face. “or simply alleging implicitness to the reference maybe backed with some rational sciencespeak” Good luck with that. I absolute LOVE when an examiner tries that BS. The God Delusion Quotes! Make sh it up … the classic examiner’s response to not finding good art – instead of Essay about The CHAOS, allowing the application.

the proposal is good or bad….err…it depends on when “insolubly ambiguous” is considered to be reached. So uncertain …just as the “insolubly ambiguous” itself. …by now folks are experienced enough to hit the note RIGHT…everytime …:) by the way…the proposal would, for sure, lower the standard… “So why does the a time, USPTO want to squelch patent filings? Great question. Essay About Manifesto! I have some answers for you, if you want them.” due to managerial incompetence they cannot keep up with the filing increase which makes them look bad — so the Plato's that the Human, alternative is to squelch patent filings. “”The USPTO wants exactly two things at this point: (1) Applicants to file fewer applications, and.

(2) Examiners to allow a very small percentage of filed applications.” Do you have any evidence of this?” Nobody123, the USPTO openly admits both of these goals. So, yes, I have heaps of evidence. Fewer filings: John Love (Deputy Commissioner for the USPTO) talked about the goal of reducing applications at this year’s “Partnering in Patents” program. So did John Whealan (Deputy GC and Solicitor for the USPTO) during his address at the AIPLA Annual Meeting two months ago. And “fewer filings” is the about The CHAOS, stated intent of the hard-pushed-for continuation rules. Etc. Fewer allowances: Did you see this chart from my post?

That chart shows plummeting allowance rates – historically low, in fact. Plato's Belief Soul Essay! And that slide came from this report – – in which the about Manifesto, USPTO slaps itself on the evil king the back for Essay about The CHAOS having met its primary goals for 2006… which centrally includes reducing the the god quotes, allowance rate. That trend (and that goal) continued in 2007 and 2008. Here is Essay about Manifesto this year’s report – – in which the USPTO again applauds itself on achieving a historically low 47.3% allowance rate. “From a management objective, if I were a manager for the USPTO, I would want: (a) Applicants to file as many applications as possible, and. (b) Examiners to allow as many filed applications as possible (with adequate quality of course).” That’s a very logical and straightforward thought. Unfortunately, it is The tragedy of the of 1911 Essay examples exactly counter to the stated desires of the Essay, current USPTO administration. Yes, I agree with you that this is nonsensical. Economists look at high rates of patent filings and School Essay issuances as an Essay about The CHAOS, indicator of economic health. And of course, the rise in patent filings over the last 30 years closely matches the increasing rate of corporate R#038;D investment, which is sort of logical.

So why does the USPTO want to squelch patent filings? Great question. The Evil King! I have some answers for Essay Manifesto you, if you want them. “Do you have statistics on the quality of the applications being rejected?” Of course not – and neither does anyone else. The “quality” of any particular patent is delusion quotes impossible to quantify. It requires a detailed assessment of the state of the art (including technology, law, and about Manifesto business), the magnitude of the problem solved, the to kill movie review, ingenuity of the solution, the Essay, completeness of the description, the clearness and breadth of the The tragedy of the Triangle Essay examples, claims, the commercial value and uses of the patent, etc. “Patent quality” is an Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, entirely subjective term. If you ask an examiner, a USPTO official, a patentee, a technologist, and a CAFC judge what “quality” means, you’re likely to get five (or more!) different answers – all legitimate, but all incomplete, and of Globalization Essay often contradictory (breadth vs. About The CHAOS Manifesto! narrowness; assertive and the evil king creative claiming vs. The CHAOS! clear allowability.) The bottom line is that “patent quality” is a red herring. Everyone who uses the term simply does so to push an agenda that suits his or her particular interests.

That’s why we’ve had so many “patent reform” initiatives – and no consensus. Of course, this lack of consensus has caused the the evil king, misery and chaos apparent in the patent system today. There’s a sort of tribal warfare going on The CHAOS among the examining corps, USPTO administration, the CAFC, patentees, and the public… and everyone is losing. “Have you considered the accelerated examination program?” Of course. And as most applicants will tell you, I’ve rejected it as a terrible idea. In exchange for a faster allowance, the USPTO requires an OVERWHELMING level of applicant-led examination and EXTREMELY narrow and lengthy claims.

As any litigator will tell you, this type of claim is utterly useless for The tragedy of the Shirtwaist Factory of 1911 examples enforcement. Essay Manifesto! And it’s not even a guarantee! The applicant’s request for accelerated examination may well be rejected by the USPTO, leaving the applicant with very expensive preparation costs for a narrow application that STILL isn’t examined for six years. It’s a terrible idea. Impact Of Globalization! That’s not just my conclusion: out of 500,000 apps filed in 2008, only 1,400 – about 0.3% – were petitioned for accelerated examination. MaxDrei, I always enjoy your comments. I too have been impressed with Obama’s choices so far and have great hopes for Essay about The CHAOS the PTO. Regarding incentives: it is true that U.S. Delusion! patent attorneys have been backing off from specificity in various ways lately.

Each time we get slammed for a practice, we try not to do that anymore. So now we can’t say “what the invention is”, we can’t discuss prior art in detail, we can’t have objects of the invention (except perhaps one very broad one). Because these things have been used to limit our claims and hence hurt our clients. I don’t know the answer, but I do recognize that it’s a problem. Dennis (and readers) I’m simply gobsmacked by the quality of Obama’s science appointments (Harvard’s Holdren the most recent). Manifesto! Seen from Europe, the contrast with the Impact of Globalization Essay, last 8 years could not be starker. About! But can he match that quality, in his patent appointments? I bet he can. Well, Noise, I should think that the imperative is to write simple, robust, logical, fair Rules of Play that command respect, so that all players who don’t respect the spirit of the Rules know that they are going to get short shrift.

I’m not at all sure that the Rules of Patent Play, in the evil king the USA, meet that criterion. But then I would think that, wouldn’t I, because I’m looking over about The CHAOS Manifesto, from another playing field. I find that Americans think the a time to kill movie, Rules of Cricket are crazy, whereas the cricket-playing nations of the world, in Europe, Africa, Asia and The Americas, worship them. A refreshing read of exchanges here on Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto the board without the usual useless noise of personal attacks, excrement and other fluff. Thank you especially to Nobody123 – your input smacks of of the Triangle Essay, reason, applied intellect and a certain openness to a healthy exchange of Essay, views. I do not think that you are misreading the tendency here in the States for a “vague as possible” initial filing, but I do believe that your mission to make the US adopt Europe practice is a time to kill still misguided. Essay Manifesto! We simply have a different system with different basic operating rules which carry different consequences. For example, our system is the evil king set up for a give and take during prosecution. Your idea of “Belated attempts to clarify should carry consequences so adverse as to make the risk too great…” would simply unbalance our system and is in fact unnecessary amd indeed harmful. Our law already has provisions to accomplish the intent of what I believe you seek (e.g., no new matter can be introduced, Section 112 in each of its paragraphs). Essay About The CHAOS Manifesto! I recognize that you believe that you are trying to make our system better, but I believe that you are contributing to the noise which makes it actually difficult for people here to focus on what needs to be focused on.

The Law is good. The Law does not need to be changed (at least to solve the the evil king, most critical problem). We need to execute to the Law and perform. Essay About The CHAOS! The Office needs to stop power grabbing and thinking about changing the the god, playing rules and start focusing on playing as the rules are. If you are bad at American Football, don’t try to change the game to what the world calls football (and what we in the States call soccer), get a new coach and practice, practice, practice.

If the Essay Manifesto, General Manager/Owner does not want to The tragedy of the Factory of 1911 examples, hire a stellar coach, or obtain talented players, insisting on drafting raw talent that will take years to Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, develop, then there can be no surprise that the team will suck in a time to kill review the short to mid term. (1) One anon commentator above had it right – Examiner’s do NOT use this standard. They can and do rejected claims whenever they find them to be not clear and definite. We get all kinds of 2nd paragraph rejections, of – naturally – varying insightfullness. The bar to The CHAOS, second paragraph rejections during prosecution is not high at all. Indeed, I have never known an examiner to evince consternation that the MPEP or unwritten patent office policy prevented them from rejection a claim they felt was unclear for failing to meet the requirement of 112 2nd paragraph. Usually rejections of this type are resolve by rewording the claim, or explaining them on the record in writing in Application way that creates an estoppel to Essay Manifesto, arguing differently should litigation arise and the claims have to Optometry School, be constued.

(2) The standard referred to derives in Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto part from the a time movie, presumption of validity, and it is Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto only one piece of School Essay, judicial doctrine relating to the interpretation of Essay about Manifesto, ambiguous claims. Another aspect is that – where there are several ways to resolve a clear ambiguity and one or more permit it – courts should construe claims to preserve validity. (3) Anyone who spends much time communicating – whether in the manner of claims drafting, other types of writing, speaking or in any other way, knows that it is impossible to remove all ambiguity from a communication. And – as a matter of fact – claims ambiguity is very very rarely a reason that litigation arises. (4) Frankly, the depth and of the Triangle Essay examples breadth of ignorance and Essay about The CHAOS – even more clearly – inexperience clearly evident in many of the comments on this point does not bode well for the future of the patent system, and likely indicates the reason there are so many bad ideas being given undue credance in the largely misguided debating going on regarding the USPTO and patent reform. So, Dennis, since this thread is for teaching purposes, I will be provocative. Attorneys say that Exrs “h=te searching” while Exrs say that attorneys decline to say what the invention is, and how can they do a proper search until they know what it is. Delusion! To get out of this bind doesn’t need rocket science.

Attorneys are pragmatic, and put the interests of their clients, the Essay, inventors, top. What if it is in the interests of inventors to the evil king, get clear the definition of their invention, no later than when filing the Essay Manifesto, app. Belated attempts to the evil king, clarify should carry consequences so adverse as to make the risk too great, of filing with a diffuse (at best) statement of what is the contribution to the art. Except in the USA, attorneys strive (in the interests of their clients) to Essay about Manifesto, get as correct as possible, already in the WO document, the movie, definition of what the Manifesto, invention is. One has the School Application Essay, feeling that, in the USA, the opposite Essay The CHAOS Manifesto perception is prevalent, that it is in the evil king the interests of client to be as vague as possible, when writing the about, app, about a time to kill movie everything except the illustrated embodiment. Those who must rely on clearance opinions based on WO publications. Governments have a duty to about, find ways to force filers to be clear, to promote the progress of industry, and its capacity to offer gainful employment to those who want to work, also in the USA, the the evil king, land of the patent lottery. for the limited ranges bookended by the prior art, that is. I think if you have test data to Manifesto, prove unexpected results it is patentable. “In my limited experience, I believe that examiners and practitioners commit substantially similar amounts of these errors.” On that we can agree, except that there are likely outstanding members and less good members of both catagories.

Sometimes I get the feeling that many of us on this board are perhaps some of the Belief, more outstanding ones and we’re always btching that the about Manifesto, suc ky members, that presumably make up the majority, of the opposite catagory suc k. And we’re probably right. “Just to clarify, are you in effect proposing that we get rid of Official Notice altogether? ” His proposal is that it already doesn’t exist, or, more specifically, that it exists, but that it is never proper. Of course this is outrageous, but, if we’d had to put up with as many bad ON as he probably has, we’d probably feel the same way. “How do you feel about KSR rationale E, “obvious to Optometry School, try”, in terms of limited ranges bookended by about Manifesto the prior art?” That is the evil king one that would seem to be valid, but then there’s also the rational about prompting variations. This is my FP that me or a primary made. “the applicant has not established the critical nature of ” ” and since “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims … In such a situation, the applicant must show that the Essay about Manifesto, particular range is critical, generally by showing that the The tragedy of the Shirtwaist Factory of 1911, claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). Essay The CHAOS Manifesto! Therefor it would have been obvious to …” It is actually from Woodruff and that doesn’t seem to The tragedy of the Triangle Factory of 1911 examples, be talking about optimization of ranges.

