Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> IPBiz

Patent Law

: IPBiz

Intellectual Ventures on appeal rules

By Lawrence B. Ebert, Esq.

In its letter to the USPTO on the proposed appeal rules, Intellectual Ventures noted: Intellectual Ventures typically employs firms in the upper quartiles of the spectrum for work involving complex issues and risks...the AIPLA third quartile billing rate for associates in San Francisco in 2006 was $413 [ per hour]. The USPTO had estimated $310 per hour for appeals.

The letter had an appendix with representative cases of Intellectual Ventures. The application with the fewest claims (20060047435) had twenty claims, that with the most claims (20060116824) had 194 claims. One notes that there was also 20060047433 and 20060047434.

The letter is signed by Casey Tegreene, Roy Diaz and Dale Cook. The date of the covering email was 8 Aug. 08.

Of the 20 claim application, 20060047435, there was a final rejection mailed on August 7, 2008 to Clarence Tegreene of Searete LLC. There was a provisional double patenting rejection over application 11/004,446. There was an obviousness rejection over Chirino (20030022285). Applicants filed an RCE on 31 Oct. 08. In applicant remarks, received on 3 Nov 08, applicant did attempt to overcome the obviousness rejection, citing, among other things, MPEP 2143.03.

A similar saga exists for 20060047433, with a final rejection on May 22, 2008 and an RCE request on 25 Aug. 08. There was a provisional double-patenting rejection over 11/044,656 and over other applications. There were rejections under 112 P2 and under 112 P 1 (enablement)

****See also

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/11/on-intellectual-ventures.html

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2008/11/intellectual-ventures-and-universities.html

Full post as published by IPBiz on November 29, 2008 (boomark / email).