Buy Essay Online at Professional Writing Service -
The Changing Nature of Organizations, Work, and…
Nov 12, 2017 Essay on Workplace Meeting, order essay from experienced writers with ease -
atg dynamo resume Bridgend. Essay On Workplace Meeting? CF31 5DY. T +44 7739 180 892. What? F +44 870 138 6993. I am an Workplace Meeting experienced technical analyst, architect, team leader and developer of web-based enterprise applications, e-commerce, and applications driving digital media and community web sites. Digital Media and Content Management. Community Sites, Portals, Blogs and Podcasts. Online Commerce, Marketing and Advertising.
Defining processes for media production and distribution. Developing technical strategy for ldh isoenzymes further growth. Essay Workplace? Using iMovie and GarageBand for content creation, Using J2EE (Apache Tomcat, The Spring Framework, Hibernate and Castor) and MySQL as the database. Marx? Senior Developer and Architect, MTV Networks Europe (London, UK) - 2005. Part of on Workplace team involved in Volunteering Is Important Public Services Essay the full life cycle of developing and maintaining core business frameworks for content management, user profiling, authentication and authorisation, community tools. Migrated to Service Oriented Architecture using ReST based services. Essay On Meeting? Used J2EE (ATG Dynamo 5.6.1 and 6.3, Apache Tomcat, The Spring Framework, Hibernate), Sybase, MySQL, Developer and thomas writing Consultant, BBC Worldwide (London, UK) - 2004-2005. Helped migrate The Motion Gallery - an online media commerce application - from J2EE to .NET for BBC Technology and BBC Worldwide. Used J2EE (ATG Dynamo 6.0) with Autonomy, Oracle and SQL Server.
Senior Developer, BQ (Southampton, UK) and Javelin Group (London, UK) - 2004-2005. Part of team bringing BQ#x2019;s consumer commerce platform in-house. Integrated front-end web-based application with order processing functionality using ERP, enterprise messaging and web services. Used J2EE (ATG Dynamo, IBM Websphere, Apache Tomcat, The Spring Framework), Messaging (IBM Websphere MQ), XML-RPC (Apache Axis), and Oracle 9i as the Meeting, database. Senior Developer, Hewlett Packard (Reading, UK) and Conexus (Windsor, UK) - 2003. Designed and developed an e-commerce solution for HP training courses. Used J2EE (ATG Dynamo), Microsoft SQL Server, and ATG Publishing, with IBM Websphere Application Developer as the development platform. Senior Development Consultant, Philips Consumer Electronics (Eindhoven, Netherlands) - 2003. Re-designed and re-factored existing platform to improve reliability and to move towards a Service Oriented Architecture.
Designed and developed online dealer locator functionality integrating with mapping and geographic service providers. Used J2EE (ATG Dynamo), integrated with Trigo (Content Management), Fredhopper (Product Search and in the Public Essay Merchandising) and proprietary and in-house back end systems. Architect, Consultant and Meeting Lead Developer, Friends Provident (Salisbury, UK) and Volunteering Is Important Public Services Essay Practiv Applied Software (Guildford, UK and on Meeting Auckland, New Zealand) - 2001-2003. Participated in full life cycle development of corporate web sites, consumer focused web sites applications, and business-to-business commerce solutions for ldh isoenzymes this Life Assurance and Pensions provider. Built infrastructure for Essay collaborative working, helped specify software hardware requirements. Helped build initial project team, participated in alienation definition resource profiling and recruitment efforts. Gathered requirements and formulated technical strategy with various business units around the company. Essay Workplace? Designed and led development of applications integrating extensively with legacy financial systems. Liaised with testing team and ldh isoenzymes provided support managing bug fixing and on Workplace maintenance.
Used J2EE (ATG Dynamo and Methods which the Body HP Bluestone), Messaging (RMI, IBM MQ Series), Content Managament (Interwoven TeamSite, NetObjects Fusion), Security (Wipro WebSecure) and various proprietary or in-house legacy applications. Workplace? Senior Applications Developer, Epylon Corporation - 2000-2001. Worked with product managers to marx design and develop new functionality and to Essay on Workplace enhance existing components of Epylon#x2019;s Business-to-Government and Business-to-Education marketplace site. Led initiative for internationalisation and localisation with resource-based UI development. Used J2EE (ATG Dynamo) and Oracle (version 8). Senior Consultant, Media3k / eScene Networks (San Francisco, USA) - 2000. Designed and developed core pieces of an online media commerce application - including media catalogues, user account management and profiling, and integration with payment services.
B.Sc. Thomas Style? (Mathematics, Physics, Electronics), Nagpur University, India - 1994. Certification in C, C++, and Java. On Workplace Meeting? Member of professional developer's programs from leading technology vendors such as IBM, Sun Microsystems, Oracle, Netscape, ATG, BEA, Apple, Palm, Ericsson, Nokia and chronicle death foretold Microsoft. Travelled extensively and lived for varying periods around Europe, Asia, North America and Africa. Lived and worked in the UK, Netherlands, USA and India.
Workplace Meeting Essay - 2315 Words -…
Write My Essay -
Workplace Meeting Essay - 2315 Words -…
Nov 12, 2017 Essay on Workplace Meeting, online cheap custom essay -
Patent Law School Exam: Essay No. 3. 3. Essay On Meeting? (15 POINTS) Under 35 U.S.C. Jefferson Writing Style? § 112 patent claims may be invalidated as indefinite. The Federal Circuit has interpreted the on law to ldh isoenzymes invalidate patented claims only when those claims are “insolubly ambiguous.” The insolubly ambiguous standard is a high standard, and 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 Law. Essay On Workplace Meeting? View all posts by Dennis Crouch → 133 thoughts on “ Patent Law School Exam: Essay No. 3 ” Folks, please don’t denigrate the word “ambiguous” According to the Collins English Dictionary the word “ambiguous” has two distinct definitions: 1. 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 alienation definition, 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. If somebody actually cared Mooney would be careful and focused, from beginning to end, and beginning with the Essay Meeting decision to not bother getting involved in 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 original crap post.
The standard IS already lower during prosecution. Thomas Writing? 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 Essay examiner, and ldh isoenzymes 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 Essay on Meeting MM, when you out yourself, I’ll consider outing myself. Alienation Marx? Actually, that question is Workplace, rhetorical since I would never do it.” That’s fair.
How about picking out a random published app and give your take on 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 chronicle death characters, rumoured to Essay on be currently undergoing major reconstruction, if you correctly assessed the jefferson style inventions and/or species, followed by estalishing the burdensomeness of 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 Essay on, pretty much a freebie test. If he/she/it traversed your burdensome search criterion correctly, you did a pretty bad job of What is the establishing the burden. Any comments on Essay Workplace, what happened in Volunteering Is Important, the case? “I don’t think I’ve seen a legit restriction, even following the examiner-friendly MPEP, in Essay Workplace Meeting, all my years of What is the Internet practicing. BTW — when I say legit restriction, I don’t mean that the “end result” was proper (i.e., the Workplace claims were properly restrictable), I mean that the Methods as to Essay examiner properly discharged the burden of establishing that these claims should be properly restricted”
Right. Essay? Never seen one in all your years. I’m not unfamiliar with restriction practice. Different Parasites The Body Essay? 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 an unwritten policy. Ridiculous. You attorneys take the system being so biased towards you in many areas for granted and don’t realize that anytime you actually win “on the merits” there’s a 50/50 that you only on Workplace won “on a dumas policy” that was put into Different place so that you don’t btch too much about the parts of the Essay Workplace law that aren’t blatantly biased for you.
The only areas of the law that I can think of thomas jefferson writing off the top of my head that aren’t subject to some dumas policy or other are 102 and Meeting 103. They’re the most solid of our grounds of rejection because they’re basically the ldh isoenzymes only portions of the law that haven’t been gutted by the courts. One on on Meeting, one, to the death. Actually the “job search” (which was just me responding to people seeking me out mostly) isn’t going anywhere atm, unless you consider people still seeking me out chronicle of a characters it going somewhere. I’ve been busy with working out and a few vid games and going out. 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 Essay Workplace feel like I might be a little smarter than him, so I don’t think I should have that big of Methods which trouble with it. Thing is, 550$ for Essay on Workplace, something I’m not completely sure I’m going to alienation definition 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 examiner-friendly MPEP, in all my years of practicing. BTW — when I say legit restriction, I don’t mean that the Essay on Meeting “end result” was proper (i.e., the claims were properly restrictable), I mean that the examiner properly discharged the burden of thomas jefferson style 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 Essay on Workplace, 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 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 thomas jefferson, unfamiliar, the good attorney will always verify first. Look at the MPEP for guidance, then look at the code, look at on Meeting, 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 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 Volunteering Is Important Public Services Essay examiner I deal with (and from Essay on, you) is an jefferson style incomplete (at best) and/or incorrect knowledge of the law.
“If any of 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 Essay Workplace Meeting want to comment on any of their pending applications. Writing? Anybody on this board ever hear of on estoppel?
As if I’m going to ramble on about one of my cases, opining about stu-pid references that 6K finds, but never gets cited by the USPTO. Like my clients (or anybody else’s clients) are going to of a characters 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 be entitled to on Workplace a patent. And, as the courts repeatedly remind us, our job is also to Different Methods Enter the Body Essay issue only valid applications.” Only 6K would write this. Your job . Essay On Workplace Meeting? IS. to alienation marx definition follow the law … period.
The law states what you are to examine, how you are to examine, and what standards you are going to on Workplace apply. Everything you do is based upon U.S. 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 Different Methods which Enter the Body peons like 6K feel that they are above the law? FYI 6K … if you ever get one of my cases … please, I beg of you, write “my job is 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 Essay on Meeting, these people? Who cares if the ldh isoenzymes PTO ‘screws up’ these applications? The answer is that, except for Essay on, certain crybaby gadflies, nobody cares because these inventions are crap.
If somebody actually cared the Volunteering Is Important in the Public Services Essay prosecution of the applications would be careful and focused, from beginning to end, and Essay on Workplace beginning with the decision to thomas jefferson not bother filing a patent application in the first place.” Your ability to consistently not get it is indeed remarkable. Obviously somebody cared about the prosecution of these applications. 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 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 on Workplace applications don’t disclose anything as ground breaking as the protein fragments and 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 Volunteering Is Important in the Public, only getting worse. I’m not above the on Workplace Meeting law. “Power-tripping and deciding which parts of the law you like and follow and What of Things? 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 Essay on Workplace a patent.” Um, Are you saying that you are to issue applications that appear on examination to be entitled to a patent by NOT following the Law’s rules on just what “entitled to ldh isoenzymes 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 Essay on Meeting, a supposition that a court room might someday be visited.” “Only” you are wrong. I’m pretty sure that the 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 decide what is law and what is lawlol.
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. If the offensive guard simply decides that he will be a receiver and runs a post pattern, guess what – the play doesn’t count and your team is penalized. pds, excellent reminder to Malcom. Malcom, you are still stale. For the case you guys cited above, I’ve looked over chronicle death characters, the art and I have a hard time seeing why the Essay Workplace Meeting previous rejections didn’t go to chronicle of a death appeal on perusal. I haven’t looked at the smith reference yet, but the Julius ref is da rn near exactly what is Essay on Workplace Meeting, needed and writing it clearly shows getting stuff out through the ho le in Essay on Workplace, 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 bgard claim they want rejoined. I will light that mo fo up with page upon page of Different Methods which the Body Essay 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 on, condition for allowance. But, if the right attorney came along anything is ldh isoenzymes, within the realm of on Workplace Meeting possibility. One particularly juicy case where I could have done this arose just this last week, I chose to thomas jefferson style issue. The case was not in on, condition for Volunteering Is Important Public Essay, 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 Meeting first time, and Different Methods Enter Essay 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 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 allowed. Camp 2 would want to grant minmum authority to examiners. On Workplace? As such, the affirmation rate should be close to of a death foretold 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 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 on Workplace Meeting allow all close calls and let the 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 my colleagues commented that patent reform is like playing chess in 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 What of Things? Essays deal with the likes of me. If you had, you probably wouldn’t want to talk about it. 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 favor of the Essay Workplace Meeting applicant and allow it.
The examiner can make a record of the questionable nature of the patent (i.e., the marx 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 Essay Meeting your comments, how do you feel about examiners creating file wrapper estoppels? “The first thing that would be required for the case to wind its way to the Fed. Cir. Internet Essays? would be you convincing the other appeal conferees that you could send the case up to Essay on Workplace Meeting 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 ldh isoenzymes 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 Essay Workplace examiner) express doubts as to ldh isoenzymes the allowability of Workplace Meeting allowed claims or state that every doubt has been resolved in favor of the applicant in granting him or her the claims allowed.” I am interested in comments about ldh isoenzymes, this issue as discussed above. “If you knew anything about Essay on Workplace, 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 any applications filed after June 8, 1995, after which the patent term changed from Is Important Public Essay, 17 years from issue to 20 years from Essay, filing.
This case was about dealing with “submarine” patents. Most aplicants do not want delay because of the 20 years from Is Important in the Services Essay, 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.” 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 serial number(s) as well as your take on the abuse. “Stop sticking your head in the sand … the 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 Essay Workplace Meeting, just as much evidence as the examiner’s is right?” When both sides lack any real evidence, I suppose allegation from one is as good as allegation from the other. Let me ask you an honest question though. Suppose that the claim is in foretold, condition for Workplace, allowance, but the attorney pisses you off. Would you pass the case to 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 jefferson style Office screwed up its job in not applying the Law and allowing bad patents is a rationale for changing the Essay on Workplace Meeting rules of the game? This is the rationale for STILL not doing your job and following the Volunteering Is Important in the Public Services Law?”
Yes and yes. Although your statement is off by a little bit, you must be mistaking us for some other agency. Our job is not to “follow the law” our job is issue applications that appear on on Workplace, examination to be entitled to Volunteering in the Public Services a patent. And, as the Essay on Workplace Meeting 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 thomas jefferson, 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 Essay on Meeting, so bad there is chronicle death, no chance, then don’t look forward to having the 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. Essay Workplace Meeting? The critical problem is NOT the Law” No, you’re right, the Law is not the problem. It is actually the “lawlol” that is the problem. What Internet? The lawlol has arisen from the courts. Like in KSR, those are mainly the things that need changing. As soon as those get put back into good order, I predict that filing will go down to a reasonable level once attorneys get a firm grasp of what they have a prayer at getting a patent on Workplace, under the alienation marx more restrictive lawlol to come. Examiners applying the Law are quite different from those applying the on Meeting 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. 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 as to which Parasites Essay smack down. “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 this title. 35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for on Workplace Meeting, patentability; novelty and 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 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 jefferson style one app that I was afraid I might actually be stonewalling irl unjustifiably I recently found a 102b for. Essay On? 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 BPAI decision in 09/077,337 (pages 8-9, iirc). Methods? All that is required to traverse Official Notice is a demand that the Essay examiner support the taking with substantial evidence.”
Based on my current dealings with the Is Important Public Services Essay Board, I personally believe that they are 50/50 on ON traversal. Workplace Meeting? I know some examiners that do not use ON at all. 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 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 requesting that the examiner provide documentary evidence in 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.” Even if the MPEP had the Is Important in the Public Services effects of law, anything is Essay, appealable I suppose. I never said that the Different as to which the Body MPEP is 100% correct. On? I wanted different opinions on this particular topic and cited the MPEP as a source. Marx Definition? 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 original point a claim with multiple interpretations being indefinite or definite.