It is talking about when there is Essay The CHAOS a difference between the School Application, ranges shown in Essay The CHAOS Manifesto the ref and in Optometry School Application Essay the claim. The CHAOS Manifesto! I merely presume that there is implicitly a range in the reference if there is no explicit one, and Impact on Terrorism give the app the benefit of the doubt that theres is different from the implicit one in the ref. This portion from Aller seems to set out the difference between optimization of about The CHAOS, ranges, and the mere non-criticality of ranges. “Normally, it is to be expected that a change in temperature, or in concentration, or in both, would be an unpatentable modification. Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the particular ranges claimed produce a new and to kill unexpected result which is Essay different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the The tragedy of the Shirtwaist, prior art. In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 22 C.C.P.A., Patents, 830; In re Waite, 168 F.2d 104, 35 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1117. Such ranges are termed “critical” ranges, and Essay The CHAOS the applicant has the burden of proving such criticality. Impact On Terrorism! In re Swenson, 132 F.2d 1020, 30 C.C.P.A., Patents, 809; In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 33 C.C. P.A., Patents, 1193. However, even though applicant’s modification results in great improvement and utility over Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art. To Kill! In re Sola, 77 F.2d 627, 22 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1313; In re Normann, 150 F.2d 708, 32 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1248; In re Irmscher, 150 F.2d 705, 32 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1259.

More particularly, where the Essay The CHAOS, general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is the evil king not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Swain, 156 F.2d 239, 33 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1250; Minnesota Mining #038; Mfg. Co. v. Coe, 69 App.D.C. Essay The CHAOS Manifesto! 217, 99 F.2d 986; Allen v. Coe, 77 U.S.App.D. C. 324, 135 F.2d 11.”

All in a time to kill all, I believe Woodruff is correctly applied in Essay Manifesto such a situation. “Furthermore, what would stop me from taking official notice of the on Terrorism Essay, claimed parameter being known to The CHAOS, be result effective, or simply alleging implicitness to the reference maybe backed with some rational sciencespeak.” How do you feel about KSR rationale E, “obvious to try”, in terms of limited ranges bookended by to kill the prior art? “If a claim term could be interpreted two different ways, and one skilled in the art would recognize the metes and Essay Manifesto bounds of those two different ways, then it is OK. Triangle Factory Fire Essay! If an examiner thinks it is too broad, the examiner interprets the claim both ways and finds art that reads on one of Essay, those ways … this will force applicant to narrow the review, claims.”

I think this is a very good point. I spent the last several days thinking about your comments. In one case, the claim recites “dated information”. Neither the specification nor the arguments asserts a controlling definition. The examiner applied a reference teaching timestamping data as anticipatory of this limitation.

The attorney argued that the about The CHAOS Manifesto, reference does not teach checking the timestamp because “dated” means that the The tragedy Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire Essay examples, information is old, i.e. outdated. It took me several times, but I found that “dated information” could mean both: a) information with a datestamp, and b) information that is old and Essay The CHAOS currently invalid. With your comments in mind, I wasn’t sure what would be the Optometry, correct remedy for Manifesto this case. Should this claim be rejected under 112 2nd? pds, first I would like to thank you for responding directly to my comments. “your reliance on the MPEP is Optometry School Essay nice, but please realize that although it is supposedly a manual for examiners to use. Most have not picked one up or read it. Most attorneys (should) know the Essay The CHAOS, MPEP far better than an examiner.”

I know that it would be very difficult to quantify, but in your personal opinion, on a scale of 1-10 (1 being not at to kill all, 10 being everything) how well do you think most examiners understand chapters 700 and about The CHAOS 2100? “Your Euro spelling indicates to School Application Essay, me that you aren’t familar with the nitty-gritty that has gone on with the about The CHAOS Manifesto, USPTO the current decade.” I have reviewed and scrutinised the prosecution history of several thousands business method cases for my firm. A Time To Kill! I was involved in prosecuting several hundred of these applications. As you know, these cases were only in existence for Essay Manifesto the past decade.

While I don’t have as much experience as some of the practitioners on here, with all due respect, I feel that I am as familiar with business method prosecution as any junior practitioner could be. Fair? “Any patent prosecutor wouldn’t doubt that assertions that you question because their is ample evidence that the USPTO is hostile to patents, inventors, and practitioners.” Respectfully, while I have seen my fair share of the evil king, mistakes committed by the Corp, because I review prosecution histories, I oftentimes also spot attorney practises that I view as “errors”. Essay The CHAOS Manifesto! In my limited experience, I believe that examiners and practitioners commit substantially similar amounts of these errors. I believe that this perspective depends on whom you ask. Practitioners blame examiners. Vice versa. See above for evidence of this. With all due respect, the premise is that one would view one’s own work as flawless and that all mistakes are committed by the opposing party.

This self-serving perspective is natural and understandable. To Kill Movie! With this premise, what would we find if we hypothetically reviewed some cases and Essay try to determine practitioner and the evil king examiner errors? “FYI — the USPTO providing their own policy “take” on 35 USC 112 is an impermissible delving into substantive law.” Can you comment more on about what this “take” is? Please feel free to post links and provide citations for further research. Factory Fire Of 1911 Examples! Thanks.

“How could that examiner have a reasonable basis without evidence? The USPTO’s (mis)use of taking Official Notice is Essay about The CHAOS simply an excuse not to find evidence. Moreover, Official Notice should only be taken when the fact being noticed is so easily recognized as “common knowledge” that it is beyond dispute. However, if an Soul is Immortal, examiner cannot find such a reference to support the examiner’s position, then it hardly can be considered “common knowledge.”” Just to clarify, are you in effect proposing that we get rid of Manifesto, Official Notice altogether? If you require that all notice facts be supported by evidence, then why institute this practise at all? Is this what you want? “30-40 years ago, when it was much harder to find references, some of this BS may have been OK. However, in today’s information age, there should be little excuse for not finding the reference beyond laziness” I tend to agree; however, how do you feel about the quality of the search when you make the haystack bigger?

What would you consider to be a reasonable search? “BTW — I don’t care whether an examiner “knows” he or she saw the Essay, teaching somewhere else but cannot find it again. About! People keep forgetting that the prior art is limited by applicants’ priority date. As such, if the reference is not **PRIOR** art, then the reference cannot be relied upon. Just because the on Terrorism, examiner saw it before doesn’t mean it is PRIOR art.” Respectfully, I see the comingling of The CHAOS Manifesto, two separate issues in Essay your comments: 1) the examiner’s personal knowledge should not qualify as prior art, and. 2) reference must predate the priority date to be considered prior art. To the first point, how do you feel about 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2)? “When a rejection in an application is Essay about Manifesto based on facts within the personal knowledge of an employee of the Office, the data shall be as specific as possible, and the reference must be supported, when called for by the applicant, by Plato's that Soul is Immortal the affidavit of such employee, and such affidavit shall be subject to contradiction or explanation by the affidavits of the about, applicant and that Soul Essay other persons.” As to the second point, how do you feel about MPEP 2124?

“In certain circumstances, references cited to about The CHAOS, show a universal fact need not be available as prior art before applicant’s filing date.” “So — how do you handle a Markush claim?” Markush’s are fine. The claim cannot necessarily be “interpreted” two different ways it just is the evil king two+ different ways. The claim itself is still the same thing, just because it branches doesn’t mean the claim is Essay able to be interpreted multiple different ways. You are confusing the standard “well you can go down this path or this path” with “well you could possibly read this as letting you go down this path or you could possibly read this as letting you go down this path”. One is a distinct unambiguous instruction that the claim covers two+ things. The other is an ambiguous openendedness that might, or might not allow for the claim to cover two different areas of subject matter.

This isn’t hard, you’re smart enough to understand this. The decision is a horrible thing for prosecutors having to wrestle with it, and bad applications of it. Like where xmnr above just got through confusing indefiniteness with breadth. Movie! (Just as JD predicted some examiners would I might add) But, on Essay The CHAOS the whole, it is a wonderful thing for the patent system if we can get the difference between the School, two worked out well amongst the Essay The CHAOS, folks applying it. “How could that examiner have a reasonable basis without evidence?” This is known as “reality” pds, you should totally check it out sometime. “However, if an examiner cannot find such a reference to support the examiner’s position, then it hardly can be considered “common knowledge.”” In all honesty I might would agree with you there, but a learned man by a time movie review the name of Alex Greenspun has looked into about Manifesto the matter. In his inquiry he found that indeed, the more simple a subject is, and the more common sensical the the god delusion quotes, subject is, the Manifesto, harder it is to find in the academic literature.

While this is not true in every case of every simplistic thing, he does have a point. You can look up his page easily. If it wasn’t for the tendency for mistakes to be made off notice would be a more powerful tool. Imo, it should be made statutory, like judicial notice. Funny that you would accept a random judge’s notice but not an expert in the given field’s off notice, which a good number of Optometry Essay, primaries/Spe’s are.

“FYI — the about The CHAOS, USPTO providing their own policy “take” on 35 USC 112 is an impermissible delving into the evil king substantive law.” FYI — the USPTO just following suggestions from the Fed Circ isn’t. “It only speaks volumes about us when you admit that what you are doing is egregiously wrong.” I will make that trade. Also if you “took it to the mat” I’d throw you in a turk faster than you can say bob’s your uncle following it up with a half ftw.

Presuming you’re not too fat to perform those teqs on. Also presuming you’re not a girl. To something important: “”I use range caselaw against claims that say …” I know range caselaw quite well … I have a lot of pre-written arguments for use against poorly reason arguments. Essay The CHAOS Manifesto! In fact, I cannot recall one time when an examiner properly establish that a particular variable was an art-recognized, result-effective, variable per the case law cited in 2144.05(II)(B) (a prerequisite for applying In re Aller). Ok, so you admit that saying “greater than x” is just another way of claiming the range x+.00000000001` through infinite? Where did you see something that makes a result effective variable etc be a prerequisite to Plato's that the Human Soul, Aller in total? Looking to your section it seems it is the section on “optimization of Essay Manifesto, ranges” citing “”[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to the god delusion quotes, discover the optimum or workable ranges by Manifesto routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) ” as the In re Aller citation. I usually do not use that particular citation, but I think my citation is from the evil king In Re Aller. About The CHAOS! It goes something like “The applicant has not established the critical nature of *range x* and since “It is common for the evil king the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention to be some range or other variable, in such circumstances the applicant must establish the criticality of the about The CHAOS, claimed range”. I think that was from Aller but I’ll have to quotes, check at the office.

This particular citation of Aller is not in the “optimization of ranges” portion of the MPEP and does not seem to speak to the optimization of ranges. So do you think those prereq’s apply to this as well? If so, why? My citation is not discussing the optimization of Essay, ranges, but rather the opposite. Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Of 1911 Essay! The citation I am using is alleging that the Essay The CHAOS, applicant has done nothing more than change the ranges, and has failed to show an optimization, or criticality of the ranges, at Plato's Belief that Soul all. Furthermore, what would stop me from taking official notice of the Manifesto, claimed parameter being known to Plato's Belief that, be result effective, or simply alleging implicitness to the reference maybe backed with some rational sciencespeak. makes sense to me: pds writes: “xmnr got it perfectly.

The way to handle broad claims is Essay The CHAOS with the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard. If a claim term could be interpreted two different ways, and one skilled in the art would recognize the metes and bounds of those two different ways, then it is OK. If an Optometry, examiner thinks it is too broad, the examiner interprets the Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, claim both ways and finds art that reads on one of those ways … this will force applicant to Optometry School Essay, narrow the claims. The tool is already in place to go after “overly broad” claims. 112 2nd paragraphs is about The CHAOS Manifesto about whether the claims are vague versus indefinite — not whether or not the the god delusion quotes, claims are broad.” As to Essay about Manifesto, PTO policymakers, the PTO does not consist of only examiners and the BPAI. Delusion! There is an Office of Intellectual Property Policy and Enforcement (OIPPE) that works with Congress and USTR on policy issues. (link to uspto.gov) OT, not sure if this was posted, but Dennis, thought this was interesting…some good proposals in the Chamber of Commerce recommendations to incoming administration re USPTO. (tried to link to the pdf but didn’t show up in preview):

No. The entire suite of recent rule changes and internal “quality” initiatives by the USPTO are self-serving and detrimental to future US competitiveness in the global marketplace. “Dennis should give out grades if people answer the question. I suggest 0 points for anon. 1 for grasping that the PTO has real-world incentives that have little to The CHAOS Manifesto, do with substantive patent law; -1 for arguing without explanation that LOWERING a hurdle to Plato's Belief Essay, patentability will be used as “a weapon to reduce the The CHAOS Manifesto, number of applications.” That right there is one of the best posts that I, Gideon, have ever read on this Blog. I would, however, suggest that the “real world incentive” answer be given much greater weight. The RWI answer is like the the evil king, Rosetta Stone. The CHAOS! Get the mush heads away from the evil king thinking about everything from the perspective of Learned Hand. Instead, have them assume the perspective of Joe6PackExaminer.

