Comments on: 7 Patent Reform Suggestions for Congress http://ipwatchdog.com/2009/01/08/7-patent-reform-suggestions-for-congress/id=1369/ Patents, Patent Applications, Patent Law Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:05:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: stand http://ipwatchdog.com/2009/01/08/7-patent-reform-suggestions-for-congress/id=1369/#comment-289 stand Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:50:38 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=1369#comment-289 Hi Gene, A very interesting wish list indeed, many of which I also wish would become true... A few that stand out brightly to me are: #1 This wish seems to bring the issue of the duty of candor into pretty sharp focus, at a time when it might be adverse to *legislate* it, instead of just using the tried and true methods that have worked very well for a few hundred years. If the attorney or agent isn't able to abide by being responsible for their actions, it might be well if they got dis-barred before the USPTO. If the attorney or agent isn't capable of providing relevant art and why it is relevant, it Might very well be construed as Inequitable Conduct, which falls into another purview, unless I am mistaken. #6 While I very much appreciate that any new management appointed to the USPTO should be Very Experienced Patent Practitioners, I find the distinction between Patent Attorneys and Patent Agents to be somewhat beside the point. Both of the latter are reading the same laws, the main distinction being that the Attorneys are allowed to appear in court, whereas Agents are not. On the other hand, some of the most educated and intelligent practitioners I have ever met have been Patent Agents, so excluding them from consideration seems a bit short-sighted to me. For instance, I would like to propose Don Kelly as the next Director of the USPTO, as his expereience is perfect for the job, including senior management at the USPTO in years past, and him becoming the Director of the then new Independent Inventors Program at the USPTO several years ago. #7 This one is pure magic in my opinion, Gene, and I very sincerely hope that it becomes true! In my opinion the last few sentences of your post seem a bit too pessimistic, but then again, I have always been an eternal optimist, so who am I to say which or what? Best wishes, Stan~ Hi Gene,
A very interesting wish list indeed, many of which I also wish would become true… A few that stand out brightly to me are:

#1 This wish seems to bring the issue of the duty of candor into pretty sharp focus, at a time when it might be adverse to *legislate* it, instead of just using the tried and true methods that have worked very well for a few hundred years. If the attorney or agent isn’t able to abide by being responsible for their actions, it might be well if they got dis-barred before the USPTO. If the attorney or agent isn’t capable of providing relevant art and why it is relevant, it Might very well be construed as Inequitable Conduct, which falls into another purview, unless I am mistaken.

#6 While I very much appreciate that any new management appointed to the USPTO should be Very Experienced Patent Practitioners, I find the distinction between Patent Attorneys and Patent Agents to be somewhat beside the point. Both of the latter are reading the same laws, the main distinction being that the Attorneys are allowed to appear in court, whereas Agents are not. On the other hand, some of the most educated and intelligent practitioners I have ever met have been Patent Agents, so excluding them from consideration seems a bit short-sighted to me. For instance, I would like to propose Don Kelly as the next Director of the USPTO, as his expereience is perfect for the job, including senior management at the USPTO in years past, and him becoming the Director of the then new Independent Inventors Program at the USPTO several years ago.

#7 This one is pure magic in my opinion, Gene, and I very sincerely hope that it becomes true! In my opinion the last few sentences of your post seem a bit too pessimistic, but then again, I have always been an eternal optimist, so who am I to say which or what?

Best wishes, Stan~

]]> By: rccpatents http://ipwatchdog.com/2009/01/08/7-patent-reform-suggestions-for-congress/id=1369/#comment-287 rccpatents Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:56:29 +0000 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=1369#comment-287 Mr. Quinn, I have read over your blog post and have to say that I find it to be most interesting. I have always been amazed at the fact that those in charge of the United States Patent and Trademark office are not patent attorneys, nor do they seemingly have any patent experience. I will not tell you where I stand politically, but the biggest argument over Obama coming into office is that the Presidency is not a place for on the job training. I feel that the leaders of the USPTO should be subject to such scrutiny as well. If the Federal Government were to mandate that these "leaders" be patent attorneys, less time would be devoted to insignificant decisions and more would be devoted to making a dent in the backlog. In addition, I agree that more needs to be done in regard to unauthorized practice of law. It seems to me that the USPTO has defeated itself in trying to remove invention scams. Instead all they have done is to put more restrictions on those who are best suited to assist inventors in acquiring patents (not to mention they are the ones most likely follow the rules) and have given the invention scams the “Green light” to continue on. I must say that I find your blog posts very intriguing. I give you credit for taking a stand against the USPTO. Your insights, intelligence and patent knowledge is apparent in your writing. Your website is by far the most thorough of all websites in which I have researched on Patent matters. This may sound silly, but I think you, Mr. Quinn, are far more qualified to run the USPTO than those currently in said positions. I also feel that you would be the perfect candidate for an Ombudsman if ever such a position were created. Mr. Quinn, I have read over your blog post and have to say that I find it to be most interesting. I have always been amazed at the fact that those in charge of the United States Patent and Trademark office are not patent attorneys, nor do they seemingly have any patent experience. I will not tell you where I stand politically, but the biggest argument over Obama coming into office is that the Presidency is not a place for on the job training. I feel that the leaders of the USPTO should be subject to such scrutiny as well. If the Federal Government were to mandate that these “leaders” be patent attorneys, less time would be devoted to insignificant decisions and more would be devoted to making a dent in the backlog.

In addition, I agree that more needs to be done in regard to unauthorized practice of law. It seems to me that the USPTO has defeated itself in trying to remove invention scams. Instead all they have done is to put more restrictions on those who are best suited to assist inventors in acquiring patents (not to mention they are the ones most likely follow the rules) and have given the invention scams the “Green light” to continue on.

I must say that I find your blog posts very intriguing. I give you credit for taking a stand against the USPTO. Your insights, intelligence and patent knowledge is apparent in your writing. Your website is by far the most thorough of all websites in which I have researched on Patent matters. This may sound silly, but I think you, Mr. Quinn, are far more qualified to run the USPTO than those currently in said positions. I also feel that you would be the perfect candidate for an Ombudsman if ever such a position were created.

]]>