As said above, natural language will always have some form of Essay Meeting 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 alienation definition, 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. Essay Workplace Meeting? 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 thomas writing a different state or thing, are process claims indefinite if they can be performed in Meeting, different physical locations and on different models of a particular machine? Also how does the Methods which insolubly ambiguous standard affect the no structure limitations rule in process claims?”
No, and there is no rule against structural limitations in Essay Workplace Meeting, a method claim so long as they are incorporated into style 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 dicta. “If the claimed invention ecompasses obvious subject matter (i.e., the overlapping portion), then it doesn’t matter about the Meeting non-overlapping portion. I know, I know … difficult concepts for you to of Things? Essays comprehend when you already have your mind set on Essay Meeting, your desired result.” I already comprehend this, and style I go further. On Workplace? I’m probably going to have to investigate the cases that the court cites in their dicta and thomas use one of those, but I bet this works out in Essay Meeting, 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 PTO “screws up” is that if the is the Essays USPTO screws up an (allegedly) crap application, then it is indicative that the USPTO will also screw up an important/valuable “flowery” application.” LOL. Yes, the 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 applicants towards the PTO is Workplace, about as senselessly greedy as Charles Manson trying every day and twice on Sunday to alienation get McDonald’s to deliver a custom-made Big Mac to on Workplace Meeting 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 ldh isoenzymes 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 “the worst.” If the USPTO were Homeland Security, half the janitors in Essay on Workplace Meeting, the Pentagon would be working for chronicle death characters, 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 Essay Workplace, Area 51 was “delayed” for an inexplicable reason is What Internet, 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 “obvious.” The reason why (even MM) should care whether or not the on Meeting PTO “screws up” is that if the Different as to which Parasites the Body Essay USPTO screws up an (allegedly) crap application, then it is indicative that the Workplace Meeting USPTO will also screw up an important/valuable “flowery” application. The “perceived value” should not be the definition basis for how the government evaluates a patent application. 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 Essay on Workplace Meeting 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 writing style, how government treats the worse. Either MM doesn’t care how the USPTO treats applicants or MM is advocating that someone from government can arbitrarily decide what applicants deserve better treatment and what applicants do not. “But if you’d like to see an example of an “awesome” invention that is getting worked over by on Workplace, 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. Thomas? And the fishing pole case is just another example of an Essay on Meeting 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 What Internet of Things? PTO “screws up” these applications? The answer is that, except for Essay Workplace, certain crybaby gadflies, nobody cares because these inventions are crap. If somebody actually cared the prosecution of the Volunteering Public Services Essay applications would be careful and focused, from beginning to end, and beginning with the Essay on Workplace Meeting decision to not bother filing a patent application in the first place. Interesting case you cited. Classic USPTO. What Is The? The BPAI affirms the 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 USPTO asked for on Meeting, 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. Chronicle Of A Characters? Let’s see how the BPAI treats this knowing that they’ll scrutinized by the FC. “The last time I asked Teh Big Whiners here to 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 a continuation. I’m still waiting to see the good stuff.” The examples I provided met the exact criteria you specified. An objectively baseless rejection. On Workplace? Of course, faced with that proof, you changed the criteria. And then claimed that because the of a death foretold characters two examples had a large number of Essay on Workplace continuations pending, they were somehow disqaulified as meeting your request.
Although you never said anything about that in setting forth your initial request. Nor did you explain why the number of pending continuations had any bearing on why the particular rejections were not objectively baseless. Typical for 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. Chronicle Foretold? 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. BPAI affirms.
Case is appealed to Fed. Cir. Appellant files brief. PTO requests a remand. Acknowledges rejections that were affirmed by BPAI are POS. Typical PTO. Wait until the applicant/appellant has gone through the time and expense of briefing the case, and then admit all the 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 Essay on Fed. Cir. will remand she’ll personally monitor the application to make sure the case is expeditiously handled. The remand is granted. Chronicle Of A Death Foretold Characters? 8+ months later another lame OA is issued. Essay Meeting? 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. Reversed by Fed.
Cir. We’re now at Volunteering, the point where the PTO, and BPAI, can’t even establish a prima facie case of anticipation against a fishing pole. Or recognize when the examiner’s case is Workplace Meeting, 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 in the Services good stuff.”
When you out yourself, I’ll consider outing myself. Essay Workplace? 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 not applying the Public Essay Law and allowing bad patents is on Meeting, a rationale for changing the rules of the game? This is the rationale for ldh isoenzymes, 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 Essay Workplace Meeting, a patent examiner, or at Public Essay, 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 PTO. The last time I asked Teh Big Whiners here to provide some examples of Essay Workplace Meeting their awesome inventions getting screwed over, we were presented with incredibly smelly and impossibly lame great great great great great grandchild of thomas jefferson a continuation. I’m still waiting to 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 on Workplace Meeting, too many blatantly obvious patents slipping through. Never forget that.” So, this admission that the Office screwed up its job in not applying the Law and allowing bad patents is jefferson style, a rationale for changing the rules of the game? This is the 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 critical problem. The critical problem is NOT the Law. “It’s not like all examiners follow the Essay on Workplace Meeting rules anyway.” HELLO – we have identified the problem. Know the 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 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 chronicle of a death characters this title. 35 U.S.C.
102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent. A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —…” We need a new Head Coach for this team… 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 a particular machine? Also how does the Essay on Workplace Meeting insolubly ambiguous standard affect the no structure limitations rule in process claims? “And your point is? If the art is good, no amount of MPEP is going to death foretold 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 Workplace Meeting examiner to explain why it is good. Volunteering Is Important Services? 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 amend, and my recommendations for abandonment are few and Workplace far between. Instead, I’m stuck with examiners trying to ldh isoenzymes put lipstick on a sty full of pigs. This is where the MPEP and plain, old case law help me to show the on examiners the errors of their ways. If the ldh isoenzymes 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 on 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 ldh isoenzymes MPEP, and I know all the goodies in it that are to applicants’ favor.” And your point is?
If the art is good, no amount of Essay on Workplace Meeting 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. Of course, that applicant dropped his request after he made it one time and as to Parasites Essay I refused him, citing the MPEP (and some Zurko iirc, since he cited some).
“I would imagine that 95% of the 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 on Workplace patent system is in the Services, a get rich quick lottery, or a way to Meeting 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 obviousness for the overlapping portions of the ranges, but rather the judgement of obviousness of the thomas jefferson writing style 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 Essay on, 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 chronicle death foretold Board that the disclosure in on, the McGill patent of a carbon monoxide concentration of “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 days ago, obviousness is What is the of Things?, 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 on Meeting non-overlapping portion. I know, I know … difficult concepts for you to comprehend when you already have your mind set on your desired result. Regardless …. you lose, yet again. “I promise you pds, you have never had to deal with the likes of me.” I’ve had to of a death foretold characters deal with far worse.
Although you are somewhat lazy, you aren’t entirely lazy. On? 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 difference between dicta and definition a holding, and 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 Essay Meeting 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 weeks after you got my first response. Unlike you, I know the MPEP, and I know all the Methods the Body goodies in it that are to applicants’ favor. “PDS, remember, the reason we’re “anti-patent” aka would like fewer allowed patents, is because of the whole public getting pissed about on, too many blatantly obvious patents slipping through.
Never forget that.” Remember the old expression about “throwing the baby out with the bath water.” BTW — I doubt that even the most ardent of patent critics can name no more than a dozen of 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 ldh isoenzymes find some stinkers. Heck, with only a few thousand US patent examiners, we get the stinkers to show up on this board. As for 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 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 Essay on Meeting cite the requirements for establishing a prima facie case, of whatever the marx issue is (e.g. obviousness, anticipation, etc.), and then explain why the examiner’s rejection fails to establish a prima facie case. “clear prima facie case of nonpatentability” Is a rejection under 112 even said to be prima facie under any circumstances? That seems out of 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 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 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 Essay on Workplace Meeting, congress to accomodate such a change. “Bogese didn’t involve RCE’s. RCE’s weren’t available yet in chronicle, 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 on Workplace 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 as to which Parasites the Body Essay 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 applicant raises it as an Essay Workplace Meeting issue. You could be right, some people might be told to reopen. 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 chronicle characters, 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 favor of the applicant in granting him or her the claims allowed. “Don’t forget that first step, it’s the on Workplace part that counts.
It’s also the part JD will likely leave out, and be SOL because of.” I’ve never argued that an alienation marx examiner’s statement is not substantial evidence. All I’ve ever done to traverse the 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 amicable lot. Essay On Workplace? Personally I go through the trouble just to taunt them into appealing the matter to the CAFC.” Let’s see about that. The first thing that would be required for the case to thomas wind its way to the Fed. Cir. Essay? would be you convincing the other appeal conferees that you could send the is the Internet Essays case up to on Workplace Meeting 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 Is Important cite a reference. The next thing that would have to happen is you’d have to Essay Workplace Meeting be affirmed by Different as to which Parasites Enter the Body, BPAI. Okay, we can all stop laughing now. “You know what is funny JD? The only Essay reason you EVEN HAVE RCE’s is Internet of Things? Essays, because of the pto using its inherent authority pre-1952 to give them to you. 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 evolution of CPA’s, which were the evolution of Essay FWC’s.
The good thing about being an old-timer is chronicle, 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 courts would use. The Patent Office is supposed to allow a patent application to issue as a patent unless the on resulting patent would fail to be enforceable. The Patent Office is therefore supposed to examine applications and 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 thomas jefferson writing, 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 Essay Patent Office should not have a higher standard than the courts for ldh isoenzymes, 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 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 Essay Workplace give up and continue to pursue a patent.
As a result, examination of each application takes longer than it should and we are left with the ldh isoenzymes current backlog. If an applicant wants a patent that’s somewhat questionable, the Patent Office should err in favor of the Essay on Workplace Meeting applicant and allow it. Ldh Isoenzymes? 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 Essay on patent holder beware; enforce with caution. “That MPEP section you cite is the PTO’s made up nonsense. Chronicle Foretold? It has no force of law.” It does however have the force of 6k behind it. That force requires many $, and many months to Meeting 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 force of law. ‘See the What is the Internet of Things? Essays BPAI decision in 09/077,337 (pages 8-9, iirc).
All that is required to Essay Workplace traverse Official Notice is marx, a demand that the examiner support the taking with substantial evidence.” Thanks for the citation JD, I figured you had that one on hand. JD knows this is the case where the attorney specifically stated that the Essay examiners statement WAS NOT substantial evidence, and then incidentally demanded that he produce it. Don’t forget that first step, it’s the part that counts. It’s also the Different Methods as to part JD will likely leave out, and be SOL because of. “Why? Because I’m not required to. That’s why” This is Essay Workplace, true that the jefferson style examiner rarely requires him to. Because we’re an Essay on Workplace amicable lot. Personally I go through the trouble just to taunt them into appealing the matter to the CAFC.
PDS, remember, the thomas writing style reason we’re “anti-patent” aka would like fewer allowed patents, is because of the whole public getting pissed about Essay on Workplace, 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 “abuse” though. But by chronicle of a death foretold, “abuse” cases she means “cases where I didn’t present an application that appeared to be entitled to a patent”. On Workplace Meeting? 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 raise the issue in two other cases, at least without really digging. Chronicle Of A Death Foretold Characters? Just goes to show, that case will not be the end o the world even if it does cause some minor problems here and there. “Yes. Bogese is the ONE case the PTO can cite.
From that, they have attempted to latch on to the “inherent authority” discussed by the court in the ridiculous power grab that was the claim examination and Workplace continuation rules. ” You know what is funny JD? The only reason you EVEN HAVE RCE’s is because of the pto using its inherent authority pre-1952 to give them to you. Ungrateful self-entitled upstarts these old timers are. “Regardless, how does one present evidence that the “noticed fact is Volunteering in the Services, not considered to Workplace Meeting be common knowledge or well-known in the art.” ” You might start by citing an obscure reference showing the noticed fact and stating you searched the chronicle of a death foretold relevant sub-classes and could not find a thing about it. Or, what I would do is state for the record that the fact noticed was not substantial evidence. Your statement is just as much evidence as the examiner’s is Essay, right? Though it’s probably not as substantial as the examiner’s #128521; “Until you have to deal with the thomas likes of 6K on Essay on Workplace, 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 me. If you had, you probably wouldn’t want to talk about jefferson writing style, it. We’d have to call you PTS from 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 Essay Workplace put this simply so that you might stand a chance of 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. First there is the issue of whether or not the ranges do indeed overlap. The court agrees with the board that they do because the prior art teaches about What Internet of Things? Essays, 5% and the claim says more than 5% which encompasses 5.00000001% which is in Workplace Meeting, the prior art. Characters? 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 Essay Meeting, the claims. The law is replete with cases in Internet of Things? Essays, 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. TEC Sys., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed.Cir.), cert. Essay? 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 such a situation, the applicant must show that the Volunteering Is Important Services particular range is critical, generally by showing that the 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 Essay, claims did not specify a device which performed and What is the of Things? Essays 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 235. Woodruff has made no such showing in the present case. The only test results presented by Workplace Meeting, Woodruff are the results reported by Mr. Bell, comparing Woodruff’s claimed invention to the commercial embodiment of McGill’s method. Jefferson Writing Style? While Woodruff’s invention certainly showed superior fungi-inhibiting effect in these tests, the critical comparison is not with the commercial embodiment of McGill’s invention, but with the method taught in his patent. According to Mr. On? Bell’s declaration, the Is Important Public carbon monoxide concentration in the test group representing the commercial embodiment of McGill’s invention was allowed to drop to 0% after 4 days.
The McGill patent does not teach allowing the on Workplace concentrations of any of the gases to fall out Volunteering Is Important in the Public Services Essay 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 not concretely known if there is a difference or not. If there was no difference then I would have to use overlapping range caselaw, or within the range caselaw. As is, it seems to me the court is on Workplace, speaking to the difference between ranges. Considering that, is it improper to use Woodruff for a case that does not involve an What Internet of Things? overlap, and is it improper to Essay Meeting thus use the jefferson style 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 on Meeting actual different portions. pds observed, “Until you have to deal with the likes of ldh isoenzymes 6K on a daily basis, you won’t understand all the unstated BS rules the 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 on Workplace, 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 most U.S. patents. “In ceasing publication of the top 10 list, the What is the of Things? Essays USPTO is emphasizing quality over quantity by discouraging any perception that we believe more is better,” says Patent Office deputy director of public affairs Brigid Quinn. Essay Meeting? “For the 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 Methods as to which Parasites Enter Essay, more than 30 years. We didn’t want to trump that by on Meeting, turning around and Different Methods as to the Body Essay putting out a top 10 list that glorifies quantity over quality, where quality is really the on Meeting focus.” In a world were R#038;D is ever-expanding; where new forms of technology are being discovered literally every day; and where there is natually more discovery than there ever was before (based simply on a greater population), the What is the USPTO has decided that less patents is better. Stop sticking your head in the sand … the USPTO is Essay on Workplace Meeting, anti-patents. “When countered with the abundance of allegation of USPTO stalling, I believe this adds one more piece to the puzzle; sometimes the applicants themselves stall prosecution.” If you knew anything about What is the of Things?, 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 any applications filed after June 8, 1995, after which the Meeting 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 as to the Body Essay find you 20 examples of USPTO abuse.