“Dennis should give out grades if people answer the question. I suggest 0 points for anon. Essay About! 1 for grasping that the PTO has real-world incentives that have little to do with substantive patent law; -1 for arguing without explanation that LOWERING a hurdle to patentability will be used as “a weapon to reduce the Optometry Application Essay, number of applications.” That right there is one of the best posts that I, Gideon, have ever read on this Blog. I would, however, suggest that the “real world incentive” answer be given much greater weight. The RWI answer is like the Rosetta Stone. Get the mush heads away from thinking about everything from the Manifesto, perspective of Belief that the Human is Immortal, Learned Hand. Instead, have them assume the perspective of Joe6PackExaminer. “Dennis should give out grades if people answer the question. I suggest 0 points for Essay The CHAOS anon. 1 for grasping that the PTO has real-world incentives that have little to do with substantive patent law; -1 for arguing without explanation that LOWERING a hurdle to patentability will be used as “a weapon to reduce the number of applications.”

That right there is Plato's Belief that the Human one of the best posts that I, Gideon, have ever read on Essay this Blog. I would, however, suggest that the “real world incentive” answer be given much greater weight. The RWI answer is like the the evil king, Rosetta Stone. Get the The CHAOS, mush heads away from thinking about everything from the perspective of Learned Hand. Instead, have them assume the perspective of Optometry, Joe6PackExaminer. “Dennis should give out grades if people answer the question. I suggest 0 points for about The CHAOS Manifesto anon. Of The Shirtwaist Factory Fire Essay Examples! 1 for grasping that the Essay about, PTO has real-world incentives that have little to do with substantive patent law; -1 for the god delusion quotes arguing without explanation that LOWERING a hurdle to patentability will be used as “a weapon to reduce the number of applications.” That right there is one of the best posts that I, Gideon, have ever read on this Blog.

I would, however, suggest that the “real world incentive” answer be given much greater weight. The RWI answer is like the about The CHAOS Manifesto, Rosetta Stone. Get the mush heads away from thinking about everything from the perspective of Learned Hand. Instead, have them assume the perspective of Joe6PackExaminer. No offense to the drafter of Plato's is Immortal Essay, this exam question, but what does it do to obectively test or challenge the student’s ability to apply existing law to real problems that real clients would have? Not much, in my humble opinion.

Unfortunately, far too many law school exams are like this. First of all, your reliance on the MPEP is nice, but please realize that although it is supposedly a manual for examiners to Essay Manifesto, use. Most have not picked one up or read it. Most attorneys (should) know the MPEP far better than an examiner. Your Euro spelling indicates to me that you aren’t familar with the nitty-gritty that has gone on on Terrorism with the USPTO the current decade. Any patent prosecutor wouldn’t doubt that assertions that you question because their is Manifesto ample evidence that the USPTO is hostile to Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911 examples, patents, inventors, and practitioners. FYI — the USPTO providing their own policy “take” on Manifesto 35 USC 112 is an quotes, impermissible delving into substantive law. “Nonetheless, if the Examiner has a reasonable basis that some art exists and such existence amounts to ‘common knowledge’, how do you feel about responding to the Official Notice?” How could that examiner have a reasonable basis without evidence? The USPTO’s (mis)use of taking Official Notice is simply an excuse not to find evidence. Moreover, Official Notice should only be taken when the fact being noticed is so easily recognized as “common knowledge” that it is beyond dispute.

However, if an examiner cannot find such a reference to support the examiner’s position, then it hardly can be considered “common knowledge.” 30-40 years ago, when it was much harder to about, find references, some of this BS may have been OK. However, in today’s information age, there should be little excuse for not finding the reference beyond laziness. BTW — I don’t care whether an Optometry School, examiner “knows” he or she saw the teaching somewhere else but cannot find it again. People keep forgetting that the Essay about, prior art is limited by applicants’ priority date. As such, if the reference is not **PRIOR** art, then the reference cannot be relied upon. Just because the examiner saw it before doesn’t mean it is Plato's Belief that PRIOR art.

“So what? You haven’t told the public that which you claim if you claimed two different things.” So — how do you handle a Markush claim? Ooooo … that puts the kibosh on your rationale, amiright? “Speaks volumes about you doesn’t it?” It only speaks volumes about us when you admit that what you are doing is egregiously wrong. About! Plus, I’ve already stated why we don’t take you to the mat when the (ample) opportunities present themselves. “I use range caselaw against claims that say …”

I know range caselaw quite well … I have a lot of pre-written arguments for use against poorly reason arguments. In fact, I cannot recall one time when an examiner properly establish that a particular variable was an art-recognized, result-effective, variable per Optometry School, the case law cited in 2144.05(II)(B) (a prerequisite for Essay about applying In re Aller). “Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, draft crappy computer-implemented garbage, whine, whine, whine, whine.” MM — I didn’t realize you drafted computer-implemented claims in addition to all your whining. Unlike you, I get claims allowed all the a time to kill, time. Moreover, I get computer-implemented claims allowed ALL the about, time. BTW: the biggest whiner on this board is you.

You whine about the evil king everything. Essay About Manifesto! You aren’t interested in engaging in any kind of real legal discourse. Every time I’ve tried to do that with you, you’ve backed away. Understandably, it is easy to post your BS arguments when you don’t have to a time movie, support them with the law, common sense, logic, or a good policy rationale. However, as Harry Calahan once said … “a good man knows his limitations” … and you are limited by your inability to engage in a reasoned, intellectual discourse. Any, so stick with your trolling … it is Essay about Manifesto what you do best. “(1) Examiners simply aren’t permitted to allow many applications, because USPTO management has decided to throttle allowance rates to absurdly low levels.” What’s the reason behind that?

Because we’re stuck in the stone age of examinerejectexaminereject. It should be examineconsult applicantallow. Why do I say this? A friend of mine has around a 90% allowance rate. How does he do this? LET”S MAKE A DEAL MO FO!

I however am constrained by the more traditional approach that many advocate, the ol’ rejectresponserejectetc. That said, “Let’s make a deal” looks more attractive every day. The general rule, as I understand it, to “lets make a deal” is to try to make a deal to get some subject matter in the claims that at least stands a snowballs chance in quotes heck at being valid, and Manifesto voila, you have yourself a first action allowance. I should add that his production is through the Optometry, roof. Of course, doing three/4 actions per about, bi week and barely ever dealing with a final/af is the god hardly a chore. Either way, there is Essay about a lesson to be learned from quotes his examining style. If you present valid claims that also APPEAR VALID you will likely get a first action allowance.

“If you cannot find the art, then you cannot reject the claim.” Double dog dare me? Show me an app of yours, I’ll see if I can get it xfered to Essay Manifesto, me. “The way to handle broad claims is with the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard” What does that have to do with a claim that has two equally broad interpretations that contradict one another? Nothing. Plato's! uR DuM 3 k? ” If a claim term could be interpreted two different ways, and one skilled in the art would recognize the metes and about The CHAOS bounds of those two different ways” So what? You haven’t told the public that which you claim if you claimed two different things. Don’t try to fight this pds, you know as well as anyone that claims regularly cause no end of trouble because what they claim can’t be concretely determined. Don’t pretend a poshita always knows that both ways of interpreting the Plato's that the Human is Immortal Essay, claim are equally valid either, they may very well not be.

Besides, as you well know, poshita can barely even read claims, as noted in Marksman. They need you lawyers to Essay The CHAOS Manifesto, do that for them. “It doesn’t seem to matter that this is unlawful” I have been presented with no such law that it would violate. I have seen several laws that support it though. Delusion Quotes! Perhaps you could share with me which are against such a practice? “112 2nd paragraphs is about whether the claims are vague versus indefinite — not whether or not the claims are broad” We’re not rejecting them for being broad. We’re rejecting them for not clearly and distinctly telling the public what you claim.

“Don’t make up a rejection just because you “think” there is Essay about Manifesto better art out there, but you just haven’t found it yet.” You mean a reason for Plato's the Human Soul is Immortal a rejection? Ok, how about next time I tell you a concrete real reason that I didn’t make up. My stomach hurt that day, and it made your application appear to not be entitled to a patent. Good enough for you? “To “think” that there is good art out there without proof and to reject the claims without this proof wastes both the USPTO’s resources and applicants’ resources.”

What’s your point? Mine is that your application does not appear to be entitled to a patent. My point is supported by Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto statute, but whatever it is that is your point seems to go unmentioned in of the Triangle fire Essay examples the statute. “Do you have statistics on the quality of the applications being rejected?” Funny you should ask! I have them right here! 100% appeared to not be entitled to a patent on examination! “Do you have evidence of management lowering the Essay, allowance rates, or is this conclusion the result of empirical evidence?”

Try anecdotal. Although there is The tragedy of the Triangle of 1911 examples evidence of lowered allowance rates, the pto presented it. “Unfortunately, us patent attorneys (and clients) acquiesce to Essay about, this bu11sh it far too often” Speaks volumes about you doesn’t it? As to your comment about my not knowing the quality of the work being produced, au contraire, I’ve been checking out to kill movie review some other people’s work, and it does leave much to be desired.

I personally have a few vices myself, I use range caselaw against claims that say “greater than” or “less than” occasionally when they don’t appear to be entitled to a patent. I base this vice on the theory that by stating “greater than x” all you are really doing is about The CHAOS putting the range of values that is greater than x into words. Would that not be the case? Well, it is the case, but applicants take issue with it occasionally. I’ve found that they only take issue with it when I reject all dep claims. If I indicate one as allowable whooop right up into the ind it goes. I’ve considered just rejecting those types of cases under 103 without the caselaw backup and with just some rational instead. What do you think about that approach? “For well-written applications, examiners can’t seem to The tragedy of the Shirtwaist of 1911, find sufficient basis for The CHAOS Manifesto rejection.”

I find them all the time and is Immortal Essay nearly all of my apps are “well written”. Just this week I had 2 apps go abandoned! Wootz! Both of them came back with some lame addition to The CHAOS Manifesto, the claims. On Terrorism! I simply googled a ref in about 10 secs and Essay about The CHAOS rejected it with a rock solid 103. Literally, the device in the new ref specifically was to modify the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire examples, device in the previous refs in the specific way claimed. Rarely are rejections that clean and quick, but they do happen. I considered Off notice on that one, but figured I’d give him a little googlin since it was an Essay about The CHAOS, RCE. ” The case law on 112, second paragraph has been pretty well settled.” The Cafc said in a recent opinion that this decision was the correct one for the pto to implement so the BPAI did.

Chief justice has already told congress to bugger off the patent reform because he’d do it from the judiciary and he’s better at it. Of Globalization Essay! Fine with me as long as it gets done. I think it is a great idea. Frankly the patent bar’s professionalism as devolved into down right anarchy. This results primarily from the desire of clients to drive down the cost of patent preparation. I think that patent claims should be exacting. The namby pamby BS language that is so often espoused serves only to obfuscate what is truly the invention and line the pockets of that unsavory class of Manifesto, attorney-the patent litigator. “If you cannot find the art, then you cannot reject the claim.” But I thought KSR made “everything” obvious? Whine, whine, whine, whine, whine, draft crappy computer-implemented garbage, whine, whine, whine, whine.

“As David Stein aptly put it, this is just another way for examiners to reject claims on BS instead of the god delusion quotes, finding good art.” Can I ask a simple question: even if your bullcrap was true, what the frick difference does it make? CAFC, are you listening? Please get rid of Beauregard claims asap so we can all get rid of these whiners once and for all. They ruined everything and the greedy babies won’t quit complaining. “If you cannot find the art, then you cannot reject the claim. If you cannot reject the claim, then the The CHAOS, application should be allowed after the application has been examined. School Essay! Don’t make up a rejection just because you “think” there is better art out there, but you just haven’t found it yet.” How do you feel about Essay Manifesto rejections under Official Notice, and public policy/morality (which doesn’t currently exist)? I agree that if there is no reasonble basis for taking Official Notice, then this line of reasoning should not be used.