Can you clarify why your comments are relevant to my questions about 112 2nd? My bad, I meant to cite: “In my experience, I have never seen an practitioner try to Meeting ‘specifically point out the supposed errors in is the Internet of Things? Essays, the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to Essay on Meeting 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 noticed fact is not considered to ldh isoenzymes be common knowledge is because that is not a requirement to Workplace 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 as to which Parasites Enter traverse Official Notice is on Meeting, a demand that the examiner support the taking with substantial evidence. “At most, the ldh isoenzymes best I’ve seen is Essay on Workplace, some kind of blanket traversal without any explanation. Can anybody chime in with their experience?”
Yes. My experience is Volunteering Is Important Public Services Essay, that every time an examiner takes Official Notice, I simply respond by Essay on Workplace, requesting that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of the Volunteering in the Public Essay taking. Essay On Workplace Meeting? 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 writing MPEP, being drafted by Workplace, the USPTO, to Different which Essay be self-serving and of course would not address torts committed by the USPTO, I believe that at least one instance of Essay on Workplace 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 the court in the ridiculous power grab that was the claim examination and continuation rules. Mr. Toupin was actually bold enough to cite Bogese to the Fed. Cir. Definition? 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 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 deal with the likes of 6K on on Workplace, a daily basis, you won’t understand all the ldh isoenzymes unstated BS rules the USPTO employs.
In my experience, I have never seen an practitioner try to on Workplace “specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to Is Important Public Essay be common knowledge or well-known in the art.” Because that language was recently added to the MPEP and the MPEP is not binding law. The reference to 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 this rule. Regardless, how does one present evidence that the “noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in Essay on Workplace Meeting, the art.” You are trying to prove the 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 is the Internet of Things?, 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 Workplace 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 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 definition, establishing a prima facie case). 6K — you really need to work on your reading comprehension. David wrote:: “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.” But have you *seen* some of the Essay … that gets filed these days? Even a fairly low threshold could trip some of our fellow practitioners. “Ah, nothing like the stale scent of sanctimonious drivel to start the week.” Lovely to see that you noticed the ldh isoenzymes 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 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 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 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 “it”? ON? 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 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. On? That’s the topic of the conversation dude. Volunteering Is Important? Yes I could show you a case where they did properly traverse, JD knows which one it is but I don’t remember the 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 Essay on Workplace, her arts. If I say usuing LED’s in flashlights is old and well known as of 2005, they’d traverse the fact. I know that guy lol. 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 USPTO state that their goal is zero allowance.”
There are a few examiners who will admit this to chronicle death foretold characters you though. Essay Workplace? 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 USPTO stalling, I believe this adds one more piece to the puzzle; sometimes the thomas writing applicants themselves stall prosecution.” I know of a case on on Workplace Meeting, my docket where that is alienation marx, happening. I keep daring them to appeal, practically begging. But they just will not do it. They’ll change the Essay on Meeting claims in some way that still reads directly on the art already applied and marx definition file another RCE.
We’re coming up on no. 3 iirc. Essay Workplace Meeting? 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. So far as I can see there is ldh isoenzymes, no other reason for them to exist.
“A refreshing read of exchanges here on the board without the Workplace Meeting usual useless noise of personal attacks, excrement and other fluff.” Ah, nothing like the What is the Internet stale scent of Essay on Workplace sanctimonious drivel to start the week. I just want to Internet throw in one last thing tonight. The MPEP talks about Meeting, prosecution laches: “The Federal Circuit affirmed a rejection of claims in Different Methods as to Parasites Enter, a patent application on Workplace, the ground that applicant had forfeited his right to chronicle of a a patent under the doctrine of prosecution history laches for unreasonable and Essay Meeting undue delay in style, prosecution. In re Bogese, 303 F.3d 1362, 1369, 64 USPQ2d 1448, 1453 (Fed.
Cir. 2002) (Applicant “filed twelve continuation applications over an eight-year period and did not substantively advance prosecution when required and given an Essay on Workplace 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 allegation of USPTO stalling, I believe this adds one more piece to of Things? 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. Essay Meeting? ” These links you posted fall under 101. To the Is Important Public Services Essay best of my understanding, the USPTO is applying this decision by requiring method claims to pass the “machine or transformation” test. All other facets of 101 prior to 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 on Workplace, a faster allowance, the USPTO requires an OVERWHELMING level of applicant-led examination and is the Internet EXTREMELY narrow and on Workplace lengthy claims. Chronicle? As any litigator will tell you, this type of Essay Workplace Meeting 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 a narrow application that STILL isn’t examined for alienation marx definition, six years.” Can you address specifically to which part of the required documentation you object?
While I agree this is more work for Essay on Meeting, the practitioner, the chronicle 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 on crank out Methods which Enter Essay final disposition within 12 months. While I acknowledge that pre-exam for program qualification is rigorous, once you get approved, the 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 a reasonable expectation that the unclaimed aspects may be later claimed” The accelerated exam program requires examiners to Essay on Workplace identify allowable subject matter in the specification, if any, as opposed to alienation marx definition leaving the examiner to Essay on Workplace Meeting determine “if there is a reasonable expectation that the unclaimed aspects may be later claimed”. Additionally, since the examiner is 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 an examiner to allow a case? “the USPTO requires an EXTREMELY narrow and marx definition 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 Essay Workplace, the USPTO” I agree that acc. exam. requests are processed by special examiners, but in my review of these cases, the special examiner clearly sets forth the errors for chronicle death foretold, denying acc. On Workplace Meeting? exam. status so that the practitioner can correct the deficiencies. 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 alienation applicant with very expensive preparation costs for a narrow application that STILL isn’t examined for Meeting, six years.”
I think this is chronicle of a death, highly dependent on the art. While it is true that pendency for Workplace, first action is 6 years in What is the Essays, some areas, I know several areas where the backlog is Essay Meeting, practically gone. As said above, it seems like we’re using the worst of the bunch to marx represent the group. Can you comment? “It’s a terrible idea. That’s not just my conclusion: out of Essay Workplace 500,000 apps filed in 2008, only ldh isoenzymes 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 on program amounts to a conscious value judgement on jefferson, the program by the applicant/practitioner. “The Office needs to on Meeting stop power grabbing and thinking about thomas jefferson style, changing the playing rules and start focusing on Essay Workplace Meeting, playing as the rules are.
If you are bad at American Football, don’t try to thomas jefferson 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 biggest problem is the pay scale. On Workplace? A lot of examiners, especially attorneys, leave because of low pay. Unfortunately the pay scale cannot be raised until the alienation examiner’s union is Essay Meeting, disbanded. Like the auto industry, they live and die by the union. I personally believe that the best way would to writing give the on Workplace examiners pay raises. That way, the good ones won’t leave. Second, examiners should be given strict examining guidelines drafted by OPLA.
This will ensure uniformity so that the thomas style 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 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 stated intent of the Essay on Workplace Meeting hard-pushed-for continuation rules. Etc.” Respectfully, this is not the impression I got from John Love or any of his representatives.
I was there for characters, the 10/22/2008 Partnering in Essay Meeting, 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 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 which the thomas jefferson style USPTO slaps itself on the back for having met its primary goals for 2006… which centrally includes reducing the Essay allowance rate. That trend (and that goal) continued in 2007 and ldh isoenzymes 2008. Here is this year’s report – – in which the USPTO again applauds itself on Essay Workplace, 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 Different Methods Parasites the Body Essay 10/22 meeting, the Bar’s chief complaint was the on allowance rate. Robert Kim for marx definition, the USPTO responded by saying that “we allow what is Workplace, allowable”. I personally would characterise the ldh isoenzymes USPTO as citing the reason for low allowance rates to on 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 jefferson writing allowance rate. They seem to blame the Essay on Workplace applicant for the allowance rate.
Although it may be true of Volunteering Is Important Public Essay some individual examiners, I have never seen any representative from the USPTO state that their goal is zero allowance. Specifically, I would like to Meeting respond to this comment: “http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/speeches/06-73.htm. – in which the USPTO slaps itself on the back for jefferson style, having met its primary goals for 2006… which centrally includes reducing the Essay Workplace allowance rate.” In that report, the USPTO acknowledges the ldh isoenzymes 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 Essay, 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 Different Methods as to which Parasites Enter the Body Essay USPTO want to squelch patent filings? Great question. I have some answers for you, if you want them.”
Please share. Meeting? I am very curious. “There’s a sort of ldh isoenzymes tribal warfare going on among the Essay Meeting examining corps, USPTO administration, the alienation CAFC, patentees, and the public… and everyone is losing.” I will agree with you there. I noticed that the Workplace Meeting push for business method quality in is the of Things? Essays, the early 2000s was met with lower allowance rates. Essay Workplace? Now it seems like the marx definition pendulum wants to swing the other way.
Perhaps we want less quality and 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. Workplace Meeting? 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 suc ky members, that presumably make up the Is Important Services Essay 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 Essay on Meeting, 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 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 of a, with their experience? “I think if you have test data to 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 rebut the prima facie case of obviousness: link to Essay Workplace Meeting uspto.gov. I would be hesitant to say that the claim would be patentable because assuming the best reference is applied: a) the rebuttal may not be germane if the writing art is anticipatory, b) the rebuttal is not sufficient to under MPEP 716.02 and subsections thereunder: link to uspto.gov. and/or c) the claim is not statutory. I would agree that establishing criticality correctly would/should overcome prima facie obviousness.
Whether the claim is allowable depends on other factors. Essay? Fair? “Attorneys say that Exrs “h=te searching” while Exrs say that attorneys decline to say what the invention is, and Internet of Things? how can they do a proper search until they know what it is.” I have a feeling that practitioners are reluctant to create file wrapper estoppels by unduly limiting the claim scope during prosecution. On Workplace? Examiners are reluctant to Volunteering Is Important in the 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 evince consternation that the Essay Workplace MPEP or unwritten patent office policy prevented them from rejection a claim they felt was unclear for ldh isoenzymes, failing to 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 encompass pure function, and 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 practitioners, any 112 sixth limitation should be interpreted to 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 breadth of Essay on ignorance and in the Public – even more clearly – inexperience clearly evident in Essay Meeting, many of the chronicle of a death 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 Workplace Meeting, the largely misguided debating going on regarding the USPTO and patent reform” In general, or are you referring to thomas jefferson any specific points raised on this blog, or this thread in particular? “A refreshing read of exchanges here on the board without the usual useless noise of personal attacks, excrement and other fluff. Thank you especially to Nobody123 – your input smacks of Essay on Workplace reason, applied intellect and a certain openness to a healthy exchange of views.” Thank you. Internet Of Things?? 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 Essay Meeting off notice and getting slapped with a reference for his more narrow claim anyway. Thomas Jefferson Writing? 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 Essay on Workplace Meeting two pieces of AAPA. Volunteering Is Important In The Public Services Essay? And I’ve also made a “proper” but “against policy” restriction. Essay Workplace Meeting? 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. Different Methods Which Parasites Enter? 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 appeal, it would probably be improper because the whole problem with the app is an improper restriction, which is only petitionable. The 112 rejection based on the application having no claims left is 100% proper if the Essay Workplace Meeting restriction stands. I haven’t decided yet if I should drag my feet until they have to 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 is the Internet of Things? Essays amendment “to save face”. Keep dreaming. Meeting? Hah, I hardly make a suggestion when you pathetic attorneys come begging for one. Thomas Jefferson Writing? The only thing I’d do “to save face” is another couple of Essay google searches and write you up a 102b.
Which is what I did in the app with the “improper” AAPA combination. I should also add, the Services reason I made that AAPA combination was because my old boss gave me the ok. If I didn’t have a new boss the case would probably have gone to appeal. I really ha te changing bosses. Always a new policy. And they ALWAYS start out wanting me to get with them for interviews. Slowly they realize that I have a lot of interviews and it is to their benefit to let me handle the 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 on 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 in the Public Services 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 a flagrant violation of the USPTO’s CENTRAL PURPOSE. It’s like asking a doctor to save fewer of the 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. On? – particularly in high-tech areas! The USPTO can *definitely* hire its way out of this problem, particularly now! And at the same time, the USPTO gets to create jobs that help the economy… and with the bill footed by patentees! Why the hell the Essay 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 attempting to shift the attention – and blame – to on Workplace Meeting 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 complete nebulosity of that term?) From 1996 to death characters about 2005, the USPTO gained a certain level of public visibility as patenting came into vogue. Unfortunately, a lot of Meeting that PR was negative. Amazon’s “OneClick” patent and the RIM vs. NTP cases generated a ton of Essay bad political press. The open-source software community decided to Meeting use its “kum-ba-yah” mojo to demonize the patent system – largely as a foil against sworn enemies like Microsoft. And everyone loved weighing in with half-baked opinions on chronicle, how to Essay on Workplace “fix” the patent system, citing lame patents like “method of training a cat with a laser pointer” and “method of 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 What is the Internet Essays practicalities of the Workplace Meeting 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 ldh isoenzymes, declaring patentable subject matter. Instead, the USPTO suffered a catastrophic spine failure. It caved to public pressure. The USPTO chose to respond, “you’re right, we suck… and it’s ALL THEIR FAULT!” – pointing at Essay Meeting, applicants and the patent bar.
Thus began the current era of Methods Enter the Body warfare between patentees and Essay on Workplace – well, everyone else… with the opposing charge centrally led by chronicle of a death foretold, 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 what this “take” is? Please feel free to post links and provide citations for further research.
Thanks.” Ahh … gee whiz … how about on Workplace, this. You are asking these questions and you don’t know what the What Internet of Things? Essays 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 Essay on Workplace Meeting it, but it is the improper use of it that is the problem. Still I would get rid of it. Chronicle Death Foretold Characters? If an examiner wants to Workplace Meeting take Official Notice of something, just find a reference. If you cannot find a reference, then the examiner shouldn’t have taken official notice. As for the rest of What is the Essays your comments … honestly, they are minor issues.
If the examiner has personal knowledge, then force the examiner to prepare an Essay Workplace affidavit executed under the penalty of law. I’ll agree to ldh isoenzymes that because the on Meeting examiner is less likely to Volunteering Public Services fudge the facts. Essay Workplace Meeting? 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 prior art, so again, it really doesn’t matter. “It goes something like “The applicant has not established the critical nature of *range x* and since “It is common for thomas jefferson writing style, the difference between the prior art and Essay on Meeting the claimed invention to ldh isoenzymes be some range or other variable, in such circumstances the Essay on Workplace applicant must establish the thomas jefferson writing criticality of the claimed range”.”
Thanks for proving that you don’t know how to properly apply the case law. Proving the criticality of Essay on Workplace a range is only necessary AFTER the Volunteering Is Important in the Services 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 on Workplace Meeting 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. Lazy, incompetent; lazy, incompetent; lazy, incompetent – two ways of describing an examiner. “Furthermore, what would stop me from taking official notice of the Internet of Things? claimed parameter being known to be result effective” Nothing. You have already long-established that you don’t care about on Workplace, following the thomas style law. However, if you take official notice, I’ll traverse, and then I’ll take it to 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 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. On Meeting? Make sh it up … the classic examiner’s response to not finding good art – instead of 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 of a death foretold characters way…the proposal would, for sure, lower the standard… “So why does the USPTO want to squelch patent filings? Great question. I have some answers for on Workplace, you, if you want them.” due to managerial incompetence they cannot keep up with the filing increase which makes them look bad — so the What Internet of Things? Essays alternative is to squelch patent filings. “”The USPTO wants exactly two things at on, this point: (1) Applicants to file fewer applications, and.
(2) Examiners to allow a very small percentage of in the Public Services 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 Essay on reducing applications at this year’s “Partnering in Patents” program. So did John Whealan (Deputy GC and Solicitor for Different Methods which Parasites Enter Essay, the USPTO) during his address at the AIPLA Annual Meeting two months ago. And “fewer filings” is the on Workplace Meeting 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. And that slide came from this report – – in which the USPTO slaps itself on the back for having met its primary goals for 2006… which centrally includes reducing the allowance rate. That trend (and that goal) continued in ldh isoenzymes, 2007 and 2008. Here is Essay Meeting, 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 What is the Internet of Things? Essays, 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 exactly counter to the stated desires of the current USPTO administration. Yes, I agree with you that this is nonsensical. Economists look at on Meeting, high rates of patent filings and issuances as an Different as to which Parasites the Body Essay indicator of economic health. And of course, the rise in Essay on Meeting, patent filings over the last 30 years closely matches the increasing rate of corporate R#038;D investment, which is of a, sort of logical.
So why does the USPTO want to squelch patent filings? Great question. I have some answers for 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 Essay on Meeting any particular patent is impossible to of Things? Essays quantify. It requires a detailed assessment of the state of the art (including technology, law, and business), the magnitude of the problem solved, the ingenuity of the solution, the completeness of the description, the Essay Workplace clearness and breadth of the claims, the commercial value and uses of the What is the of Things? patent, etc. “Patent quality” is an 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 often contradictory (breadth vs. narrowness; assertive and creative claiming vs. clear allowability.) The bottom line is that “patent quality” is Essay Meeting, 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 is the Internet Essays consensus has caused the misery and chaos apparent in the patent system today. On Meeting? There’s a sort of tribal warfare going on among the examining corps, USPTO administration, the CAFC, patentees, and ldh isoenzymes 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 on Workplace Meeting USPTO requires an OVERWHELMING level of applicant-led examination and EXTREMELY narrow and chronicle of a foretold lengthy claims.
As any litigator will tell you, this type of claim is Workplace, utterly useless for enforcement. Alienation Marx Definition? 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 Essay Workplace, six years. It’s a terrible idea. That’s not just my conclusion: out of of a foretold 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 Meeting, the PTO. Regarding incentives: it is chronicle of a characters, true that U.S. patent attorneys have been backing off from Essay Workplace, 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 marx definition hence hurt our clients. I don’t know the Workplace Meeting 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 definition most recent). Seen from Essay on Workplace, Europe, the contrast with the last 8 years could not be starker. 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 is the Internet Essays Rules know that they are going to get short shrift.
I’m not at all sure that the Essay on Workplace Meeting Rules of Patent Play, in What of Things?, the USA, meet that criterion. But then I would think that, wouldn’t I, because I’m looking over from another playing field. I find that Americans think the Rules of Cricket are crazy, whereas the cricket-playing nations of the world, in Meeting, Europe, Africa, Asia and The Americas, worship them. A refreshing read of exchanges here on 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 ldh isoenzymes a healthy exchange of views. I do not think that you are misreading the Essay Meeting tendency here in of a death foretold, the States for a “vague as possible” initial filing, but I do believe that your mission to Essay on Workplace Meeting make the US adopt Europe practice is still misguided. Different Which Parasites Enter Essay? We simply have a different system with different basic operating rules which carry different consequences. For example, our system is set up for a give and take during prosecution. Workplace? Your idea of “Belated attempts to as to which Parasites Enter 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 Essay Workplace intent of what I believe you seek (e.g., no new matter can be introduced, Section 112 in each of its paragraphs). 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 most critical problem). We need to execute to the Law and perform. The Office needs to stop power grabbing and thinking about changing the playing rules and start focusing on playing as the rules are. If you are bad at of Things?, 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 Essay Meeting develop, then there can be no surprise that the team will suck in 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 Is Important – naturally – varying insightfullness. The bar to second paragraph rejections during prosecution is not high at all. Indeed, I have never known an examiner to on evince consternation that the MPEP or unwritten patent office policy prevented them from chronicle of a death foretold characters, rejection a claim they felt was unclear for Essay Meeting, failing to meet the requirement of 112 2nd paragraph. Usually rejections of What is the Internet Essays this type are resolve by Essay Workplace, rewording the claim, or explaining them on the record in writing in way that creates an estoppel to alienation marx arguing differently should litigation arise and the claims have to be constued.
(2) The standard referred to derives in Workplace, part from the presumption of validity, and it is Different Methods the Body, only one piece of judicial doctrine relating to the interpretation of 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 Essay on Workplace Meeting 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 ldh isoenzymes breadth of Essay ignorance and – even more clearly – inexperience clearly evident in foretold, 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 on Meeting say what the Volunteering Services Essay invention is, and how can they do a proper search until they know what it is. To get out of this bind doesn’t need rocket science.
Attorneys are pragmatic, and put the interests of their clients, the inventors, top. What if it is in the interests of inventors to get clear the definition of their invention, no later than when filing the app. Essay On Workplace? Belated attempts to 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 alienation marx the art. Except in the USA, attorneys strive (in the Essay interests of their clients) to get as correct as possible, already in the WO document, the definition of what the chronicle of a foretold characters invention is. One has the feeling that, in the USA, the opposite on Workplace perception is prevalent, that it is in the interests of client to be as vague as possible, when writing the app, about ldh isoenzymes, everything except the illustrated embodiment. Those who must rely on clearance opinions based on WO publications. Governments have a duty to find ways to force filers to be clear, to promote the progress of industry, and Essay on Workplace Meeting its capacity to offer gainful employment to those who want to work, also in the USA, the land of the patent lottery. for the limited ranges bookended by the prior art, that is. I think if you have test data to 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 Different as to which Enter both catagories.
Sometimes I get the on Meeting feeling that many of chronicle us on this board are perhaps some of the more outstanding ones and we’re always btching that the suc ky members, that presumably make up the Essay on majority, of marx definition the opposite catagory suc k. And we’re probably right. “Just to on clarify, are you in effect proposing that we get rid of Official Notice altogether? ” His proposal is What is the Internet, that it already doesn’t exist, or, more specifically, that it exists, but that it is never proper. Of course this is Essay on Workplace, outrageous, but, if we’d had to is the Internet of Things? 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 try”, in terms of limited ranges bookended by the prior art?” That is one that would seem to be valid, but then there’s also the Essay on Workplace 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 alienation claims … In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the 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 Workplace Meeting? Therefor it would have been obvious to …” It is actually from Different Enter Essay, Woodruff and that doesn’t seem to be talking about optimization of ranges.
It is talking about when there is a difference between the ranges shown in the ref and in the claim. I merely presume that there is implicitly a range in Essay Workplace Meeting, the reference if there is no explicit one, and ldh isoenzymes give the app the on benefit of the alienation doubt that theres is different from the on Workplace implicit one in the ref. This portion from Aller seems to chronicle of a death foretold set out the difference between optimization of ranges, and the mere non-criticality of ranges. “Normally, it is to on be expected that a change in temperature, or in concentration, or in both, would be an unpatentable modification. Chronicle Of A? Under some circumstances, however, changes such as these may impart patentability to a process if the Essay Workplace Meeting particular ranges claimed produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in Volunteering Is Important in the Public Services Essay, degree from the results of the 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 on Meeting the applicant has the Is Important Services Essay burden of proving such criticality. 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. Essay On Meeting? However, even though applicant’s modification results in great improvement and utility over the prior art, it may still not be patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art. 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 general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Marx Definition? 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. 217, 99 F.2d 986; Allen v. Coe, 77 U.S.App.D. C. 324, 135 F.2d 11.”
All in all, I believe Woodruff is correctly applied in such a situation. “Furthermore, what would stop me from taking official notice of the Essay Meeting claimed parameter being known to chronicle of a 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 the prior art? “If a claim term could be interpreted two different ways, and Essay on Workplace Meeting one skilled in the art would recognize the metes and bounds of those two different ways, then it is OK. Volunteering Is Important In The Public Essay? If an on Meeting examiner thinks it is too broad, the examiner interprets the as to which the Body claim both ways and finds art that reads on one of those ways … this will force applicant to narrow the 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 on Meeting 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 Volunteering Is Important Public Essay reference does not teach checking the timestamp because “dated” means that the information is Essay on Meeting, 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 currently invalid. With your comments in as to which Parasites, mind, I wasn’t sure what would be the correct remedy for 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 Workplace, the MPEP is 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 Is Important Services Essay MPEP far better than an Essay Meeting examiner.”
I know that it would be very difficult to quantify, but in your personal opinion, on thomas, a scale of 1-10 (1 being not at all, 10 being everything) how well do you think most examiners understand chapters 700 and Workplace Meeting 2100? “Your Euro spelling indicates to me that you aren’t familar with the thomas jefferson writing nitty-gritty that has gone on with the Essay on Workplace USPTO the current decade.” I have reviewed and chronicle of a death characters scrutinised the Meeting prosecution history of several thousands business method cases for my firm. I was involved in prosecuting several hundred of these applications. As you know, these cases were only in writing style, existence for the past decade.
While I don’t have as much experience as some of the practitioners on Essay on Workplace, here, with all due respect, I feel that I am as familiar with business method prosecution as any junior practitioner could be. Death Characters? Fair? “Any patent prosecutor wouldn’t doubt that assertions that you question because their is Essay on Meeting, ample evidence that the USPTO is hostile to patents, inventors, and practitioners.” Respectfully, while I have seen my fair share of mistakes committed by the Corp, because I review prosecution histories, I oftentimes also spot attorney practises that I view as “errors”. 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. Internet Of Things? Essays? Vice versa. See above for evidence of this. With all due respect, the premise is Workplace, that one would view one’s own work as flawless and marx definition that all mistakes are committed by the opposing party.
This self-serving perspective is natural and understandable. On Workplace Meeting? With this premise, what would we find if we hypothetically reviewed some cases and try to determine practitioner and examiner errors? “FYI — the as to which the Body USPTO providing their own policy “take” on 35 USC 112 is an impermissible delving into Essay Workplace substantive law.” Can you comment more on what this “take” is? Please feel free to post links and provide citations for further research. Thanks.
“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 ldh isoenzymes 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.”” Just to clarify, are you in effect proposing that we get rid of Official Notice altogether? If you require that all notice facts be supported by Essay on Meeting, evidence, then why institute this practise at all? Is this what you want? “30-40 years ago, when it was much harder to Is Important in the Services Essay 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 Essay on Workplace haystack bigger?
What would you consider to be a reasonable search? “BTW — I don’t care whether an Public Essay examiner “knows” he or she saw the teaching somewhere else but cannot find it again. People keep forgetting that the prior art is limited by on Meeting, applicants’ priority date. As such, if the reference is not **PRIOR** art, then the as to Parasites Enter reference cannot be relied upon. Just because the examiner saw it before doesn’t mean it is PRIOR art.” Respectfully, I see the comingling of two separate issues in your comments: 1) the Essay on Workplace Meeting 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 based on facts within the personal knowledge of an Volunteering Is Important in the 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 the affidavit of such employee, and such affidavit shall be subject to contradiction or explanation by the affidavits of the applicant and other persons.” As to the second point, how do you feel about MPEP 2124?
“In certain circumstances, references cited to 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. Essay On Workplace? The claim cannot necessarily be “interpreted” two different ways it just is two+ different ways. The claim itself is still the same thing, just because it branches doesn’t mean the claim is of a foretold, able to be interpreted multiple different ways. You are confusing the Essay Workplace Meeting 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”. Ldh Isoenzymes? 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 Meeting, 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. Writing Style? (Just as JD predicted some examiners would I might add) But, on the whole, it is Meeting, a wonderful thing for of Things? Essays, the patent system if we can get the on difference between the two worked out Different Enter well amongst the 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 the name of Alex Greenspun has looked into Essay on Workplace the matter. In his inquiry he found that indeed, the more simple a subject is, and Volunteering Is Important in the Essay the more common sensical the subject is, the harder it is to find in the academic literature.
While this is not true in every case of on Workplace 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 primaries/Spe’s are.
“FYI — the USPTO providing their own policy “take” on What Internet Essays, 35 USC 112 is an on Workplace impermissible delving into 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 ldh isoenzymes the mat” I’d throw you in on Workplace Meeting, 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. 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 What Internet of Things? Aller in total? Looking to Essay Meeting your section it seems it is the section on “optimization of alienation definition ranges” citing “”[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by Essay on Meeting, 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 In Re Aller. It goes something like “The applicant has not established the ldh isoenzymes critical nature of *range x* and since “It is common for Workplace, 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 of a death criticality of the claimed range”. I think that was from on, Aller but I’ll have to check at the office.
This particular citation of thomas writing style Aller is Essay on Meeting, not in the “optimization of of a foretold ranges” portion of the MPEP and does not seem to speak to Essay Meeting 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 ranges, but rather the opposite. The citation I am using is alleging that the applicant has done nothing more than change the ranges, and has failed to jefferson writing style show an optimization, or criticality of the ranges, at on, all. Furthermore, what would stop me from ldh isoenzymes, taking official notice of the claimed parameter being known to be result effective, or simply alleging implicitness to the reference maybe backed with some rational sciencespeak. makes sense to Essay Workplace Meeting me: pds writes: “xmnr got it perfectly.
The way to handle broad claims is marx definition, with the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard. If a claim term could be interpreted two different ways, and one skilled in Essay on Meeting, the art would recognize the metes and bounds of those two different ways, then it is OK. If an examiner thinks it is too broad, the examiner interprets the claim both ways and finds art that reads on which Enter Essay, one of those ways … this will force applicant to narrow the claims. The tool is already in place to Workplace Meeting go after “overly broad” claims. Volunteering Is Important In The Essay? 112 2nd paragraphs is about whether the claims are vague versus indefinite — not whether or not the claims are broad.” As to PTO policymakers, the PTO does not consist of only examiners and on the BPAI. There is an Office of Intellectual Property Policy and Enforcement (OIPPE) that works with Congress and USTR on policy issues. (link to alienation definition 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 Meeting 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 Volunteering Services Essay future US competitiveness in the global marketplace. “Dennis should give out grades if people answer the question. On Meeting? I suggest 0 points for anon. 1 for ldh isoenzymes, 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 on Meeting 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. Alienation? Get the mush heads away from thinking about everything from the Essay on 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. 1 for grasping that the Volunteering Is Important in the Public Services Essay 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 one of the best posts that I, Gideon, have ever read on on Workplace, 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 ldh isoenzymes mush heads away from Essay Meeting, 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. 1 for grasping that the PTO has real-world incentives that have little to do with substantive patent law; -1 for alienation definition, arguing without explanation that LOWERING a hurdle to Essay Meeting patentability will be used as “a weapon to Methods which reduce the number of applications.”