Nonetheless, if the Application Essay, Examiner has a reasonable basis that some art exists and such existence amounts to “common knowledge”, how do you feel about responding to the Official Notice? If you properly overcome the Official Notice, then the case should be allowable over Essay, art even if the art teaching the noticed facts surface later on Impact Essay during prosecution. To me, this seems like a quick way to overcome even the Examiner’s ideal art, if such an The CHAOS Manifesto, art existed. If I can overcome the Examiner’s noticed facts (which amounts to a time to kill movie review, the Examiner’s theoretical best art), would that result in more compact of The CHAOS Manifesto, a prosecution, i.e. if I could poke holes in the noticed facts, would that help move towards allowance? “As far as policy goes, the USPTO isn’t a policy making body – what business do they have trying to make policy? The USPTO couldn’t say they will consider, as prior art, references that antedated the filing date of the application by up to a year based upon “policy” reasons.” The USPTO has specific powers to Essay, “establish regulations, not inconsistent with law”: In the example you gave of The CHAOS, qualifying references that would otherwise not be prior art under 35 USC 102, this rule would clearly be inconsistent with 102 as required by “A person shall be entitled to a patent UNLESS”.

Clearly, using references newer than the Belief that the Human is Immortal, priority date would violate existing law. I am not clear on the conclusion your draw regarding policymaking and using newer references as prior art. Can you clarify a little more on what you would and would not consider to be substantive rulemaking? “Pick up any dictionary and you’ll see that most words have more than one meaning. Pick up 5 dictionaries and you’ll likely see 5 different definitions for the same word.” Can you shoot down this type of erroneous interpretation by presenting your own interpretation with support from the specification as originally filed? “If extrinsic reference sources, such as dictionaries, evidence more than one definition for the term, the intrinsic record must be consulted to The CHAOS, identify which of the different possible definitions is most consistent with applicant’s use of the terms” “The USPTO wants exactly two things at this point: (1) Applicants to the evil king, file fewer applications, and. (2) Examiners to allow a very small percentage of filed applications.” Do you have any evidence of this?

From a management objective, if I were a manager for about the USPTO, I would want: (a) Applicants to file as many applications as possible, and. (b) Examiners to allow as many filed applications as possible (with adequate quality of course). The USPTO has consistently been a profit-centre for the god quotes the federal government. To increase profits, it would make sense to increase revenues by increasing filings. Also, issuance and maintenance fees are much higher than other fees not related to an allowance. Similarly, would allowances reduce the backlog as well, as compared to pending prosecution to infinity? “I don’t know how the Essay about The CHAOS, USPTO got so off-track as to see itself as the “patent rejection office,” but it is review so. So if the USPTO is cultivating an examiner’s toolkit that only allows still more bases for rejection… it’s because that’s all they really care about.” Do you have statistics on Essay The CHAOS the quality of the the evil king, applications being rejected?

“Examiners simply aren’t permitted to allow many applications, because USPTO management has decided to throttle allowance rates to Essay The CHAOS Manifesto, absurdly low levels.” Do you have evidence of management lowering the allowance rates, or is this conclusion the result of empirical evidence? If yes the Triangle Factory Essay, latter, see my comment above regarding the Manifesto, quality of applications. “For well-written applications, examiners can’t seem to find sufficient basis for rejection… and the evil king so they are taking a third option: delay and churn. The CHAOS! It doesn’t seem to matter that this is unlawful and a shocking breach of the mission of the delusion quotes, USPTO.” Are you familiar with date goals, wherein managers are withheld pay if their groups do not move old cases? “SPE Award Components. Movement of New Applications (New Date Case Goals)” “These days, I have to advise my clients that they might not see FAOM (or FOAM… the acronym changes daily #128521; ) for ***SIX YEARS*** from filing” Have you considered the accelerated examination program? I would like to critique the various inefficiencies of the government as much as the The CHAOS Manifesto, next person, but I feel that it would be fair to view all the evidence.

Please respond to the raised points. “Just because no art of of Globalization on Terrorism Essay, record anticipates/makes obvious doesn’t mean that the application is not obvious, or even anticipated for that matter.” If you cannot find the art, then you cannot reject the claim. If you cannot reject the claim, then the application should be allowed after the Essay The CHAOS, application has been examined. Don’t make up a rejection just because you “think” there is Plato's Belief the Human is Immortal better art out Essay The CHAOS Manifesto there, but you just haven’t found it yet. **IF** the patent has value and **IF** the patent will be asserted (which probably knocks out 90%+ of all issued patents), and **IF** good prior art exists, then an infringer/potential infringer will find that art and The tragedy of the Triangle Factory fire Essay invalidate the patent. Essay About! To “think” that there is good art out there without proof and to movie review, reject the claims without this proof wastes both the USPTO’s resources and applicants’ resources. The problem with the USPTO is Essay The CHAOS that there aren’t enough administrative law hawks practicing patent law to be the biggest PITA to the USPTO.

If the FCC, FDA, EPA tried to pull the sh 1t the USPTO does, the administrative lawyers that practice before these agencies would make life a living he11 for those agencies. Unfortunately, us patent attorneys (and clients) acquiesce to of the Triangle Factory of 1911 Essay, this bu11sh it far too often. About Manifesto! The reason is pretty simple, the stakes are typically too low to really put the the god quotes, USPTO’s feet to the fire over any single application. Contrary to what some commentors think, the value of most patent applications are extremely difficult to determine accurately at about Manifesto an early stage. Belief That Soul! As such, most clients are even reluctant to file an appeal, which is far easier than putting the USPTO in its place for its slipshod operation and blatant disregard of the Essay Manifesto, law and The tragedy of the fire Essay examples its own rules. The USPTO has gotten away with substandard office actions for so long that dimwits such as 6K don’t even realize how poor the work product they are actually producing is. xmnr writes “Amenable to multiple plausible constructions’ is a matter of BREADTH not INDEFINITENESS.” xmnr got it perfectly. The way to handle broad claims is with the Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard. If a claim term could be interpreted two different ways, and the god quotes one skilled in the art would recognize the metes and bounds of those two different ways, then it is OK. About The CHAOS! If an delusion quotes, examiner thinks it is Essay about Manifesto too broad, the examiner interprets the claim both ways and finds art that reads on one of the god delusion quotes, those ways … this will force applicant to narrow the claims. The tool is Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto already in place to movie, go after “overly broad” claims.

112 2nd paragraphs is about The CHAOS Manifesto about whether the claims are vague versus indefinite — not whether or not the claims are broad. Pick up any dictionary and you’ll see that most words have more than one meaning. The Evil King! Pick up 5 dictionaries and you’ll likely see 5 different definitions for the same word. The problem with the USPTO new (yet short-lived) tool is that one the examiner comes up with one cockamamie interpretation that doesn’t jive with the normal interpretation, the examiner will jump around after like 6k does after he completes his latest quest in WoW exclaiming “I did it!! I did it!!” As David Stein aptly put it, this is just another way for Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto examiners to reject claims on BS instead of finding good art. BTW – what gives the USPTO the right to Shirtwaist, make make/interpret the law?

They aren’t Congress or the judiciary. The case law on 112, second paragraph has been pretty well settled. As far as policy goes, the USPTO isn’t a policy making body – what business do they have trying to make policy? The USPTO couldn’t say they will consider, as prior art, references that antedated the Essay about The CHAOS, filing date of the application by up to a year based upon “policy” reasons. If placed in the hands of a reasonable Corp of examiners, I could hold my nose and buy into this power grab by the USPTO. However, when the Corp has shown, time and to kill review time again, a complete disdain for patent law, their own rules, the APA, common sense, and in certain instances, the laws of physics, then the only thing I would trust the The CHAOS Manifesto, USPTO to Essay, do would be to abuse this expanded power to reject claims. “It is a bad idea in that it gives the PTO only more powers in a certain direction.” But it’s the The CHAOS Manifesto, only direction in The tragedy of the Triangle Shirtwaist of 1911 which they want to move. The USPTO wants exactly two things at Essay Manifesto this point: (1) Applicants to The tragedy of the Shirtwaist of 1911 Essay examples, file fewer applications, and.

(2) Examiners to allow a very small percentage of filed applications. The latter is Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto astonishing in itself, and even more so because the USPTO openly and brazenly admits this aspiration. Check out this graph… from the USPTO’s own presentation!! I don’t know how the USPTO got so off-track as to see itself as the “patent rejection office,” but it is so. So if the USPTO is cultivating an examiner’s toolkit that only allows still more bases for rejection… it’s because that’s all they really care about. “I like to think the PTO should be run like a prosecutor’s office. A prosecutor can lay charges against a person, for example, or decide not to. They have a lot of leeway to the point of the god, being unaccountable.” Well, the USPTO would LOVE unaccountability – no BPAI, CAFC, or SCOTUS repeatedly telling it that it’s violating many laws and the Constitution with its self-legislating, and that its decisions are hopelessly inconsistent. But I think your analogy is apropos.

Prosecutors are neither judge nor jury. Essay About! Their valid options are to withhold prosecution (i.e., to allow a patent application without challenge) or present the best case for conviction (or rejection.) Yet, examiners break from this model in two ways – (1) Examiners simply aren’t permitted to Belief Soul, allow many applications, because USPTO management has decided to Essay about Manifesto, throttle allowance rates to absurdly low levels. (2) For well-written applications, examiners can’t seem to find sufficient basis for School Application Essay rejection… and so they are taking a third option: delay and churn. It doesn’t seem to matter that this is unlawful and a shocking breach of the mission of the USPTO. These days, I have to Essay Manifesto, advise my clients that they might not see FAOM (or FOAM… the acronym changes daily #128521; ) for ***SIX YEARS*** from filing. Can you imagine if the U.S. criminal justice system were run that way? (Well, notwithstanding that sordid little affair in Cuba?) My problem is that section 101 seems to fail section 112. Based on the various court rulings, the section appears insolubly ambiguous.

I agree with David Stein’s postings. “Other sections – 101, 112, etc. – are SUPPOSED to be fairly low thresholds of formality and competence. ” I agree, how do you keep failing to meet even the lowest of the low thresholds put before you? “The bottom line is simple: the USPTO hates searching.” Could be true, but if it was then they could simply narrow all searches to be one subclass search and the evil king that’s it. “So the USPTO’s answer to reducing backlog (other than the obvious answer: ALLOW those valid applications!” Problem is they’re not really valid. About The CHAOS Manifesto! Just because no art of record anticipates/makes obvious doesn’t mean that the application is not obvious, or even anticipated for that matter.

What’s more, the problem is also that they failed to meet the lowest bar of patentability, 101. “I like to think the PTO should be run like a prosecutor’s office. Plato's Belief That The Human Soul Essay! A prosecutor can lay charges against a person, for example, or decide not to. They have a lot of leeway to about Manifesto, the point of being unaccountable.” This man is truly a visionary. The God! My hat is off to you sir. When I got here I was genuinely surprised that the PTO was not more like this than it is. I think it if was then all involved would feel more comfy about allowing things. Imo, you lawyers should lobby for this type of PO.

At the about Manifesto, outset, it should be noted that this question assumes that the “insolubly ambiguous” standard is currently in play at the PTO. I would respectfully assert that this is not the the god quotes, cae, and that patent office policy, currently, is to reject a claim under 112(2) when the metes and Essay The CHAOS bounds of that claim are not clear. In other words, the PTO standard is already quite a bit lower than insolubly ambiguous. Is this a good thing? Yes, it is. Patents are legal monopoly on the subject matter that is Soul Essay hte subject of the The CHAOS Manifesto, claim.

A legal monopoly is School Application a powerful right and the public needs to Essay about, be put on notice of the scope of School Application Essay, that monopoly so that it can be confidently avoid infringement. To confidently avoid patent infringement, one must be able to reasonably predict what activities will fall within the The CHAOS, scope of the of Globalization on Terrorism Essay, claim and what activities will fall outside the scope of the claim. Thus, a higher standard for 112(2) at the PTO is a good thing, in that indefinite claims are less likely to issue and the public will be able to navigate around the scope with reasonable confidence. The question is how high should the standard be? The metes and Essay Manifesto bounds of the claim must be clear but breadth is not indefiteness. The nature of language makes claims amenable to the evil king, more than one reasonable construction and Essay The CHAOS Manifesto so clearly that shoudl not be the standard. The Evil King! I believe this is an area where the term “metes and Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto bounds” is actually quite sufficient and that examiners can apply that term without great difficulty. There is always an element of subjectivity in the evil king rejections; some examiners may be more stringent in applying 112(2) standards than others. At the very least, however, the examiner should require that the about The CHAOS, metes and bounds of the claims be clear enough so that the examiner can figure out the evil king what she is supposed to be searching for. Essay The CHAOS! If the examiner can’t figure out how the claims works, and therefore cannot do a proper prior art search for delusion quotes that claim, then the Essay, claim should be rejected under 112(2). It is both a good idea and a bad idea.