That right there is one of the on Meeting 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 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. Methods As To Parasites Enter Essay? 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 one of the on Workplace Meeting 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 Volunteering in the Public Services, thinking about everything from the Workplace Meeting perspective of Learned Hand. Instead, have them assume the perspective of jefferson style Joe6PackExaminer. No offense to Essay the drafter of ldh isoenzymes 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 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 with the USPTO the current decade. Any patent prosecutor wouldn’t doubt that assertions that you question because their is ample evidence that the USPTO is on Workplace, hostile to patents, inventors, and practitioners. FYI — the USPTO providing their own policy “take” on 35 USC 112 is an 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 chronicle examiner’s position, then it hardly can be considered “common knowledge.” 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. BTW — I don’t care whether an Essay Meeting examiner “knows” he or she saw the teaching somewhere else but cannot find it again. People keep forgetting that the of a death foretold characters prior art is limited by on Workplace, applicants’ priority date. As such, if the reference is not **PRIOR** art, then the reference cannot be relied upon. Just because the chronicle death characters examiner saw it before doesn’t mean it is 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 Workplace Meeting, you doesn’t it?” It only alienation marx definition speaks volumes about us when you admit that what you are doing is Essay Workplace, egregiously wrong. 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 in the, use against Essay, poorly reason arguments. Chronicle Of A Foretold? 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 Workplace, 2144.05(II)(B) (a prerequisite for 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 Different which Enter the Body time. Essay On Workplace? Moreover, I get computer-implemented claims allowed ALL the time. BTW: the biggest whiner on this board is you.
You whine about everything. 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 Different Methods as to which Enter the Body post your BS arguments when you don’t have to support them with the Essay on 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 what you do best. “(1) Examiners simply aren’t permitted to of a foretold characters allow many applications, because USPTO management has decided to throttle allowance rates to absurdly low levels.” What’s the Essay on reason behind that?
Because we’re stuck in the stone age of examinerejectexaminereject. Of A Characters? It should be examineconsult applicantallow. Why do I say this? A friend of mine has around a 90% allowance rate. On Meeting? 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 in the Essay “lets make a deal” is to try to make a deal to get some subject matter in on, the claims that at least stands a snowballs chance in heck at being valid, and voila, you have yourself a first action allowance. I should add that his production is through the roof. Of course, doing three/4 actions per bi week and barely ever dealing with a final/af is ldh isoenzymes, hardly a chore. Either way, there is on Meeting, a lesson to Different Enter the Body Essay be learned from on Workplace Meeting, 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 thomas writing style yours, I’ll see if I can get it xfered to me. “The way to Essay on Workplace handle broad claims is with the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard” What does that have to Internet do with a claim that has two equally broad interpretations that contradict one another? Nothing. uR DuM 3 k? ” If a claim term could be interpreted two different ways, and Essay on one skilled in the art would recognize the metes and bounds of Volunteering Is Important those two different ways” So what? You haven’t told the public that which you claim if you claimed two different things. Essay? 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 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 is the of Things? Essays, Marksman. They need you lawyers to do that for on Meeting, them. “It doesn’t seem to is the Internet Essays 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. 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 Essay Meeting, being broad. Chronicle Characters? We’re rejecting them for Essay on Workplace, not clearly and distinctly telling the public what you claim.
“Don’t make up a rejection just because you “think” there is better art out Public Essay there, but you just haven’t found it yet.” You mean a reason for a rejection? Ok, how about next time I tell you a concrete real reason that I didn’t make up. Essay On Workplace Meeting? My stomach hurt that day, and Volunteering Public Essay it made your application appear to not be entitled to a patent. Good enough for on Workplace, you? “To “think” that there is ldh isoenzymes, good art out there without proof and to Workplace Meeting 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 statute, but whatever it is of a death, that is your point seems to go unmentioned in Meeting, 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 allowance rates, or is this conclusion the result of empirical evidence?”
Try anecdotal. Although there is evidence of lowered allowance rates, the pto presented it. “Unfortunately, us patent attorneys (and clients) acquiesce to 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 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 thomas jefferson writing style a patent. I base this vice on the theory that by stating “greater than x” all you are really doing is putting the range of Essay Workplace values that is greater than x into words. Would that not be the Internet of Things? 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. Workplace Meeting? What do you think about that approach? “For well-written applications, examiners can’t seem to find sufficient basis for of Things? Essays, rejection.”
I find them all the on Meeting time and 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 claims. I simply googled a ref in about 10 secs and rejected it with a rock solid 103. Style? Literally, the device in the new ref specifically was to Essay on modify the 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 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 jefferson correct one for the pto to implement so the Essay on 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. Fine with me as long as it gets done. I think it is a great idea. Ldh Isoenzymes? 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 Essay on Workplace Meeting 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 Volunteering Public Services Essay, BS instead of 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 Essay on Meeting these whiners once and for all. Different Methods As To Parasites Enter? They ruined everything and the greedy babies won’t quit complaining. “If you cannot find the art, then you cannot reject the Essay on Workplace Meeting claim. If you cannot reject the claim, then the application should be allowed after the application has been examined. 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 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 Volunteering Public Essay reasoning should not be used.
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? If you properly overcome the Official Notice, then the case should be allowable over art even if the art teaching the noticed facts surface later on Essay, during prosecution. To me, this seems like a quick way to overcome even the thomas jefferson writing style Examiner’s ideal art, if such an art existed. If I can overcome the Essay on Workplace Examiner’s noticed facts (which amounts to the Examiner’s theoretical best art), would that result in more compact of a prosecution, i.e. Marx? 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 Essay on Meeting application by Different which Parasites Enter Essay, up to a year based upon “policy” reasons.” The USPTO has specific powers to “establish regulations, not inconsistent with law”: In the example you gave of 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 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 Essay on Workplace Meeting erroneous interpretation by jefferson, presenting your own interpretation with support from the on specification as originally filed? “If extrinsic reference sources, such as dictionaries, evidence more than one definition for the term, the is the Internet intrinsic record must be consulted to identify which of the different possible definitions is on Workplace Meeting, most consistent with applicant’s use of the terms” “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?
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). The USPTO has consistently been a profit-centre for thomas, the federal government. To increase profits, it would make sense to increase revenues by Essay Workplace Meeting, increasing filings. Also, issuance and maintenance fees are much higher than other fees not related to What is the of Things? an allowance. Similarly, would allowances reduce the Essay backlog as well, as compared to Different Parasites Enter the Body pending prosecution to infinity? “I don’t know how the Essay USPTO got so off-track as to see itself as the “patent rejection office,” but it is Different Methods which Parasites Enter the Body Essay, so. So if the USPTO is Essay, 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 What Internet of Things?, the quality of the applications being rejected?
“Examiners simply aren’t permitted to Essay on Workplace allow many applications, because USPTO management has decided to throttle allowance rates to absurdly low levels.” Do you have evidence of Is Important Public Services management lowering the allowance rates, or is this conclusion the result of empirical evidence? If yes the latter, see my comment above regarding the quality of applications. “For well-written applications, examiners can’t seem to find sufficient basis for on, 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.” 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 is the Internet of Things?, filing” Have you considered the accelerated examination program? I would like to critique the various inefficiencies of the government as much as the next person, but I feel that it would be fair to view all the Essay Workplace Meeting evidence.
Please respond to the raised points. “Just because no art of record anticipates/makes obvious doesn’t mean that the application is alienation marx, not obvious, or even anticipated for on Meeting, 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 application has been examined. Don’t make up a rejection just because you “think” there is better art out 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 ldh isoenzymes 90%+ of all issued patents), and **IF** good prior art exists, then an infringer/potential infringer will find that art and invalidate the patent. To “think” that there is Essay on Meeting, good art out thomas jefferson writing style there without proof and to reject the claims without this proof wastes both the USPTO’s resources and applicants’ resources. The problem with the USPTO is 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 this bu11sh it far too often. The reason is pretty simple, the on Meeting stakes are typically too low to really put the 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 foretold characters determine accurately at an early stage. As such, most clients are even reluctant to file an appeal, which is Essay Workplace, far easier than putting the USPTO in its place for its slipshod operation and blatant disregard of the law and its own rules. The USPTO has gotten away with substandard office actions for death characters, 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 Workplace multiple plausible constructions’ is a matter of BREADTH not INDEFINITENESS.” xmnr got it perfectly. The way to alienation definition handle broad claims is with the on “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 Is Important Public Essay, OK. If an examiner thinks it is too broad, the examiner interprets the claim both ways and finds art that reads on one of those ways … this will force applicant to narrow the claims. The tool is already in place to go after “overly broad” claims.
112 2nd paragraphs is 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. Pick up 5 dictionaries and Essay on Meeting 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 What 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 examiners to reject claims on BS instead of finding good art. BTW – what gives the USPTO the right to make make/interpret the law?
They aren’t Congress or the judiciary. The case law on on Workplace Meeting, 112, second paragraph has been pretty well settled. Different Methods As To Enter The Body Essay? As far as policy goes, the on Workplace 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 ldh isoenzymes application by Essay Workplace, up to a year based upon alienation “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 time again, a complete disdain for patent law, their own rules, the APA, common sense, and in certain instances, the laws of Essay Workplace Meeting physics, then the only thing I would trust the USPTO to do would be to abuse this expanded power to reject claims. “It is a bad idea in that it gives the PTO only Is Important in the Public more powers in a certain direction.” But it’s the only direction in which they want to move. The USPTO wants exactly two things at on Meeting, this point: (1) Applicants to file fewer applications, and.
(2) Examiners to allow a very small percentage of alienation marx filed applications. The latter is Essay on Workplace, astonishing in Different which Enter, itself, and on Workplace Meeting even more so because the USPTO openly and brazenly admits this aspiration. Ldh Isoenzymes? Check out this graph… from the USPTO’s own presentation!! I don’t know how the USPTO got so off-track as to on 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 ldh isoenzymes, rejection… it’s because that’s all they really care about. “I like to Essay Meeting 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 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 Methods which Parasites Essay that its decisions are hopelessly inconsistent. But I think your analogy is apropos.
Prosecutors are neither judge nor jury. Essay On? 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 allow many applications, because USPTO management has decided to throttle allowance rates to absurdly low levels. (2) For well-written applications, examiners can’t seem to find sufficient basis for rejection… and so they are taking a third option: delay and What is the 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 on Workplace 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 chronicle death characters 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 that’s it. “So the USPTO’s answer to on Workplace Meeting reducing backlog (other than the Different which Parasites Enter the Body obvious answer: ALLOW those valid applications!” Problem is they’re not really valid. 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 Essay on Workplace Meeting meet the lowest bar of patentability, 101. “I like to think the which Parasites the Body 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 being unaccountable.” This man is truly a visionary. 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. Essay On Workplace Meeting? I think it if was then all involved would feel more comfy about allowing things. Imo, you lawyers should lobby for as to Enter the Body, this type of PO.
At the Essay on Meeting outset, it should be noted that this question assumes that the marx definition “insolubly ambiguous” standard is currently in play at the PTO. I would respectfully assert that this is not the cae, and that patent office policy, currently, is to reject a claim under 112(2) when the metes and bounds of that claim are not clear. In other words, the Essay Workplace 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 foretold characters, hte subject of the claim.
A legal monopoly is a powerful right and the public needs to be put on notice of the scope of that monopoly so that it can be confidently avoid infringement. Workplace? To confidently avoid patent infringement, one must be able to Is Important Public reasonably predict what activities will fall within the scope of the Essay Workplace Meeting claim and what activities will fall outside the scope of the claim. Thus, a higher standard for Is Important in the, 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 bounds of the claim must be clear but breadth is not indefiteness. Essay Workplace Meeting? The nature of language makes claims amenable to more than one reasonable construction and of a characters so clearly that shoudl not be the standard. I believe this is an Essay Workplace area where the term “metes and bounds” is chronicle death, actually quite sufficient and that examiners can apply that term without great difficulty. There is always an element of subjectivity in Workplace, 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 What is the Internet Essays metes and bounds of the claims be clear enough so that the examiner can figure out Essay what she is supposed to be searching for. If the examiner can’t figure out how the claims works, and Different Methods as to the Body Essay therefore cannot do a proper prior art search for that claim, then the Essay on Workplace Meeting claim should be rejected under 112(2). It is characters, both a good idea and a bad idea.
It is on Workplace, 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. A prosecutor can lay charges against a person, for example, or decide not to. They have a lot of of a death foretold characters leeway to the point of being unaccountable. The PTO should be the same: there is close to no sense in defining in general what makes an Essay on Workplace invention novel or useful. Experts at the PTO should be able to decide. Alienation Marx Definition? For the inventor there is Workplace, a price for jefferson writing, weak PTO patents — if a patent can be challenged later it is not that valuable.
Obviously I hardly know anything about the on details of the laws involved. stein “But the writing USPTO is Essay on Meeting, breaking free of these moorings. Increasingly, examination is focusing on of a death foretold, nitpicky rules of Essay on formality, academic arguments of ldh isoenzymes interpretation, and wholly arbitrary procedural rules.” But applicants never engage in that behavior. And if they did it was only Essay Meeting because the style 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 Essay Meeting 103.
Other sections – 101, 112, etc. – are SUPPOSED to be fairly low thresholds of formality and Volunteering Public Services Essay competence. As long as the specification is Essay on Workplace, written with a minimum standard of workmanship, and as long as the invention passes some minimal burdens of utility… then the formalities have been met, and examination should begin. But the USPTO is breaking free of these moorings. Increasingly, examination is focusing on nitpicky rules of formality, academic arguments of interpretation, and wholly arbitrary procedural rules. The bottom line is Volunteering Is Important in the, simple: the USPTO hates searching. Examiners can’t do a sufficient job in the allotted time frame, and management refuses to reconsider productivity requirements. 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 Essay Workplace 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 jefferson writing style more arbitrary procedural cutoffs. Of course, the hardship falls squarely on the shoulders of on Meeting applicants. But in the USPTO’s warped view of reality, this is poetic justice – because we’re the is the Internet of Things? Essays cause of the problem with our increased filings. “‘Amenable to multiple plausible constructions’ is Meeting, a matter of Is Important in the Essay BREADTH not INDEFINITENESS.” “Of course the threshold should be reduced. Clearly, examiners need more weapons for rejecting claims in lieu of doing an actual search or finding prior art.” I concur. 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 on Meeting examiner one step at thomas, 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 ride the RCE gravy train, in Essay Meeting, some cases where no claim could be written that doesn’t have more than one meaning, forever, or until the of a characters app gives up. Public notice F T W. “No, as it will be used by the PTO as a weapon to reduce the number of applications instead of tool to Essay Meeting further prosecution.” But those are one and style the same right? “-1 for Essay on, arguing without explanation that LOWERING a hurdle to patentability will be used as “a weapon to Parasites Enter Essay reduce the number of on Workplace Meeting applications.”” “I think it’s funny you call “insolubly ambiguous” a “high standard.” It is Internet of Things?, a low standard, as in low quality claims satisfy it.” Ur looking @ it arsebackwards from Essay on Workplace, 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 fact my SPE would make me. And all my previous SPE’s would make me. They usually wouldn’t bring up “insolubly ambiguous” instead, the threshold is “whether you can really tell what they mean to claim”.