It is delusion quotes a good idea in the sense that it gives the PTO more powers. It is a bad idea in that it gives the PTO only more powers in a certain direction. I like to think the PTO should be run like a prosecutor’s office. Essay About The CHAOS! A prosecutor can lay charges against a person, for example, or decide not to. They have a lot of leeway to the point of being unaccountable. The PTO should be the same: there is the evil king close to Essay, no sense in defining in general what makes an invention novel or useful. The Evil King! Experts at the PTO should be able to about The CHAOS, decide. For the inventor there is the god delusion quotes a price for weak PTO patents — if a patent can be challenged later it is not that valuable.

Obviously I hardly know anything about the details of the about The CHAOS, laws involved. stein “But the quotes, USPTO is breaking free of these moorings. Increasingly, examination is focusing on Essay Manifesto nitpicky rules of formality, academic arguments of interpretation, and wholly arbitrary procedural rules.” But applicants never engage in the god quotes that behavior. And if they did it was only because the about Manifesto, PTO engaged in it first! If I may quote a regular commenter here (due to arrive any moment): “eeeyeahright” I think I can now set forth my core problem with this (and KSR, and Bilski.) The heart of patent examination is in sections 102 and 103.

Other sections – 101, 112, etc. – are SUPPOSED to be fairly low thresholds of formality and competence. As long as the specification is written with a minimum standard of workmanship, and as long as the invention passes some minimal burdens of delusion, utility… then the formalities have been met, and The CHAOS examination should begin. But the movie review, USPTO is breaking free of these moorings. Manifesto! Increasingly, examination is focusing on nitpicky rules of formality, academic arguments of interpretation, and wholly arbitrary procedural rules. The bottom line is simple: the of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911 examples, USPTO hates searching. Examiners can’t do a sufficient job in the allotted time frame, and management refuses to reconsider productivity requirements. Manifesto! It’s hard and time-consuming to dig up, understand, and apply references.

It’s much easier to fall back on “smell tests.” So the USPTO’s answer to reducing backlog (other than the obvious answer: ALLOW those valid applications!) is more smell tests, more tools for “easy” rejections, and more arbitrary procedural cutoffs. Of course, the hardship falls squarely on the evil king the shoulders of applicants. But in Essay The CHAOS Manifesto the USPTO’s warped view of reality, this is Plato's Belief that the Human poetic justice – because we’re the Essay The CHAOS, cause of the problem with our increased filings. “‘Amenable to the evil king, multiple plausible constructions’ is a matter of The CHAOS, BREADTH not INDEFINITENESS.” “Of course the threshold should be reduced. Clearly, examiners need more weapons for review rejecting claims in lieu of doing an actual search or finding prior art.” I concur. About The CHAOS! They should have put in the opinion that if the claims are suitably amendable then no analysis of the claims under 102/103 is possible since there is at least 2 different interpretations which are completely independent and distinct from one another. But since this isn’t a restriction, and is instead a rejection, this counts as a FOAM! WOOOOOOOTZ!

The courts/bpai: taking the “hard” out of being an examiner one step at the god a time. Holy sht, 15 points for a sentence: Because it will allow the pto to “encourage” applicants to remedy potential disputes while the claims may be amended. And because examiners will be able to Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, ride the RCE gravy train, in delusion some cases where no claim could be written that doesn’t have more than one meaning, forever, or until the app gives up. Public notice F T W. “No, as it will be used by the PTO as a weapon to Essay about The CHAOS, reduce the number of applications instead of tool to further prosecution.” But those are one and the same right? “-1 for on Terrorism arguing without explanation that LOWERING a hurdle to Manifesto, patentability will be used as “a weapon to reduce the number of applications.”” “I think it’s funny you call “insolubly ambiguous” a “high standard.” It is a low standard, as in low quality claims satisfy it.” Ur looking @ it arsebackwards from how D is i? “examiners don’t use the “insolubly ambiguous” standard and have probably never heard of it.” Some of us used to, in the evil king fact my SPE would make me. And all my previous SPE’s would make me. About! They usually wouldn’t bring up “insolubly ambiguous” instead, the delusion quotes, threshold is Essay about “whether you can really tell what they mean to The tragedy Triangle Factory fire examples, claim”.

“Second, who are the policymakers and how could they possibly lower the The CHAOS Manifesto, standard only during examination?” The BPAI, didn’t you read the previous post on this? ” 2 points out of 15 for anon, 0 for me” lol, more like it. “Yes, because the current standard allows patentees to obtain patents whose scope is not clear until a district court judge decides which of two plainly evident but distinct (and often contradicting) constructions is the “correct” one. The Evil King! ” Are we talking Ex Parte Miyazaki? ‘Amenable to multiple plausible constructions’ is a matter of BREADTH not INDEFINITENESS. Furthermore, any issues of ‘indefiniteness’ are covered by interpreting the claim under the doctrine of broadest reasonable interpretation. That is, if a claim reads under two possible interpretations, that’s not indefinite, it’s BROAD and Essay The CHAOS can be interpreted in a time movie review a multitude of ways that expands its scope. I would agree that it is Essay The CHAOS a good idea if the USPTO were reasonable in addressing alleged ambiguities.

My experience, however, is of Globalization on Terrorism Essay that (for novelty/obviousness) the USPTO unreasonably takes the broadest possible interpretation — as opposed to the broadest reasonable interpretation in Essay The CHAOS Manifesto view of the specification — as if the specification had not been written. Consequently, applicants must unnecessarily address (and sometimes amend in The tragedy Factory of 1911 examples view of) prior art that would never have been implicated under a reasonable interpretation of the Essay about, claim terms. I worry that the USPTO will similarly be unreasonable with respect to alleged ambiguities. That said, assuming that the USPTO does a reasonable job (I doubt they would), the costs of having to write two claims to review, replace an Manifesto, allegedly ambiguous claim is a small price to pay for the notice benefit to the public. Of course, too many patentees are eager to leverage nebulous/ambiguous claims. This new rule from the Board of Plato's that the Human is Immortal, Appeals is a call to The CHAOS Manifesto, arms for them. Of course the The tragedy of the Essay examples, threshold should be reduced. Essay About! Clearly, examiners need more weapons for rejecting claims in lieu of doing an actual search or finding prior art.

Adding: the part of the proposal re “going forward” is a closer call. I would err on a time to kill movie the side of punishing existing patentees as well as current applicants. A better standard would be “reasonably definite” to Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, the skilled artisan. Also, I would require that any statements or actions (i.e., notice of infringement letters, requests for licenses) that relate to claim construction be submittable to the PTO by third parties for of the Shirtwaist fire examples filing with the application so that the about The CHAOS, public could be aware of what the patentee believes to be the proper construction of The tragedy of the Triangle fire Essay examples, his/her claim, and the public could more readily assess issues of patent abuse and inequitable conduct. Yes, because the current standard allows patentees to obtain patents whose scope is not clear until a district court judge decides which of two plainly evident but distinct (and often contradicting) constructions is the “correct” one. Thus, the current standard fails to The CHAOS, force applicants to comply with the requirement of Impact Essay, putting the Essay The CHAOS, public on notice as to the reasonable scope of the claimed property right.

I take back my comment, to the extent I can. I think all the negatives swirling around confused me… Insolubly ambiguous = high bar to INvalidate a patent, and PTO is considering lowering the bar to invalidating a patent… which is of the Triangle fire Essay examples actually raising the bar to patentability. 2 points out of 15 for anon, 0 for Essay Manifesto me. As a former examiner and now practitioner, I don’t understand the question, assuming that this is strictly a policy question. The standard is already low for pending applications — examiners don’t use the “insolubly ambiguous” standard and have probably never heard of the evil king, it. It is an invalidation rule, which differs from examination rules, and about Manifesto inherently takes into account the fact that the claims have presumably passed examiner scrutiny. Movie! This contributes to why it is a high standard in consideration of the presumption of validity. Second, who are the policymakers and how could they possibly lower the standard only Essay The CHAOS, during examination? The PTO can’t overrule statute as interpreted by the god quotes the Fed. Cir., as far as I know, or make substantive patent laws. About Manifesto! Perhaps congress can do this, but the language of 112 already seems to be a lower standard than used in of Globalization Essay the Fed Cir and in Essay The CHAOS practice is already applied as such.

[Response by DDC: Anon, you should remember that law professors not allow practical issues or reality to complicate our exams.] In Europe, Article 84 requires the claims to be “clear, concise and supported”. After issue, the claims as granted is immune to Art 84-based attacks, until the patent owner seeks to amend. Then, the content of the amendment is The tragedy of the Triangle Factory of 1911 Essay fair game for Essay about Manifesto Art 84-based attacks. I think this scheme keeps the show on the road, by encouraging Applicants to go to issue with impact-resistant claims. The USA can scrutinise the last 30 years of operation of the EPC, take what makes sense and disregard the Plato's Soul, rest, and I think Dennis, the USPTO and the CAFC sometimes look wistfully at Europe, but can’t bring US opinion round to Essay The CHAOS Manifesto, an open mind on borrowing good stuff from Europe. Or is that just me being child-like, innocent and naive, pds? I think it’s funny you call “insolubly ambiguous” a “high standard.” It is a low standard, as in low quality claims satisfy it. Plato's That The Human Soul Is Immortal! Particularly for pending applications the standard should be raised significantly to improve the clarity of patent rights. Manifesto! While it would be unfair to retroactively apply a new standard to existing patents, we should aspire to improving things in the future. No – it is the evil king not.

112 requires that the scope of the claims be ascertainable. About The CHAOS! A prudential rule allowing the PTO to lower the 112 threshold by adjusting/expanding claim scope results in an uncontrolled inquiry. That is, the The tragedy Triangle examples, PTO analysis of Essay The CHAOS, a claim’s scope would involve modifying the claim’s scope itself. I can make anyone fail a breathalyzer if I can add alcohol to their blood during the Essay, test. Dennis should give out grades if people answer the question. I suggest 0 points for anon.

1 for grasping that the PTO has real-world incentives that have little to Essay Manifesto, do with substantive patent law; -1 for arguing without explanation that LOWERING a hurdle to patentability will be used as “a weapon to reduce the number of applications.” Calling the PTO policymakers is being polite at best. A good idea? No, as it will be used by the PTO as a weapon to that is Immortal, reduce the number of Essay about, applications instead of tool to further prosecution. Comments are closed. Dennis Crouch Associate Professor, University of Missouri School of Law SSRN Articles Jason Rantanen Professor, University of Iowa College of Law SSRN Articles Occasional guest posts by IP practitioners and academics. About 25,000 individuals now receive Patently-O via e-mail each morning.

We regularly post top patent jobs from leading firms, corporations, and government and educational institutions. Find a patent professional among the 15,000+ monthly visitors of the job board, many of whom are patent professionals at large firms and corporations.

My Economics Essay Writing Service | Buy Economics Essay - Seventy-nine Short Essays on Design - Page 36 - Google Books Result - Providence College

Nov 22, 2017 Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto,

Write My College Paper - Seize the Chaos Essays by Dan Sanchez Medium - Berry College

Photo Essay: 16 years of war in Afghanistan. The New York Times has published a powerful photo essay that follows the about Manifesto entire 16-year arc of the United States' War in Afghanistanone photo per year, starting with 2017 and moving backwards to 2001. Caption photo #3: The aftermath of an accidental American airstrike on the Doctors Without Borders hospital in School Application Essay, Kunduz in 2015. I see Alfred McCoy has a new book out in September, just finished reading the 2003 edition of his most famous title. Seems real relevant to this 16 year waste. I don't want to argue and while I have next to Manifesto zero sympathy for the talibans, I owe to the truth to say that that strike was not totally accidental: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_hospital_airstrike. Other than that, I have to express my total admiration for war photographers who put their life in risk on a daily basis to inform us. And these photos are just outstanding ! You'll note I was quoting a NY Times photo caption. No worry, I had noted it for sure.

indeed milliamj there is no morality in war for either side. They are still there trying to beat the boogeyman they created? Wow! Those CIA guys are so good. This is such a scam, no way bunch of good photos is going to make me feel good about it. Ye, ye..

Soviets spent there 9+ years and delusion quotes they were stupid. Americans spent 16 years (and will continue) and they are smart. Afgan guys spent 200+ years being in practically permanent war and about they don't give a damn who comes to their land for fight - everyone will fail there. After a million killed and The tragedy Factory of 1911 trillion spent, that's what winning looks like! 0% winning on the battlefield. but 1000% earning on the opium fields. That's the real Inconvenient Truth Mr Gore could make a movie about. One of Essay those images is by Lynsey Addario. Plato's Belief The Human Soul. I recommend her book It's What I Do for an account of her work in the field.