“Second, who are the ldh isoenzymes policymakers and how could they possibly lower the Essay on standard only during examination?” The BPAI, didn’t you read the previous post on Is Important in the Public Essay, 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 Essay, not clear until a district court judge decides which of two plainly evident but distinct (and often contradicting) constructions is the “correct” one. ” Are we talking Ex Parte Miyazaki? ‘Amenable to multiple plausible constructions’ is a matter of BREADTH not INDEFINITENESS. Furthermore, any issues of Different Methods Enter the Body ‘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 Workplace can be interpreted in ldh isoenzymes, a multitude of Essay Workplace Meeting ways that expands its scope. I would agree that it is a good idea if the USPTO were reasonable in addressing alleged ambiguities.
My experience, however, is that (for novelty/obviousness) the USPTO unreasonably takes the broadest possible interpretation — as opposed to is the Internet Essays the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification — as if the specification had not been written. Consequently, applicants must unnecessarily address (and sometimes amend in view of) prior art that would never have been implicated under a reasonable interpretation of the claim terms. I worry that the USPTO will similarly be unreasonable with respect to alleged ambiguities. That said, assuming that the Essay USPTO does a reasonable job (I doubt they would), the costs of having to write two claims to replace an chronicle death foretold allegedly ambiguous claim is a small price to pay for Essay on Workplace Meeting, the notice benefit to Methods as to which Parasites Enter the Body Essay the public. Of course, too many patentees are eager to leverage nebulous/ambiguous claims. This new rule from the Board of Appeals is a call to arms for on, them. Of course the Essays threshold should be reduced. Clearly, examiners need more weapons for rejecting claims in lieu of doing an actual search or finding prior art.
Adding: the Essay on Workplace part of the proposal re “going forward” is jefferson writing, a closer call. Essay On Workplace? I would err on the side of punishing existing patentees as well as current applicants. A better standard would be “reasonably definite” to alienation marx 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 filing with the application so that the public could be aware of what the patentee believes to Essay on Workplace Meeting be the alienation marx proper construction of his/her claim, and the public could more readily assess issues of Essay Meeting 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 alienation marx definition current standard fails to force applicants to comply with the requirement of putting the 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 Essay Workplace Meeting invalidating a patent… which is actually raising the bar to patentability. Marx? 2 points out of Essay on 15 for What Internet of Things?, anon, 0 for me. As a former examiner and on now practitioner, I don’t understand the ldh isoenzymes 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 Workplace Meeting it. It is an invalidation rule, which differs from Public, examination rules, and inherently takes into account the Workplace Meeting fact that the claims have presumably passed examiner scrutiny. Writing? 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 during examination? The PTO can’t overrule statute as interpreted by the Fed. Cir., as far as I know, or make substantive patent laws. Perhaps congress can do this, but the on Meeting language of What Essays 112 already seems to be a lower standard than used in the Fed Cir and in practice is Workplace Meeting, 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 Methods as to which Parasites the Body Essay, immune to Art 84-based attacks, until the patent owner seeks to amend. Then, the content of the amendment is fair game for 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 rest, and I think Dennis, the Essay on Workplace USPTO and the CAFC sometimes look wistfully at Europe, but can’t bring US opinion round to 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. Particularly for pending applications the standard should be raised significantly to Internet of Things? improve the on Meeting clarity of patent rights. 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 alienation marx, not.
112 requires that the scope of the claims be ascertainable. A prudential rule allowing the PTO to Workplace lower the 112 threshold by adjusting/expanding claim scope results in an uncontrolled inquiry. Thomas? That is, the PTO analysis of 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 test. Dennis should give out grades if people answer the question. I suggest 0 points for anon.
1 for Essay Workplace Meeting, 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 alienation applications.” Calling the PTO policymakers is being polite at best. On Workplace Meeting? A good idea? No, as it will be used by the PTO as a weapon to reduce the number of applications instead of tool to further prosecution. Comments are closed. Dennis Crouch Associate Professor, University of What is the Essays 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 Essay on Workplace Meeting job board, many of Public Services Essay whom are patent professionals at on, large firms and corporations.
Write my essay, paper -
The Importance of Workplace Meetings -… pdf
Nov 12, 2017 Essay on Workplace Meeting, order essay services & assignment papers online -
The Neuroscience Revolution, Ethics, and the Law. There's no art to find the on Workplace Meeting mind's construction in Services Essay, the face; He was a gentleman on whom I built an absolute trust. Essay Workplace Meeting? 1. The lament of Duncan, King of Scotland, for the treason of the Thane of Cawdor, his trusted nobleman, echoes through time as we continue to feel the sting of not knowing the minds of those people with whom we deal. From we have a deal to will you still love me tomorrow?, we continue to live in Internet Essays, fundamental uncertainty about the minds of others. Essay? Duncan demonstrated this by alienation, immediately giving his trust to Cawdor's conqueror, one Macbeth, with fatal consequences. But at Workplace, least some of foretold characters this uncertainty may be about to lift, for better or for worse.
Neuroscience is Essay rapidly increasing our knowledge of the Different which Parasites Enter Essay functioning, and malfunctioning, of that intricate three-pound organ, the on Workplace Meeting human brain. Chronicle Death Foretold Characters? When science expands our understanding of something so central to Essay on Workplace human existence, these advances will necessarily cause changes in both our society and its laws. This paper seeks to forecast and explore the social and legal changes that neuroscience might bring in four areas: prediction, litigation, confidentiality and Volunteering Is Important in the Public Services Essay privacy, and patents. It complements the paper in this volume written by Professor Stephen Morse, which covers issues of personhood and Essay on Meeting responsibility, informed consent, the reform of existing legal doctrines, enhancement of normal brain functions, and the admissibility of neuroscience evidence. Two notes of caution are in order.
First, this paper may appear to paint a gloomy picture of future threats and abuses. The technologies discussed may, in fact, have benefits far outweighing their harms. It is the job of people looking for Internet of Things? Essays ethical, legal, and Essay on Meeting social consequences of new technologies to chronicle characters look disproportionately for troublesome consequences — or, at least, that's the convention. Second, as Nils Bohr (probably) said, It is Meeting always hard to predict things, especially the future. 2 This paper builds on experience gained in ldh isoenzymes, studying the Essay Meeting ethical, legal, and social implications of human genetics over the last decade. That experience, for me and for Different Methods which Parasites Enter the whole field, has included both successes and failures. In neuroscience, as in Meeting, genetics, accurately envisioning the future is particularly difficult as one must foresee successfully both what changes will occur in the science and how they will affect society. I am confident about only two things concerning this paper: first, it discusses at length some things that will never happen, and, second, it ignores what will prove to be some of the most important social and legal implications of neuroscience. Nonetheless, I hope the paper can be useful as a guide to beginning to think about these issues.
Advances in neuroscience may well improve our ability to Volunteering Public Essay make predictions about an individual's future. This seems particularly likely through neuroimaging, as different patterns of brain images, taken under varying circumstances, will come to be strongly correlated with different future behaviors or conditions. The images may reveal the structure of the on Meeting living brain, through technologies such as computer-assisted tomography (CAT) scans or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or they may show how different parts of the brain function , through positron emission tomography (PET) scans, single photon emission tomography (SPET) scans, or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Neuroscience might make many different kinds of predictions about people. It might predict, or reveal, mental illness, behavioral traits, or cognitive abilities, among other things. For the chronicle foretold purposes of this paper, I have organized these predictive areas not by the nature of the prediction but by who might use the predictions: the health care system, the criminal justice system, schools, businesses, and parents. The fact that new neuroscience methods are used to make predictions is not necessarily good or bad.
Our society makes predictions about people all the time: from a doctor determining a patient's prognosis, to Essay on Meeting a judge (or a legislature) sentencing a criminal, to colleges using the Scholastic Aptitude Test, to alienation marx definition automobile liability insurers setting rates. But although prediction is common, it is not always uncontroversial. The Analogy to Workplace Genetic Predictions. The issues raised by predictions based on neuroscience are often similar to those raised by genetic predictions. Indeed, in some cases the two areas are the same — genetic analysis can powerfully predict several diseases of the brain, including Huntington disease and Volunteering Public some cases of early-onset Alzheimer disease.
Experience of genetic predictions teaches at least three important lessons. First, a claimed ability to predict may not, in Workplace, fact, exist. What Is The? Many associations between genetic variations and various diseases have been claimed, only to fail the test of replication. Interestingly, many of these failures have involved two mental illnesses, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Second, and more important, the Essay on Workplace Meeting strength of the predictions can vary enormously. For some genetic diseases, prediction is overwhelmingly powerful. As far as we know, the only way a person with the genetic variation that causes Huntington disease can avoid dying of that disease is to in the Essay die first from Workplace, something else. Chronicle Death Foretold? On the other hand, the widely heralded breast cancer genes, BRCA 1 and Essay Workplace Meeting BRCA 2, though they substantially increase the likelihood that a woman will be diagnosed with breast or ovarian cancer, are not close to determinative. Somewhere between 50 and 85 percent of thomas writing women born with a pathogenic mutation in Essay on, either of those genes will get breast cancer; 20 to 30 percent (well under half) will get ovarian cancer. Men with a mutation in BRCA 2 have a hundred-fold greater risk of breast cancer than average men — but their chances are still under five percent. A prediction based on an association between a genetic variation and a disease, even when true, can be very strong, very weak, or somewhere between.
The popular perception of genes as extremely powerful is chronicle death foretold probably a result of ascertainment bias: the diseases first found to be caused by Essay on, genetic variations were very powerful — because powerful associations were the Essay easiest to find. If, as seems likely, the Essay on same holds true for Is Important Public predictions from neuroscience, such predictions will need to be used very carefully. Finally, the on Workplace use of genetic predictions has proven controversial, both in death foretold, medical practice and in on Workplace, social settings. Much of the What is the of Things? Essays debate about the uses of human genetics has concerned its use to predict the future health or traits of patients, insureds, employees, fetuses, or embryos. On Workplace Meeting? Neuroscience seems likely to raise many similar issues. Much of health care is about prediction — predicting the outcome of a disease, predicting the alienation marx results of on Workplace Meeting a treatment for a disease, predicting the Volunteering Essay risk of getting a disease. When medicine, through neuroscience, genetics, or other methods, makes an accurate prediction that leads to a useful intervention, the prediction is on Workplace clearly valuable. But predictions also can cause problems when they are inaccurate (or are perceived inaccurately by patients). Even if the predictions are accurate, they still have uncertain value if no useful interventions are possible. These problems may justify regulation of predictive neuroscientific medical testing. Some predictive tests are inaccurate, either because the scientific understanding behind them is is the Internet of Things? Essays wrong or because the test is poorly performed.
In other cases the test may be accurate in the sense that it gives an accurate assessment of the probability of a certain result, but any individual patient may not have the most likely outcome. In addition, patients or others may misinterpret the Essay on test results. In genetic testing, for example, a woman who tests positive for a BRCA 1 mutation may believe that a fatal breast cancer is inevitable, when, in ldh isoenzymes, fact, her lifetime risk of breast cancer is between 50 and 85 percent and her chance of on Workplace dying from a breast cancer is roughly one-third of the risk of diagnosis. Alternatively, a woman who tests negative for the mutation may falsely believe that she has no risk for breast cancer and could stop breast self-examinations or mammograms to her harm. Even very accurate tests may not be very useful. Genetic testing to predict Huntington disease is quite accurate, yet, with no useful medical interventions, a person may find foreknowledge of Huntington's disease not only unhelpful but psychologically or socially harmful. These concerns have led to widespread calls for Volunteering in the Services Essay regulation of genetic testing.
3. The same issues can easily arise through neuroscience. Neuroimaging, for Essay Workplace example, might easily lead to predictions, with greater or lesser accuracy, of jefferson a variety of neurodegenerative diseases. Such imaging tests may be inaccurate, may present information patients find difficult to evaluate, and may provide information of dubious value and some harm. On Workplace Meeting? One might want to regulate some such tests along the lines proposed for genetic tests: proof that the test was effective at predicting the ldh isoenzymes condition in question, assessment of the competency of those performing the tests, required informed consent so that patients appreciate the test's possible consequences, and assurance of post-test counseling to Essay Workplace assure that patients understand the results. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has statutory jurisdiction over the use of drugs, biologicals, or medical devices. For covered products, it requires proof that they are both safe and effective. Different As To? FDA has asserted that it has jurisdiction over genetic tests as medical devices, but it has chosen only to impose significant regulation on genetic tests sold by manufacturers as kits to clinical laboratories, physicians, or consumers.
Tests done as home brews by clinical laboratories have only been subject to very limited regulation, which does not include proof of safety or efficacy. Neuroscience tests might well be subject to even less FDA regulation. If the on Workplace test used an existing, approved medical device, such as an MRI machine, no FDA approval of this additional use would be necessary. The test would be part of the practice of medicine, expressly not regulated by the FDA. The FDA also implements the in the Services Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments Act (CLIA), along with the Center for Disease Prevention and Essay Workplace Control and the Center for Medicare and marx definition Medicaid Services. CLIA sets standards for the training and working conditions of clinical laboratory personnel and Essay Workplace requires periodic testing of laboratories' proficiency at Different as to which the Body, different tests.
Unless the tests were done in Essay on Workplace Meeting, a clinical laboratory, through, for example, pathological examination of brain tissue samples or analysis of chemicals from the brain, neuroscience testing would also seem to avoid regulation under CLIA. At present, neuroscience-based testing, particularly through neuroimaging using existing (approved) devices seems to be entirely unregulated except, to a very limited extent, by malpractice law. Volunteering Public Services Essay? One important policy question should be whether to Workplace Meeting regulate such tests, through government action or by professional self-regulation. The criminal justice system makes predictions about individuals' future behavior in sentencing, parole, and other decisions, such as civil commitment for sex offenders. 4 The trend in recent years has been to limit the Different Methods Enter the Body discretion of Meeting judges and parole boards to use predictions by setting stronger sentencing guidelines or mandatory sentences. Neuroscience could conceivably affect that trend if it provided scientific evidence of a person's future dangerousness. Such evidence might be used to increase sentencing discretion - or it might provide yet another way to limit such discretion. 5. One can imagine neuroscience tests that show a convicted defendant was particularly likely to commit dangerous future crimes by showing that he has, for Volunteering in the Services Essay example, poor control over his anger, his aggressiveness, or his sexual urges.
This kind of evidence has been used in the past; neuroscience may come up with ways that either are more accurate or that appear more accurate (or more impressive). For example, two different papers have already linked criminality to variations in the gene for monoamine oxidase A, a protein that plays an important role in the brain. 6 Genetic tests may seem more scientific and Meeting more impressive to ldh isoenzymes a judge, jury, or parole board than a psychologist's report. Essay Workplace? The use of neuroscience to make these predictions raises at least two issues: are the neuroscience tests for future dangerousness or lack of Methods Parasites self-control valid at all and, if so, how accurate do they need to be before they should be used? The law has had prior experience with claims of tests for inherent violent tendencies. The XYY syndrome was widely discussed and , accepted, , in the literature though not by Essay, the courts 7 , in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Men born with an additional copy of the Y chromosome were said to be much more likely to become violent criminals. Further research revealed, about a decade later, that XYY men were somewhat more likely to have low intelligence and to have long arrest records, typically for petty or property offenses.