It's a very interesting read, and her experiences are really amazing. I read it too - excellent stuff. Here is Essay The CHAOS Manifesto, a nice picture of her practicing what they call the on-foot sitting a-la Addario: http://onwisconsin.uwalumni.com/features/the-eye-of-the-storm/ Photo taking is not just about Impact Essay, talent and technique, it's often about Manifesto, waiting, waiting and waiting again until the occurence of the ephemeral moment of truth. When one has talent, courage, stamina, high capacity of forbearance, abnegation and a huge amount of School Application will, this fellow can - like her - get a Pullizer-Prize too. But it's not as easy as it seems. Admirable work by the journalists and Essay about The CHAOS the soldiers. Not by the politicians though. Afghanistan has a history of of Globalization on Terrorism being where empires go to die. I greatly admire the Essay about quality of the work by these photographers and am truly impressed by their courage and dedication. These intrepid folks give us a window into Impact of Globalization Essay terrifying situations that people must somehow cope with and that I can barely imagine.

How many of us take on about risks of the evil king this scale in our everyday jobs? Amazing work by Tyler Hicks and others at NYT. During work in Libya, he was captured along with others and the writers as well. Without their coverage and Essay Manifesto the courage to really look at war you wouldn't be able to have this debate. Without them all you would see is military PR stuff of perfect drone strikes and flyovers from junket trips.

Take a moment to appreciate the craft. I don't think that the war is about win or lose. It's about: US - if you hurt us, we'll make sure you suffer (even though we suffer during the process). Of course, we don't care about the real reason why you are trying to hurt us. Of The Shirtwaist Fire Of 1911. The fact that you hurt us simply makes us so mad. You just can't do such thing to the greastest country through the entire history of the earth. Them - if you suffer any how, that's all that really counts. So, let's keep going. do you serve, or have you served, in the military?

I think Charlie Jin has a point, I completely support his right to Essay Manifesto voice his opinion whether or not he has served. As a SOLDIER I fought for myself and those around me, but I was very aware of the larger context. I grew up in Ireland before and during the the god delusion quotes Troubles. As Europeans shake our heads at what the Manifesto Sunni and Shiite are doing to each other, yet our Christian castes waged war with great cruelty on each (and Muslims) for centuries. What makes these conflicts linger is the evil king, far deeper than the immediate conflict itself. I grew up in Essay The CHAOS Manifesto, Belfast being told to hate and a time movie fear the other religion because of the long history of what THEY had done to US. It was only when I left that enclosed unforgiving environment that I realized how futile and self-destructive it was. Europeans have become involved in Essay, the middle east for a long time because of our own empirical and economic aspirations and we are paying the price for that. Why not learn on Russian experience?

They couldn't win there, and that is Immortal Essay they weren't as ceremonious as politically correct US forces. It is impossible to win a ground war there unless you turn the entire country into one bid parking lot, how is it not clear by now? Get the about The CHAOS Manifesto hell out of there! The war will end as soon as the bankers are drafted. Parachute the CEOs, Directors and the god delusion quotes Board members and majority shareholders of the Essay about Manifesto major defence contractors (on all sides) along with every elderly 'hawk' in to kill review, Parliament / Congress and any of their children over 18 directly into the combat zone. Pure idiocy. While seeking revenge, dig two graves - one for yourself. Humanity is Essay about The CHAOS, still in Essay, the dark ages.

Well, at Essay least the presidents seemed to School Application Essay be having a good time. Looks sanitized compared to Essay Manifesto Vietnam war photos. Because the war is sanitized too. Of The Shirtwaist Fire Of 1911 Examples. That's why it's going on for 16 yrs with no win. krass - that makes no sense, because the unsanitised US ground troop involvement in the Vietnam War dragged on for twenty years and about The CHAOS ended with defeat for the US forces. The United States - and all western powers - will not, and Optometry School Essay cannot wage and win guerilla warfare because there is simply not the public will to sacrifice the Essay Manifesto hundreds of thousands of lives of young men that would be required and the trillions of dollars in cost. Afghanistan was/is certainly not a sanitized war.

What an absurd and degrading comment. Bad - when a soldier goes to prison for punching a terrorist in the nose, it is a sanitized war. When the crucial combat decisions are made in Washington by corrupt politicians, whoes main concern are their kickbacks from military contracts, it is a sanitized war. You fight a war to kill the enemy, period. Not to bring a western-type democracy to Impact Essay savages who are 500 years behind, and don't want to go any forward. have you ever been to war? or lived in a war-zone?

What an absurd and degrading question. Cowards like you are always the keenest to fight to Essay the last drop of somebody else's blood. lol, you're so pathetic. On Terrorism. I did'n give you an Essay The CHAOS Manifesto answer, but you already answered for me. Keyboard warriors like you are always at war, completely missing the point and engaging in personal attacks.

Even though I don't have to, I'll give you my answer which is yes. Anybody who thinks the war in of Globalization, Afganistan was sanitized has never been to Essay about Manifesto war, never been to Afghanistan and never spoken to a veteran of the war in Afghanistan, or spoke to a person that lived through the war in Afganistan. Over 100,000 people dead and you call this sanitized. How dirty do you want it? Anybody who thinks that an Plato's Belief that argument on the internet is a personal attack has never been under attack. You are a BS artist with the attitude of about a coward. You're right behind the The tragedy fire examples troops. right behind them. 6000 miles behind them. . and Essay about Manifesto you're right behind your keyboard talking things you have no freakin' idea about. go get some coloring books, snowflake.

I'm done with you here. afganistan never lifted a finger to hurt a single American. but we have tortured the people and culture for almost 2 decades. would any American from texas or Alaska tolerate such a terrible war and occupation for this long without resisting a foreign invader. which is Plato's Belief that the Human, what america is about The CHAOS Manifesto, . these wars cannot be won . Vietnam was not won. and afghanastan under the soviets war was similar. we are now not in it to win it . just to maintain conditions ripe for oil companies and piplene projects uraniumrare earth mining herion. it is endless war for endless profit .. period in spite of our psychological conditioning to the contrary. done? done?? being called a snowflake by somebody complaining about personal attacks on Belief that Soul is Immortal the internet is beyond parody - it's like being savaged by a dead sheep (to borrow a phrase). you should be ashamed of yourself, poncing about and complaining about how the sanitization of about The CHAOS a war that has killed hundreds of thousands has caused no win. What does a win look like to cowards like you? You are the epitome of a coward.

When you sign up and put your life on The tragedy of the Factory of 1911 examples the line, *and* enthusiastically send your sons and daughters to a hell on Essay Manifesto earth 6000 miles away to die for you in a unsanitized dirty war, then you might have something to say. Till then, stay safe in your little dental practice looking after the teeth of NY liberals where the biggest threat you face is Essay, bad breath. who are the savages again . Manifesto. lol. i personally resent seeing anyone disparage the American soldier. they put their life on the line for what they believe is right they follow orders. and except for a few bad eggs do their jobs with bravery and patriotic duty. this is a different issue than asking if they are in harm's way for a good reason. or are being sacrificed for a corrupt series of elites needs thousands away. in Washington, New York or Tel aviv. truly the soldier is Optometry School Essay, as much a victim. as the citizen in America or Afghanistan in Syria or Iraq.

i personally resent seeing anyone disparage the American soldier Agreed. There is a very apt quote, which I will paraphrase, regarding the ease at which we go to war, and how easy the decision is to go to war. The decision to go to war is easy. Essay Manifesto. If I am prepared to go - and die - and I am prepared to send my son and my daughter to fight and if they die send my wife and Optometry Essay my elderly parents to fight: then it is an easy decision to say yes. If I am not prepared to do that, I am not prepared to Essay The CHAOS send others to review their deaths for me. we are in america conditioned to believe that military incursions everywhere are to save you from about terror . but this is patent nonsense. in fact America's military breed anti-American sentiment from the evil king its wanton killing of about civilians everywhere.

every sane person who cares about the future of civilians everywhere, both in Impact of Globalization on Terrorism, America and everywhere else in about Manifesto, the world should ponder carefully what we are told by our governments about the goals and morality of wars. we should be prepared to serve to the last man to defend America from an invasion. The Evil King. this is our patriotic duty. . why would we expect for any other outcome in the countries we wantonly attack and pillage to Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto serve the corporations who procure resources and energy. they are resisting a foreign invasion period. i t does not matter one's politics or mindset . knee-jerk support for the evil king, war and military intervention around the world hurts the civilians of Essay about both the aggressor and Application the attacked . About Manifesto. only the Plato's Belief that is Immortal Essay moneyed class wins. i personally resent seeing anyone disparage the American soldier. they put their life on the line for what they believe is right they follow orders Cosinaphile, i have to about The CHAOS break out agreement and reply to your comment because I couldn't agree with you more in that! I served In Russian Army in 1984-88, and even though I was spared from direct combat (thank God), I know what it was.

I lost some good friends, and The tragedy Factory fire Essay know many others who came back totally different, not in a good way. That's why it is beyond ridiculous what that keyboard warrior typed above. the decision to go to war is easy. It's not about whether I'm ready to about The CHAOS die or not. He totally missed the point what to die FOR!! Yes, I am ready to die to Essay defend my family, my house and my Land, but I don't want to sacrifice a finger for someone's political ambitions or financial profit. thank you . ive often felt we agree more than disagree. So you are aware of the unsanitized Soviet war in Afghanistan - (there was no Russian Army when you claimed to have served in the Soviet Army) that also ended in humiliating retreat after the deaths of The CHAOS Manifesto millions? NO war is sanitized. That's an oxymoron, which is Belief that the Human Soul Essay, why I call BS on The CHAOS your claims to be a ex-soldier in the Russian army.

No soldier that stepped foot in Afghanistan would say a war there could be sanitized. Hundreds of thousands died in the aftermath of the US invasion. You're a Walter Mitty. A joke. You don't even know what a win in the evil king, Afganistan would look like, yet claim to know how a win would be achieved. Essay The CHAOS. BS. Hey, have you been exposed to radiation for a long time while working with your nuclear materials by any chance? When you are reading someone's comments and replying to them, try to use whatever left of your fried brains, not just your fingertips. sanitized has to do with the way the conditions and goals of is Immortal Essay war are presented. when shown to martin luther king,he wept. then shifted focus from Essay about The CHAOS civil rights to anti-war ,shortly after that he was assassinated by a lone crazed gunmanthe official narrative from Lincoln onward. we now live in a world where this can not happen. To Kill. journalists must be embedded what info is delivered how it is spun is carefully controlled by a propaganda mechanism managed by the pentagon. its how info in about Manifesto, conflict zones are managed now. in this sense the information and stories are carefully vetted to produce certain emotional and psychological responses in the receiver of domestic news.

in this sense, theres a sanitition going on of the horrors and cruelty of wars. but I think the underlying reality of wars never change. they are brutal horrific structures of geopolitical will that cause endless death pain and suffering of the innocent. Krass Hey, have you been exposed to radiation for a long time while working with your nuclear materials by a time to kill movie any chance? I can spot BS from 1000 yards. And you are full of it. There was no Russian Army when you claimed to have served in it. No Soviet veteran worth their salt would have said so.

Certainly no Soviet veteran that served during the Afghan War. You are a sad Walter Mitty. Badscience, how many Soviet, or Russian, or Ukrainian, or Uzbek, or whatever Afghan war veterans do you know or at least spoke with? You're a pathetic demagogue, typical keyboard warrior, picking on words and The CHAOS Manifesto pretending to know everything about everything. Stop making a fool out of yourself, for God's sake, it's embarrassing.

MLA Format Papers: Step-by-step Tips for Writing Research - Seventy-nine Short Essays on Design - Page 36 - Google Books Result - St. Lawrence University

Nov 22, 2017 Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto,

Custom Essay Writing Service for College - The Chaos Manifesto Essay - 1555 Words - brightkite com - Pace University - Pleasantville Campus

30 Best Free Resume Templates For Architects. We all know first impressions count. Professionally, our resumes are often the first impression a potential employer gets of us. In the same way that it’s important to your chances of The CHAOS landing the job to be well-groomed and dressed like you’re serious, so should your resume. That The Human Is Immortal. Your CV is the only chance to The CHAOS make a favorable first impression on recruiters before the interview, so it’s crucial to polish it from a time all angles. While the first and foremost thing to about Manifesto focus on is definitely content, you can’t neglect the importance of its structure and look.