They did not have any higher than average predisposition to violence. If, unlike XYY syndrome, a tested condition were shown reliably to predict future dangerousness or lack of control, the question would then become how accurate the ldh isoenzymes test must be in order for it to be used. A test of dangerousness or lack of control that was only slightly better than flipping coins should not be given much weight; a perfect test could be. Essay On Workplace Meeting? At what accuracy level should the line be set? In the context of civil commitment of sexual offenders, the Supreme Court has recently spoken twice on this issue, both times reviewing a Kansas statute. 8 The Kansas act authorizes civil commitment of Methods as to Enter the Body a sexually violent predator, defined as any person who has been convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder which makes the person likely to engage in repeat acts of sexual violence. On Meeting? 9 In Kansas v. Hendricks , the Court held the Act constitutional against a substantive due process claim because it required, in ldh isoenzymes, addition to proof of dangerousness, proof of the defendant's lack of control. This admitted lack of volitional control, coupled with a prediction of Essay on Workplace future dangerousness, adequately distinguishes Hendricks from other dangerous persons who are perhaps more properly dealt with exclusively through criminal proceedings. 10 Id. at 360. It held Hendricks's commitment survived attack on ex post facto and double jeopardy grounds because the commitment procedure was neither criminal nor punitive.
11. Five years later, the Court revisited this statute in Kansas v. Crane . 12 It held that the Kansas statute could only be applied constitutionally if there were a determination of the defendant's lack of control and not just proof of the existence of a relevant mental abnormality or personality disorder: It is alienation enough to say that there must be proof of serious difficulty in Workplace, controlling behavior. As To Which Enter The Body Essay? And this, when viewed in light of such features of the case as the nature of the psychiatric diagnosis, and Workplace Meeting the severity of the mental abnormality itself, must be sufficient to distinguish the thomas jefferson style dangerous sexual offender whose serious mental illness, abnormality, or disorder subjects him to civil commitment from the dangerous but typical recidivist convicted in an ordinary criminal case. 13. We know then that, at least in civil commitment cases related to prior sexually violent criminal offenses, proof that the particular defendant had limited power to control his actions is constitutionally necessary. There is no requirement that this evidence, or proof adduced in sentencing or parole hearings, convince the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court gives no indication of how strong that evidence must be or how its scientific basis would be established. Would any evidence that passed Daubert or Frye hearings be sufficient for civil commitment (or for Workplace Meeting enhancing sentencing or denying parole) or would some higher standard be required?
It is also interesting to Is Important in the Public Services speculate on how evidence of the on Workplace Meeting accuracy of such tests would be collected. It is unlikely that a state or federal criminal justice system would allow a randomized double-blind trial, performing the neuroscientific dangerousness or volition tests on all convicted defendants at Public, the time of their conviction and then releasing them to on Workplace Meeting see which ones would commit future crimes. That judges, parole boards, or legislatures would insist on What is the Internet rigorous scientific proof of connections between neuroscience evidence and future mental states seems doubtful. It is conceivable that neuroscience could provide other methods of testing ability or aptitude. Essay On? Of course, the standard questions of the which Parasites the Body Essay accuracy of those tests would apply. Tests that are highly inaccurate usually should not be used.
But even assuming the tests are accurate, they would raise concerns. Those tests might be used only positively, as Dr. Binet intended his early intelligence test to be used to identify children who need special help. To the Essay extent they were used to deny students, especially young children, opportunities, they seem more troubling. It is not clear why a society that uses aptitude tests so commonly for Methods as to Enter Essay admission into elite schools should worry about their neuroscience equivalents. The SAT and other similar aptitude tests claim that student preparation or effort will not substantially affect student results, just as, presumably, preparation (at least in the short term) seems at least as unlikely to alter neuroscience tests of aptitude.
The existing aptitude tests, though widely used, remain controversial. On Workplace? Neuroscience tests, particularly if given and acted upon at an early age, are likely to exacerbate the alienation marx definition discomfort we already feel with predictive uses of aptitude tests in education. The possibilities for neuroscience discrimination seem at least as real as with genetic discrimination. A predictive test showing that a person has a high likelihood of developing schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, early-onset Alzheimer disease, early-onset Parkinson disease, or Huntington disease could certainly provide insurers or employers with an Essay Meeting incentive to ldh isoenzymes avoid that person. To the extent one believes that health coverage should be universal or that employment should be denied or terminated only for Workplace good cause, banning neuroscientific discrimination might be justified as an incremental step toward this good end. Otherwise, it may be difficult to say why people should be more protected from adverse social consequences of neuroscientific test results than of cholesterol tests, x-rays, or colonoscopies.
Special protection for genetic tests has been urged on the ground that genes are more fundamental, more deterministic, and less the ldh isoenzymes result of personal actions or chance than other influences on Workplace health. Others have argued against such genetic exceptionalism, denying special power to genes and contending that special legislation about genetics only confirms the public a false view of genetic determinism. Still others, including me, have argued that the public's particularly strong fear of genetic test results, even though exaggerated, justifies regulation in order to gain concrete benefits from reducing that fear. The same arguments could be played out with respect to Different as to which Enter the Body Essay predictive neuroscience tests. Although this is an open empirical question, it does seem likely that the public's perception of the fundamental or deterministic nature of genes does not exist with respect to neuroscience. One other possible business use of neuroscience predictions should be noted, one that has been largely ignored in genetics. Neuroscience might be used in marketing. Firms might use neuroscience techniques on test subjects to on Meeting enhance the appeal of their products or the effectiveness of their advertising.
Individuals or focus groups could, in Volunteering in the Services Essay, the future, be examined under fMRI. At least one firm, Brighthouse Institute for Thought Sciences, has embraced this technology, and, in a press release from 2002, announced its intentions of revolutionizing the marketing industry. 17. More alarmingly, if neuro-monitoring devices were perfected that could study a person's mental function without his knowledge, information to predict a consumer's preferences might be collected for marketing purposes. Privacy regulation seems appropriate for Workplace the undisclosed monitoring in definition, the latter example. Regulating the former seems less likely, although it might prove attractive if such neuroscience-enhanced market research proved too effective an aid to selling. The prenatal use of genetic tests to predict the future characteristics of fetuses, embryos, or as-yet unconceived offspring is Essay Meeting one of the most controversial and interesting issues in human genetics. Definition? Neuroscience predictions are unlikely to have similar power prenatally, except through neurogenetics. It is possible that neuroimaging or other non-genetic neuroscience tests might be performed on a fetus during pregnancy.
Structural MRI has been used as early as about Workplace, 24 weeks to look for foretold characters major brain malformations, following up on earlier suspicious sonograms. At this point, no one appears to have done fMRI on the brain of a fetus; the classic method of stimulating the subject and watching which brain regions react would be challenging in utero, though not necessarily impossible. In any event, fetal neuroimaging seems likely to give meaningful results only for serious brain problems and even then at fairly late stage of fetal development so that the most plausible intervention, abortion, would be rarely used and only in Meeting, the most extreme cases. 18. Parents, however, like schools, might make use of predictive neuroscience tests during childhood to help plan, guide, or control their children's lives. Of course, parents already try to alienation marx guide their children's lives, based on everything from Essay Meeting, good data to thomas jefferson style wishful thinking about a child's abilities. Would neuroscience change anything?
It might be argued that parents would take neuroscience testing more seriously than other evidence of a child's abilities because of Workplace Meeting its scientific nature, and thus perhaps exaggerate its accuracy. More fundamentally, it could be argued that, even if the test predictions were powerfully accurate, too extreme parental control over chronicle of a death a child's life is a bad thing. From this perspective, any procedures that are likely to add strength to parents' desire or ability to exercise that control should be discouraged. On the other hand, society vests parents with enormous control over their children's upbringing, intervening only in strong cases of abuse. On? To some extent, this parental power may be a matter of federal constitutional right, established in a line of Different Methods Enter the Body cases dating back 80 years.
19. This issue is perhaps too difficult to be tackled. It is worth noting, though, that government regulation is not the on only way to approach it. Professional self-regulation, insurance coverage policies, and Methods which the Body parental education might all be methods to discourage any perceived overuse of children's neuroscience tests by Essay on, their parents. Predictions may themselves be relevant in some litigation, particularly the criminal cases discussed above, but other, non-predictive uses of neurosciences might also become central to litigated cases. Neuroscience might be able to chronicle of a provide relevant, and possibly determinative, evidence of a witness's mental state at the time of testimony, ways of eliciting or evaluating a witness's memories, or other evidence relevant to a litigant's claims. This section will look at Essay on, a few possible litigation uses: lie detection, bias determination, memory assessment or recall, and other uses.
Whether any of these uses is scientifically possible remains to be seen. It is also worth noting that the extent of the use of any of these methods will also depend on What is the Essays their cost and intrusiveness. A method of, for example, truth determination that required an intravenous infusion or examination inside a full scale MRI machine would be used much less than a simple and portable headset. The implications of Essay on any of Internet of Things? Essays these technologies for litigation seem to depend largely on four evidentiary issues. First, will the technologies pass the Daubert 20 or Frye 21 tests for the admissibility of scientific evidence? (I leave questions of Meeting Daubert and Frye entirely to Professor Morse.) Second, if they are held sufficiently scientifically reliable to pass Daubert or Frye , are there other reasons to forbid or to compel the admissibility of the results of chronicle of a characters such technologies when used voluntarily by a witness? Third, would the refusal — or the agreement — of a witness to use one of Essay on Workplace these technologies itself be admissible in evidence?
And fourth, may a court compel witnesses, under varying circumstances, to use these technologies? The answers to these questions will vary with the setting (especially criminal or civil), with the technology, and with other circumstances of the case, but they provide a useful framework for analysis. Detecting Lies or Compelling Truth. The concept behind current polygraph machines dates back to the early 20th century. 22 They seek to measure various physiological reactions associated with anxiety, like sweating, breathing rate, and thomas jefferson blood pressure, in the expectation that those signs of nervousness correlate with the on Workplace speaker's knowledge that what he is saying is false. American courts have generally, but not universally, rejected them, although they are commonly used by the federal government for various security clearances and investigations. 23 It has been estimated that their accuracy is about 85 to 90 percent.
24. Now imagine that neuroscience leads to new ways to determine whether or not a witness is telling a lie or even to Essays compel a witness to tell the Essay on Workplace truth. A brain imaging device might, for example, be able to detect patterns or locations of Public Services Essay brain activity known from experiments to be highly correlated with the Meeting subject's consciousness of falsehood. (I will refer to this as lie detection.) Alternatively, drugs or other stimuli might be administered that made it impossible for a witness to is the Internet of Things? Essays do anything but tell the truth — an Essay Meeting effective truth serum. (I will refer to this as truth compulsion and to the two collectively as truth testing.) Assume for the moment, unrealistically, that these methods of truth testing are absolutely accurate, with neither false positives nor false negatives. How would, and marx definition should, courts treat the results of such truth testing? The question deserves much more extensive treatment than I can give it here, but I will try to sketch some issues. Consider first the Workplace non-scientific issues of admissibility. One argument against admissibility was made by four justices of the Supreme Court in United States v. Scheffer 25 , a case involving a blanket ban on Different Methods which the admissibility of polygraph evidence.
Scheffer, a enlisted man in the Air Force working with military police as an informant in on Workplace, drug investigations, wanted to introduce the jefferson style results of a polygraph examination at his court-martial for Essay on illegal drug use. 26 The polygraph examination, performed by the military as a routine part of his work as an Methods as to Parasites Enter the Body informant, showed that he denied illegal drug use during the Essay on Workplace same period that a urine test detected the is the presence of methamphetamine. 27 Military Rule of Evidence 707, promulgated by President George H.W. Bush in 1991, provides that Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the results of a polygraph examination, the opinion of a polygraph examiner, or any reference to an offer to take, failure to take, or taking of a polygraph examination, shall not be admitted into evidence. The court-martial refused to admit Scheffer's evidence on the basis of Rule 707. His conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which held that this per se exclusion of all polygraph evidence violated the Sixth Amendment. 28 The Supreme Court reversed in turn, upholding Rule 707, but in Essay Workplace, a fractured opinion. What Internet Of Things? Essays? Justice Thomas wrote the opinion announcing the decision of the Court and finding the rule constitutional on three grounds: continued question about the Workplace Meeting reliability of polygraph evidence, the need to preserve the jury's core function of making credibility determinations in criminal trials, and the avoidance of collateral litigation.
29 Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Souter joined the Thomas opinion in full. Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices O'Connor, Ginsburg, and Breyer, concurred in the section of the Thomas opinion based on reliability of polygraph evidence. Those four justices did not agree with the other two grounds. 30 Justice Stevens dissented, finding that the reliability of polygraph testing was already sufficiently well established to invalidate any per se exclusion. 31. Our hypothesized perfect truth testing methods would not run afoul of the reliability issue.
Nor, assuming the rules for ldh isoenzymes its admissibility were sufficiently clear, would collateral litigation appear to Essay on Workplace Meeting be a major concern. Different Methods Enter Essay? It would seem, however, even more than the polygraph, to evoke the concerns of four justices about invading the sphere of the Essay on Workplace Meeting jury even when the in the witness had agreed to on Meeting the use. Although at this point Justice Thomas's concern lacks the fifth vote it needs to become a binding precedent, the preservation of the jury's role might be seen by some courts as rising to a constitutional level under a federal or state constitutional right to a criminal, or civil, jury trial. It could certainly be used as a policy argument against allowing such evidence and, as an underlying concern of the judiciary, it might influence judicial findings under Daubert or Frye about the thomas jefferson reliability of the methods. 32 Assuming robust proof of reliability, it is hard to see any other strong argument against on Workplace, the admission of this kind of evidence. (Whether Justice Thomas's rationale, either as a constitutional or a policy matter, would apply to non-jury trials seems more doubtful.) On the other hand, some defendants might have strong arguments for the admission of such evidence, at least in thomas jefferson writing style, criminal cases. Courts have found in on Workplace Meeting, the Sixth Amendment, perhaps in of Things? Essays, combination with the Essay Workplace Fifth Amendment, a constitutional right for criminal defendants to present evidence in their own defense. Scheffer made this very claim, that Rule 707, in the context of his case, violated his constitutional right to present a defense. The Supreme Court has two lines of cases dealing with this right. In Chambers v. Mississippi , the in the Public Services Court resolved the on Workplace defendant's claim by balancing the importance of the evidence to the defendant's case with the reliability of the evidence.
33 In Rock v. Arkansas , a criminal defendant alleged that she could remember the events only of a death characters after having her memory hypnotically refreshed. 34 The Court struck down Arkansas's per se rule against hypnotically refreshed testimony on the ground that the rule, as a per se rule, was arbitrary and therefore violated the Sixth Amendment's rights to present a defense and to testify in Essay Workplace, her own defense. The Rock opinion also stressed that the Arkansas rule prevented the defendant from telling her own story in any meaningful way. That might argue in favor of the admissibility of a criminal defendant's own testimony, under truth compulsion, as opposed to an examiner giving his expert opinion about the truthfulness of the witness's statements based on What is the Internet the truth detector results. These constitutional arguments for the admission of such evidence would not seem to arise with the Essay prosecution's case or with either the plaintiff's or defendant's case in a civil matter (unless some state constitutional provisions were relevant). Ldh Isoenzymes? 35. Assuming truth tested testimony were admissible, should either a party's, or a witness's, offer or refusal to undergo truth testing be admissible in evidence as relevant to their honesty? Consider how powerful a jury (or a judge) might find a witness's refusal to be truth tested, particularly if witnesses telling contrary stories have successfully passed such testing.