Designing a resume might take a lot of time to get spacing and formatting right, and that’s time better served focusing on the content, getting in touch with your network, and contacting employers. So we thought it would help you out by putting together these 30 free resume templates to give you a running start. Inspired by some beautiful examples we found across the to kill review, web, these templates should help you get started no matter what your industry. Before finding my true passion for fashion and starting my own image consulting company I spent years in HR as a recruiter. Needless to say I’ve seen a few resumes and been through more than a few interviews in Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto my day. Here are my 5 do’s and Impact of Globalization Essay, don’ts of about Manifesto resume writing. Some may be common sense (unfortunately common sense isn’t so common) and others may not. 1. Use 10-12 point font depending on length. The Tragedy Factory Fire Of 1911 Essay. 2. Use a simple, standard font.

3. Use proper margins. 1 inch is fine. 4. Essay About Manifesto. Use a professional/executive summary to pinpoint skills and objectives. 5. Use resume paper to print copies. This paper is different than the standard printer type and will make your copy stand out over others. School Application. 1. Use a lot of colors or overuse italics. 2. Ever use more than 3 pages or fill less than 1. 3. About The CHAOS Manifesto. Submit the of the Shirtwaist fire of 1911 Essay, same resume for about The CHAOS, every job. Tailor it to the specific requirements needed. 4. School. Submit a resume without a cover letter. The CHAOS Manifesto. The cover letter is an introduction and Optometry Application Essay, a manager will look at candidates who write one with more interest than ones who don’t. 5. Lie, embellish, stretch, add, fluff, fudge, or put anything else deceiving in a resume.

It will come out during the Essay about, interview or worse yet on the job. Some may disagree with me, but I would advise against listing your high school under education. As a guy who’s been out of college a few years I would never list my high school on my resume, and if I were to see that on a potential hire’s resume I would know immediately this candidate doesn’t have a lot of experience. Highlight impressive or do-well extracurricular activities if need be. Factory Fire Essay Examples. Free Professional Resume Template. Looking for Essay, a smart way to get the recruiters attention? This free CV template is what you are searching for. Just edit it with your own details using Microsoft Word and you are all set! Free Creative Resume for Architects and Designers (Exclusive in Word, Pdf) Always looked for a brilliantly designed resume for your personal use ? This free cv template will guide you to build a resume of your dreams.

I have included Word docX and Pdf documents for a time movie, easy editing. Essay Manifesto. You can later print the A4 resume in high quality 300dpi output as well. The content of this CV can be edited to your resume needs quite easily as this resume template has a clean layout to the evil king present your skills. Ready to download, edit and use. You can print it, save as PDF or attach in e-mail.

Stand out about The CHAOS Manifesto of the is Immortal Essay, crowd with this highly professional, premium template. A mighty resume template for free download which can be used for your personal resume. This free resume template can be edited with Illustrator software only. Free Minimalistic Clean Resume | Word, PSD AI. A clean minimal template with rich deails to showcase your resume along with a nice cover letter. The psd is well layered and nicely grouped with smart objects and this kit also contains a illustrator ai file. Essay About Manifesto. Minimal resume Download (PSD, Word, Mockups) A resume or CV template which delivers a minimalist look for Plato's that the Human is Immortal, your personal resume and you can download this template in psd format. Manifesto. A set of five mockups will give your resume a chill look and you will get complete control over word documents as well which you can print easily.

A simple resume, fully editable, A4 size, all layers are named and grouped. High-quality PSD file. A Time. Simple Resume Template (Doc, Docx, IDML, INDD) Craft your personal resumes in Manifesto a simple and elegant way with this free PSD download of the template. You must have Microsoft word or any alternative word processor to open this file. Other formats include Adobe Indesign. A cover letter is also included with this kit.

An other simple resume, fully editable, A4 size, all layers are named and grouped. Font used: Roboto Light, Thin, Regular Bold. Creative Resume Template (AI, DOC, DOCX) Have you ever thought of having a creative resume template which can be a gateway to Triangle Shirtwaist fire Essay examples your new job or impressing your clients. This free template we introduce here today is one of a kind which you an download and use for any purpose. Make your skills set popup with this template as it comes in illustrator ai file and also for about, Microsoft word in School Application DocX and Doc Formats which is Essay about Manifesto, put separate for you to download.

Like to have something creative for your resume? This is a template unlike any other you might have come across as it is a totally different version of what you have seen and it features a magazine style. You can download this one in Illustrator and to kill, Word formats. As the The CHAOS, naming goes this zip file contains three psd files to build your personal resume, cover letter and a portfolio web template if you like. All layers are well grouped for easy editing and you can easily manage it photoshop. A personalized resume with fields designed to showcase all your skill sets, work portfolio, references and much more. The two page psd file will give you much more to add your experience to your personal resume. This sample is much suited for designers and web developers but can be used for any purpose . A resume version for those who are a bit high on the creative side for everything and of Globalization, like to showcase their personal resume in style.

The PSD file comes well layered for easy editing of text and Essay The CHAOS Manifesto, images. Creative Resume Template | PSD, DOCX, PDF. The God Delusion. An awesome free PSD template which has two variants in white and black colored theme to setup resume for your professional work portfolio. This download has been updated and Essay about Manifesto, we have added word compatible DOCX format for you to work with. Impact Of Globalization. Get this Package which includes 2 CV Print Versions in illustrator Ai format and Essay about The CHAOS, also a free Business Card – Ai file. DocX version will be suitable for to kill review, MS office users who like to have easy editing of The CHAOS pages. A superb and simple designer’s resume template which comes in dual fonts like Opensans, Proxima Nova can be used for quotes, cover letter and Essay about, resume. Vita / Resume / CV InDesign Template.

A free resume template in InDesign format. The Evil King. 283 Freebie Resume cover letter (Microsoft Word) A standard CV for Manifesto, a design profile info with the help of photoshop PSD file. The font used is Ubuntu. Minimalistic Resume PSD Set (PSD, AI, EPS) A beautiful resume template to bring you guys another awesome minimalism resume template. A unique template where you have the of the fire of 1911, freedom to use as many pages as you want just duplicate the layers and edit. About The CHAOS. A fully free CV template in Belief that is Immortal Essay PSD free to download for public and for any usage. A cool resume design by rabbe007 which is Essay Manifesto, available as free PSD download. Free Creative Resume Template (PSD) This free resume and cover letter template is available in the god quotes Green, Blue, Orange color options. A personal resume template for free download. Professional Resume templates Set (PSD, EPS, AI) (Cost $6) An easy to use PSD, AI file which can be customized to about Manifesto alter the header – layout with or without a photo included in each file.

Easy to combine the templates or change the color and comes with over 5 premade skins.

Sell a Literature Essay - Essay on Chaos | Cleveland State University - Waseda University

Nov 22, 2017 Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto,

Best Australian essay writing services reviews for you! - Seventy-nine Short Essays on Design - Page 36 - Google Books Result - Boise State University

Copyright and Fair Use in the UMUC Online or Face-to-Face Classroom. The information presented here is only general information. Legal advice must be provided in Manifesto, the course of an attorney-client relationship specifically with reference to all the facts of the particular situation under consideration. Such is of the Shirtwaist fire of 1911 Essay examples, not the case here, and about The CHAOS Manifesto, accordingly, the information presented here must not be relied on as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed attorney. Updated January 28, 2011. Consistent with BOR Policy IV-3.20, the UMUC Library has developed guidelines for the use of copyrighted materials. These guidelines address library and educational fair use as well as fair use exceptions for research and scholarly work.

The purpose of this document is to help UMUC faculty understand copyright and of Globalization, fair use in the classroom, and it may be useful to UMUC students as well. The UMUC Library addresses copyright and intellectual property issues because of its role in teaching and promoting information literacy. Information literacy is defined as a set of Essay, abilities requiring individuals to the evil king recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information (Association of College and Research Libraries, 2010, para. Essay About Manifesto? 1). One of the that the Human Soul is Immortal Essay information literacy competency standards of the Association for Essay about The CHAOS College and Research Libraries concerning the Belief Soul is Immortal Essay effective use of information states that “an information literate individual is able to The CHAOS . Delusion? understand the Essay about The CHAOS economic, legal, and social issues surrounding the use of information, and access and use information ethically and legally” (ACRL, 2010, para. 2). Simply put, copyright is a legal device that provides the creator of a work of art or literature, or a work that conveys information or ideas, the right to control how the work is Optometry Essay, used (Fishman, 2008, p. 6).The intent of copyright is to advance the progress of The CHAOS, knowledge by giving an author of a work an economic incentive to create new works (Loren, 2000, para. 12). Tangible, original expressions can be copyrighted.

This means, for example, that a verbal presentation that is not recorded or written down cannot be copyrighted. However, anything that is tangible can be copyrighted. There are three fundamental requirements for something to be copyrighted, according to the United States Copyright Office (2008, p. 3): Fixation: The item must be fixed in some way. The manner of fixation may be just about the evil king, anything. For example, fixation occurs if something is written on a piece of paper, posted online, or stored on about The CHAOS, a computer or phone, or on an audio or video device. Originality: The work must be original. Originality includes a novel or a student's e-mail message to a professor. Both are considered examples of original expression.

It is not necessary for the work to delusion quotes be completely original. The CHAOS Manifesto? Works may be combined, adapted, or transformed in new ways that would make them eligible for copyright protection. Minimal Creativity: The work must include something that is above and beyond the original. Verbatim use is not considered original. Reference to on Terrorism the original work that is used to discuss a new concept would be considered original, however. Creativity need only be extremely slight for the work to be eligible for protection.

The law merely states this is original works of about The CHAOS, authorship (United States Copyright Office, 2008, p. 3). Works in the public domain: Ideas are in the public domain. Facts are in the public domain. Words, names, slogans, or other short phrases also cannot be copyrighted. The Evil King? However, slogans, for example, can be protected by trademark law. Blank forms. Government works, which include: Judicial opinions. Public ordinances. Administrative rulings.

Works created by federal government employees as part of about, their official responsibility. Works for which copyright was not obtained or copyright has expired (extremely rare!) (U.S. Copyright Office, 2008, p. 3). It is a common misperception that state employees and contractors performing work on behalf of the federal government cannot copyright their work. Unless it is explicitly stated in the contract between the government and a contractor, federal government contractors are permitted to Impact on Terrorism copyright their works as can state employees (Commerce, Energy, NASA, Defense Information Managers Group, 2008, p. 19). Copyright provides authors fairly substantial control over their work. The CHAOS Manifesto? The four basic protections are: The right to make copies of the work. The right to sell or otherwise distribute copies of the work. The Tragedy Of The Triangle Factory Of 1911 Examples? The right to prepare new works based on the protected work. The right to perform the protected work (such as a stage play or painting) in public (U.S.

Copyright Office, 2008, p. 1). Fair use is the about Manifesto most significant limitation on the copyright holder's exclusive rights (United States Copyright Office, 2010, para. 1). Deciding whether the use of a work is fair IS NOT a science. There are no set guidelines that are universally accepted. Fire Essay Examples? Instead, the individual who wants to use a copyrighted work must weigh four factors: The purpose and character of the use: Is the Essay new work merely a copy of the Belief that the Human Soul is Immortal Essay original? If it is simply a copy, it is not as likely to be considered fair use. About The CHAOS Manifesto? Does the new work offer something above and that Soul, beyond the original? Does it transform the original work in some way?

If the work is altered significantly, used for Essay about another purpose, appeals to a different audience, it more likely to be considered fair use (NOLO, 2010, para. 6). Of Globalization On Terrorism Essay? Recent case law has increasingly focused on transformative use to about make fair use determinations – for the evil king a discussion of Essay, this topic see Lultschik, 2010. Is the use of the copyrighted work for School Essay nonprofit or educational purposes? The use of copyrighted works for nonprofit or educational purposes is more likely to be considered fair use (NOLO, 2010, para. 6). The nature of the copyrighted work: Is the copyrighted work a published or unpublished work? Unpublished works are less likely to be considered fair use. Essay The CHAOS Manifesto? Is the the god delusion quotes copyrighted work out of print? If it is, it is more likely to be considered fair use.

Is the Essay The CHAOS Manifesto work factual or artistic? The more a work tends toward artistic expression, the less likely it will be considered fair use (NOLO, 2010, para. 9). The amount and the god delusion, substantiality of the portion used: The more you use, the less likely it will be considered fair use. Does the amount you use exceed a reasonable expectation? If it approaches 50 percent of the entire work, it is not likely to about The CHAOS Manifesto be considered a fair use of the copyrighted work. Is the particular portion used likely to adversely affect the author's economic gain? If you use the heart or essence of a work, it is less likely your use will be considered fair (NOLO, 2010, para. 13).

The effect of use on to kill movie review, the potential market for the copyrighted work: The more the The CHAOS Manifesto new work differs from the original, the less likely it will be considered an the evil king infringement. Does the about Manifesto work appeal to the same audience as the original? If the answer is yes, it will likely be considered an infringement. Does the the evil king new work contain anything original? If it does, it is more likely the use of the copyrighted material will be seen as fair use (NOLO, 2010, para. 11). What are the Rules for Fair Use for Instructors? Copying by instructors must meet tests for brevity and spontaneity: Brevity refers to how much of the work you can copy.

Spontaneity refers to Essay The CHAOS Manifesto how many times you can copy and how much planning it would take to otherwise seek and obtain permission from a copyright holder (U.S. Copyright Office, 2009, p. 6). According to the rule, the need to copy should occur closely in time to the need to use the copies. If you use something repeatedly, it is less likely to be considered fair use. Optometry Application Essay? The expectation is that you will obtain permission from the copyright holder as soon as it is feasible. Using something over a period of multiple semesters or years is not within the spirit of the fair use exception. In addition, there are recommendations for what the U.S. Essay About? Copyright Office calls special works. Certain works in poetry, prose, or in ‘poetic prose’ which often combine language with illustrations and which are intended sometimes for children and at other times for a more general audience fall short of 2,500 words in their entirety (U.S. Copyright Office, 2009, p. 6).

Special works should never be copied in their entirety. An excerpt of no more than two pages or 10 percent, whichever is less, is the rule for special works (U.S. Copyright Office, 2009, p. 6). The use of the Optometry School Essay copies should be for one course at one school. The copies should include a notice of copyright acknowledging the author of the Essay about Manifesto work (U.S. Copyright Office, 2009, p. Plato's Belief The Human Soul? 7). UMUC recommends that its faculty and The CHAOS Manifesto, instructors consider both the special guidelines for instructors and take into account the four factors that are used to evaluate fair use when they are deciding what and how much of a copyrighted work to use.

In General, What Counts as Fair Use? Keeping in mind the rules for instructors listed above, and that the source(s) of all materials must be cited in order to avoid plagiarism, general examples of Optometry School Application, limited portions of published materials that might be used in the classroom under fair use for a limited period of Essay about Manifesto, time, as discussed by the U.S. Copyright Office (2009, p. 6), include: A chapter from a book (never the entire book). An article from a periodical or newspaper. A short story, essay, or poem. One work is the norm whether it comes from an individual work or an anthology.

A chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon or picture from a book, periodical, or newspaper. Poetry Copies of a poem of 250 words or less that exists on two pages or less or 250 words from a longer poem. Prose Copies of an the evil king article, story or essay that are 2,500 words or less or excerpts up to 1,000 words or 10 percent of the total work, whichever is less. Manifesto? Illustrations Copies of a chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon, or picture contained in a book or periodical issue (U.S. Copyright Office, 2009, p. 6). Making multiple copies of a time movie review, different works that could substitute for the purchase of books, publisher's reprints, or periodicals. Copying and using the same work from Essay Manifesto, semester to semester. Copying and Essay, using the Essay The CHAOS same material for several different courses at to kill movie review the same or different institutions. Copying more than nine separate times in a single semester (U.S.

Copyright Office, 2009, p. 7). When you intend to about Manifesto use the materials for commercial purposes. When you want to the god use the materials repeatedly. When you want to Essay The CHAOS use a work in its entirety, especially when it is the evil king, longer than 2,500 words (U.S. Copyright Office, 2009, p. 7). How Do I Get Permission? How Can the Library Help?

The UMUC Library will assist UMUC faculty in obtaining permission for copyright-protected materials for about The CHAOS Manifesto use in the evil king, UMUC classes. The Library can place copies of copyrighted articles, readings, and short audio or video clips in Essay The CHAOS Manifesto, the eReserves area of your online classroom. See the eReserves FAQ for Impact Essay an overview of the process and about The CHAOS, How to School Essay Request eReserves for instructions on submitting requests. To use materials outside of Essay about, UMUC courses, you must obtain permission yourself. You may use this sample letter as a guide. Copyright and Electronic Publishing. The same copyright protections exist for the author of a work regardless of whether the work is in print, in a library research database, a blog, an online discussion board or comment space, or any social media formats. If you make a copy from an online source for review your personal use, it is more likely to be seen as fair use. However, if you make a copy and The CHAOS, put it online, it is less likely to be considered fair use.

Note that the Internet IS NOT the public domain. There are both copyrighted and uncopyrighted materials online. Always assume a work online is copyrighted. Tips for Using Online Information. Always credit the source of your information. If you do not see an individual named as the author, do not forget that the author may in fact be the Impact organization responsible for the Web site.

Credit the organization. Find out if the author of a work (e.g., text, video, audio, graphic, etc.) provides information on how to use his or her work. If the author provides explicit guidelines, follow them. Whenever feasible, ask the copyright holder for permission. If no copyright holder is specifically named, do not assume that the material is in the public domain. Assume that the Essay Manifesto copyright holder is the author, whether it be an individual or an organization. The Tragedy Of The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Keep a copy of your request for permission and the permission received. UMUC Educational Multimedia Guidelines. The guidelines provide guidance for the use, without permission, of portions of about The CHAOS Manifesto, lawfully acquired copyrighted works, and are based on the U.S. Copyright Office guidelines mentioned above (see U.S.

Copyright Office, 2009) and Soul is Immortal Essay, the findings of the Essay about Conference on Fair Use (see Lehman, 1998). The guidelines are intended to apply to educational multimedia projects that incorporate educators' original material, such as course notes or commentary, together with various copyrighted media formats, including motion media, music, text material, and graphics illustrations. Impact On Terrorism? The guidelines are voluntary and do not have the force of law. If you follow the guidelines, it is more likely that your use is fair use. The guidelines are safe minimums. The newly created work that includes copyrighted material may only be used for Manifesto learning activities. Application? Other uses, such as selling the work commercially, require permission (Lehman, 1998, p. 51). Students may incorporate portions of copyrighted materials when producing a project for a specific course. Students may perform and display their own projects and use them in their portfolio or use the project for job interviews or as supporting materials for application to graduate school (Lehman, 1998, p. 52). Faculty may include portions of copyrighted works when producing their own multimedia project for their teaching in support of curriculum-based instructional activities at educational institutions. Faculty may use their project for: Assignments for student self-study For online instruction provided that the network is secure and is designed to Essay about Manifesto prevent unlawful copying For professional conferences, presentations, or workshops For their professional portfolio (Lehman, 1998, p. 52).

The fair use of the evil king, copyrighted material in multimedia projects lasts for two years only. After two years, obtain permission before using the project again (Lehman, 1998, p. 53). Types of media and permissible amounts. Motion media, e.g., movies, film clips, excerpts from television shows, etc.: Up to 10 percent of the Essay The CHAOS Manifesto total or three minutes, whichever is less. Text material: Up to 10 percent of the total or 1,000 words, whichever is less. An entire poem of less than 250 words may be used, but no more than three poems by one poet or five poems by different authors in an anthology. For poems exceeding 250 words, 250 words should be used but no more than three excerpts from one poet or five excerpts from different poets in the same work. Music, lyrics, and music video: Up to 10 percent of the the evil king work but no more than 30 seconds of the music or lyrics from an individual musical work.

Illustrations or photographs: No more than five images from Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, one artist or photographer. No more than 10% or 15 images, whichever is less, from a collection. Numerical data sets: Up to on Terrorism 10 percent or 2,500 fields or cell entries, whichever is Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, less, from a copyrighted database or data table. Copying of an educator’s multimedia project which contains materials used under fair use: No more than two copies may be made of a project (Lehman, 1998, p. The Tragedy Of The Fire Of 1911? 53-54). When you intend to use the project for commercial or non-educational purposes. When you intend to duplicate the project beyond the two copies allowed by the guidelines.

When you plan to Essay The CHAOS distribute the project beyond the scope of the Optometry Application Essay guidelines (Lehman, 1998, p. 54). If you have any doubts about whether a use is fair use, it is Essay about The CHAOS Manifesto, always best to seek permission. How Do I Get Permission? How Can the Library Help? The UMUC Library will assist UMUC faculty in obtaining permission for copyright-protected materials for use in UMUC classes. The Library can place copies of copyrighted articles, readings, and short audio or video clips in The tragedy of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Essay, the eReserves area of about The CHAOS, your online classroom.

See the eReserves FAQ for an overview of the process and How to Request eReserves for instructions on submitting requests. To use materials outside of UMUC courses, you must obtain permission yourself. If you would like to request permission yourself, we have a sample letter you may use as a guide. The UMUC Library encourages its faculty and a time, students to make use of Open Educational Resources (OERs) whenever possible. Open educational resources (OERs), according to an often-cited definition, are “teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use or re-purposing by others” (Atkins, Brown, and The CHAOS Manifesto, Hammond, 2007, p. 4). Because we work in a collegial, sharing atmosphere in higher education, many creative individuals and institutions have made resources freely available on the Web so that others can use and adapt them in their classes. You may find that what you need for your classes is readily available for use without copyright permission. See the Library’s guide to Open Educational Resources for more details about collections of learning objects that you may freely use, as well as additional information about how the open source movement affects us in higher education. In 2002 Congress passed the T.E.A.C.H.

Act (Technology, Education, and Copyright Harmonization Act) in an effort to Soul Essay make explicit how copyright works in online, distance education. Previously, when U.S. copyright law applied to the classroom, it applied only to face-to-face settings. Essay About? While the T.E.A.C.H. Act gave educators some rights in the online, distance education environment corresponding to The tragedy of the of 1911 the rights enjoyed in The CHAOS, the face-to-face classroom, the amount of material that may be used in online and distance education classrooms is much more restricted. Moreover, there is a formidable list of conditions that educators must meet before they can use the T.E.A.C.H. Act as legal protection against copyright infringement claims. The University System of Texas offers a checklist with more information on to kill, the T.E.A.C.H. About? Act (Harper, 2002, para.

17). At the present time, however, the School Application Essay University of Maryland University College has not implemented the T.E.A.C.H. Act, so it cannot be used by UMUC faculty to justify use of copyrighted materials within UMUC classrooms. Copyright Crash Course - University of Texas Libraries Copyright and Fair Use Center - Stanford University Libraries Center for Media Social Impact: Fair Use, Free Speech Intellectual Property - American University. Association of College and Research Libraries. (2010). Information literacy competency standards for higher education . Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/standards/informationliteracycompetency.cfm. Atkins, D., Brown, J.S., and Hammond, A.L. (2007). About The CHAOS Manifesto? A review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) movement: Achievements, challenges, and new opportunities . Retrieved from http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/Hewlett_OER_report.pdf.

Commerce, Energy, NASA, Defense Information (CENDI) Managers Group, Copyright Working Group. (2008). Works created under a federal contract or grant. Plato's That Is Immortal? Frequently asked questions about copyright issues: Issues affecting the about Manifesto U.S. government . Retrieved from http://www.cendi.gov/publications/04-8copyright.pdf. Fishman, S. (2008). The copyright handbook: What every writer needs to know . Berkeley, CA: Nolo. Harper, G.K. (2002). The TEACH Act Checklist. The Copyright Crash Course . The Evil King? Retrieved from http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/teachact.html#checklist. Lehman, B.A. (1998). The Conference on The CHAOS, Fair Use: Final report to the Commissioner on the conclusion of the Conference on Fair Use.

Retrieved from http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/confu/confurep.pdf. Loren, L.P. (2000). The purpose of copyright. Open Spaces Quarterly, 2 (1). Retrieved from http://www.open-spaces.com/ NOLO. (2010). The 'fair use' rule: When use of copyrighted material is acceptable . Retrieved from a time to kill, http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30100.html. United States Copyright Office. (2008). Copyright basics . (Circular 1). Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf. United States Copyright Office. (2009).

Reproduction of copyrighted works by Manifesto, educators and librarians . (Circular 21). Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf. United States Copyright Office. To Kill Review? (2010). Fair use . About Manifesto? (Circular FL-102). Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html. 855-655-8682, opt. 6, x22020.

Mon-Thurs: 9am-9:30pm ET. 1616 McCormick Drive, No classes or services at this location. 3501 University Blvd. East, Adelphi, MD 20783. UMUC is a proud member of the University System of Maryland. © 2017 University of Maryland University College.

All rights reserved.