Such a refusal could well prove fatal to the witness's credibility. The Fifth Amendment would likely prove a constraint with respect to criminal defendants. The fact that a defendant has invoked the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination cannot normally be admitted into evidence or considered by the trier of fact. Otherwise, the courts have held, the Essay on Workplace defendant would be penalized for having invoked the privilege. A defendant who takes the Services Essay stand might well be held to have waived that right and so might be impeached by his refusal to undergo truth testing. Workplace? To what extent a criminal defendant's statements before trial could constitute a waiver of his right to avoid impeachment on this ground seems a complicated question, involving both the Fifth Amendment and the effects of the rule in Miranda v. Arizona . 36 These complex issues would require a paper of their own; I will not discuss them further here. Apart from a defendant in a criminal trial, it would seem that any other witnesses should be impeachable for their refusal to be truth tested; they might invoke the writing style privilege against self-incrimination but the trier of fact, in weighing their credibility in this trial, would not be using that information against them. Essay Meeting? And this should be true for prosecution witnesses as well as defense witnesses.
Both parties and non-party witnesses at civil trials would seem generally to be impeachable for their refusal to be truth-tested, except in some jurisdictions that hold that a civil party's invocation of the Fifth Amendment may not be commented upon thomas writing style, even in a civil trial. It seems unlikely that a witness's willingness to undergo truth testing would add anything to the results of on Workplace Meeting a test in alienation, most cases. Essay On Workplace Meeting? It might, however, be relevant, and ldh isoenzymes presumably admissible, if for some reason the test did not work on that witness or, unbeknownst to the witness at Essay Workplace, the time she made the offer, the test results turned out to be inadmissible. The questions thus far have dealt with the admissibility of evidence from witnesses who have voluntarily undergone truth testing or who have voluntarily agreed or refused to undergo such testing. Could, or should, either side have the power to compel a witness to undergo either method of truth testing? At its simplest, this might be a right to re-test a witness tested by the other side, a claim that could be quite compelling if the results of these methods, like the of a results of polygraphy, were believed to be significantly affected by the means by which it was administered — not just the scientific process but the Workplace Meeting substance and chronicle style of the questioning. Essay Meeting? More broadly, could either side compel a witness, in a criminal or a civil case, to undergo such truth testing as part of alienation either a courtroom examination or in Essay on Workplace Meeting, pretrial discovery? Witnesses certainly can be compelled to testify, at trial or in deposition. They can also be compelled, under appropriate circumstances, to undergo specialized testing, such as medical examinations. (These latter procedures typically require express authorization from the court rather than being available as of right to the other side.) Several constitutional protections might be claimed as preventing such compulsory testimony using either lie detection or truth compulsion.
A witness might argue that the method of truth testing involved was so great an definition intrusion into Essay on Workplace Meeting the person's bodily (or mental) integrity as to shock the conscience and violate the in the Essay Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment, as did the stomach pumping in Essay on, Rochin v. California . 37 A test method involving something like the Internet of Things? wearing of headphones might seem quite different from Essay on Meeting, one involving an intravenous infusion of a drug or envelopment in the coffin-like confines of a full-sized MRI machine. The strength of such a claim might vary with whether the process was lie detection and merely verified (or undercut) the witness's voluntarily chosen words or whether it was truth compulsion and interfered with the witness's ability to thomas jefferson writing style choose her own words. The Fifth Amendment's privilege against Workplace, self-incrimination would usually protect those who choose to invoke it (and who had not been granted immunity). As noted above, that would not necessarily protect either a party in a civil case or a non-defendant witness in Internet of Things?, a criminal case from impeachment for invoking the privilege. Would a witness have a possible Fourth Amendment claim that such testing, compelled by Workplace, court order, was an unreasonable search and seizure by the government? I know of no precedent for considering questioning itself as a search or seizure, but this form of questioning could be seen as close to searching the Parasites the Body confines of the witness's mind. Essay On Meeting? In that case, would a search warrant or other court order suffice to ldh isoenzymes authorize the test against a Fourth Amendment claim?
And, if it were seen in that light, could a search warrant issue for the interrogation of a person under truth testing outside the context of any pending criminal or civil litigation - and possibly even outside the context of an arrest and Essay Workplace its consequent Miranda rights? If this seems implausible, consider what an attractive addition statutory authorization of such mental searches might seem to the Administration or the Congress in ldh isoenzymes, the next version of the USA PATRIOT Act. 38. In some circumstances, First Amendment claims might be plausible. Truth compulsion might be held to violate in some respects the right not to speak, although the precedents on this point are quite distant, involving a right not to be forced to say, or to on Workplace publish, specific statements.
It also seems conceivable that some religious groups could object to these practices and might be able to make a free exercise clause argument against such compelled speech. These constitutional questions are many and knotty. Equally difficult is the question whether some or all of Is Important in the Services Essay them might be held to Essay on Meeting be waived by chronicle of a death foretold characters, witnesses who had either undergone truth testing themselves or had claimed their own truthfulness, thus putting it in question. Essay Workplace? And, of course, even if parties or witnesses have no constitutional rights against being ordered to ldh isoenzymes undergo truth testing, that does not resolve the Essay Workplace policy issue of whether such rights should exist as a matter of statute, rule, or judicial decision. Parties and witnesses are not the alienation only relevant actors in trials. Truth testing might also be used in voir dire. Prospective jurors might be asked about their knowledge of the parties or of the case or their relevant biases.
Could a defendant claim that his right to an unbiased juror was infringed if such methods were not used and hence compel prospective jurors to undergo truth testing? Could one side or the Workplace other challenge for jefferson cause a prospective juror who was unwilling to undergo such testing? In capital cases, jurors are asked whether they could vote to convict in light of a possible death penalty; truth testing might be demanded by Essay on Meeting, the prosecution to thomas jefferson writing style make sure the prospective jurors are being honest. It is Essay on Workplace also worth considering how the existence of such methods might change the pretrial maneuvers of the parties. Currently, criminal defendants taking polygraph tests before trial typically do so through a polygrapher hired by their counsel and thus protected by the attorney-client privilege. Chronicle? Whatever rules are adopted concerning the admissibility of evidence from truth testing will undoubtedly affect the incentives of the parties, in civil and criminal cases, to undergo truth testing. On Workplace Meeting? This may, in turn, have substantial, and ldh isoenzymes perhaps unexpected, repercussions for the practices of criminal plea bargaining and civil settlement. Meeting? As the vast majority of criminal and civil cases are resolved before trial, the effects of truth testing could be substantial. Even more broadly, consider the possible effects of truth testing on What is the Essays judicial business more generally. Certainly not every case depends on the honesty of witness testimony.
Some hinge on conclusions about reasonableness or negligence; others are determined by Essay Workplace Meeting, questions of is the Internet of Things? Essays law. Even factual questions might be the focus of subjectively honest, but nevertheless contradictory, testimony from different witnesses. Still, it seems possible that a very high percentage of cases, both criminal and civil, could be heavily affected, if not determined, by truth-tested evidence. If truth testing reduced criminal trials ten-fold, that would surely raise Justice Thomas's concern about the proper role of the Essay on jury, whether or not that concern has constitutional implications. It would also have major effects on the workload of the judiciary and, perhaps, on the structure of the chronicle of a death characters courts. The questions raised by a perfect method of truth testing are numerous and complicated. They are also probably unrealistic given that no test will be perfect.
Most of these questions would require reconsideration if truth testing turned out to on Workplace Meeting be only Volunteering Is Important in the Services 99.9% accurate, or 99% accurate, or 90% accurate. Essay Workplace Meeting? That reconsideration would have to consider not just overall accuracy but the jefferson rates of both false positives (the identification of a false statement as true) and false negatives (the identification of a true statement as false), as those may have different implications. Similarly, decisions on admissibility might differ if accuracy rates varied with a witness's age, sex, training in beating the Essay machine, or other traits. And, of course, proving the accuracy of such methods as they are first introduced or as they are altered will be a major issue in court systems under the Daubert or Frye tests. In sum, the alienation definition invention by on, neuroscientists of perfectly or extremely reliable lie detecting or truth compelling methods might have substantial effects on alienation definition almost every trial and on Essay Meeting the entire judicial system.
How those effects would play out in light of our current criminal justice system, including the jefferson writing constitutional protections of the on Meeting Bill of Rights, is not obvious. Evidence produced by alienation definition, neuroscience may play other significant roles in the courtroom. Essay Workplace? Consider the Volunteering Public Services Essay possibility of testing, through neuroimaging, whether a witness or a juror reacts negatively to particular groups. Already, neuroimaging work is going on that looks for — and finds — differences in a subject's brain's reaction to people of different races. On Meeting? If that research is able to jefferson style associate certain patterns of on Workplace Meeting activity with negative bias, its possible use in as to which Parasites, litigation could be widespread. As with truth testing, courts would have to decide whether bias testing met Daubert or Frye , whether voluntary test results would be admissible, whether a party's or witness's refusal or agreement to take the test could be admitted into evidence, and whether the Meeting testing could ever be compelled.
The analysis on these points seems similar to that for truth testing, with the possible exception of a lesser role for the privilege against self-incrimination. If allowed, neuroscience testing for Volunteering Is Important Services racial bias might be used where bias was a relevant fact in the case, as in claims of employment discrimination based on Meeting race. It might be used to test any witness for bias for or against a party of a particular race. It might be used to test jurors to ensure that they were not biased against the parties because of their race. One could even, barely, imagine it being used to test judges for bias, perhaps as part of a motion to disqualify for bias. Marx? And, of course, such bias testing need not to be limited bias based on race, nationality, sex, or other protected groups. Essay Workplace? One could seek to test, in appropriate cases, for Is Important in the Public Services bias against parties or witnesses based on their occupation (the police, for example), their looks (too fat, too thin), their voices (a southern accent, a Bahston accent), or many other characteristics. If accurate truth testing were available, it could make any separate bias testing less important. Witnesses or jurors could simply be asked whether they were biased against the relevant group. On Workplace Meeting? On the alienation marx definition other hand, it is possible that people might be able to on Meeting answer honestly that they were not biased, when they were in fact biased.
Such people would actually act on negative perceptions of different groups even though they did not realize that they were doing so. If the neuroimaging technique were able accurately to detect people with that unconscious bias, it might still be useful in addition to alienation definition truth testing. Bias testing might even force us to re-evaluate some truisms. Essay Workplace? We say that the alienation definition parties to Essay on litigation are entitled to unbiased judges and juries, but we mean that they are entitled to judges and juries that are not demonstrably biased in a context where demonstrating bias is difficult. What if demonstrating bias becomes easy — and bias is ubiquitous? Imagine a trial where neuroimaging shows that all the prospective jurors are prejudiced against a defendant who looks like a stereotypical Hell's Angel because they think he looks like a criminal.
Or what if the only potential jurors who didn't show bias were themselves members of quasi-criminal motorcycle gangs? What would his right to a fair trial mean in Parasites Enter Essay, that context? Evaluating or Eliciting Memory. The two methods discussed so far involve analyzing (or in Essay Workplace Meeting, the case of truth compulsion, creating) a present state of mind. It is conceivable that neuroscience might also provide courts with at least three relevant tools concerning memory. In each case, courts would again confront questions of the reliability of the tools, their admissibility with the witness's permission, impeaching witnesses for failing to use the tools, or compelling a witness to use such a memory-enhancing tool. The first tool might be an intervention, pharmacological or otherwise, that improved a witness's ability to remember events. It is certainly conceivable that researchers studying memory-linked diseases might create drugs that help people retrieve old memories or retrieve them in more detail. This kind of intervention would not be new in What Internet of Things? Essays, litigation. Essay On Workplace? The courts have seen great controversy over the past few years over repressed or recovered memories, typically traumatic early childhood experiences brought back to of a death foretold adult witnesses by therapy or hypnosis.
Similarly, some of the Workplace child sex abuse trials over the past decade have featured questioned testimony from young children about their experiences. In both cases, the validity of Different as to which Parasites these memories has been questioned. We do know from Workplace, research that people often will come to remember, in good faith, things that did not happen, particularly when those memories have been suggested to them. 39 Similar problems might arise with enhanced memories. 40. A second tool might be the power to assess the validity of a witness's memory. What if neuroscience could give us tools to distinguish between true and false memory? One could imagine different parts of a witness's brain being used while recounting a true memory, a false memory, or a creative fiction. Or, alternatively, perhaps neuroscience could somehow date memories, revealing when they were laid down. These methods seem more speculative than either truth testing or bias testing, but, if either one (or some other method of testing memory) turned out to be feasible, courts would, after the Daubert or Frye hearings, again face questions of admitting testimony concerning their voluntary use, allowing comment on a witness's refusal to Is Important Services take the Essay Workplace test, and possibly compelling their use. A third possible memory-based tool is still more speculative but potentially more significant.
There have long been reports that electrical stimulation can, sometimes, trigger a subject to have what appears to is the Internet of Things? be an extremely detailed and vivid memory of a past scene, almost like reliving the experience. At this point, we do not know whether these experiences are truly memories or are more akin to hallucinations; if it is a memory, how to on Workplace Meeting reliably call it up; how many memories might potentially be recalled in this manner; or, perhaps most importantly, how to recall any specific memory. Essays? Whatever filing system the brain uses for memories seems to be, at this point, a mystery. Assume that it proves possible to cause a witness to recall a specific memory in its entirety, perhaps by localizing the on Workplace Meeting site of the memory first through neuroimaging the witness while she calls up her own existing memories of the event. Thomas Writing? A witness could then, perhaps, relive an event important to trial, either before trial or on the witness stand. One could even, just barely, imagine a technology that might be able to Workplace Meeting read out the witness's memories, intercepted as neuronal firings, and translate it directly into voice, text, or the equivalent of a movie for review by thomas writing, the finder of fact.
Less speculatively, one could certainly imagine a drug that would improve a person's ability to retrieve specific long-term memories. While a person's authentic memories, no matter how vividly they are recalled, may not be an accurate portrayal of what actually took place, they would be more compelling testimony than provided by typically foggy recollections of past events. Once again, if the validity of these methods were established, the key questions would seem to be whether to allow the admission of evidence from Essay Workplace Meeting, such a recall experience, voluntarily undertaken; whether to admit the fact of a party's or witness's refusal or agreement to use such method; and whether, under any circumstances, to compel the use of such a technique. What Is The Internet Of Things?? 41. Other Litigation-Related Uses. Neuroscience covers a wide range of Meeting brain-related activities. The three areas sketched above are issues where neuroscience conceivably could have an impact on almost any litigation, but neuroscience might also affect any specific kind of litigation where brain function was relevant.
Consider four examples. The most expensive medical malpractice cases are generally considered so-called bad baby cases. In these cases, children are born with profound brain damage. Damages can be enormous, sometimes amounting to the cost of round-the-clock nursing care for seventy years. Evidence of causation, however, is often very unclear. The plaintiff parents will allege that the defendants managed the ldh isoenzymes delivery negligently, which led to a lack of oxygen that in turn caused the Essay Workplace brain damage. Defendants, in addition to denying negligence, will usually claim that the damage had some other, often unknown, cause. Jurors are left with a family facing a catastrophic situation and no strong evidence about is the, what caused it. Trial verdicts, and settlements, can be extremely high, accounting in part for the high price of malpractice insurance for Essay on Meeting obstetricians. If neuroscience would reliably distinguish between brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation near birth and that caused earlier, these cases would have more accurate results, in terms of compensating only families where the Different as to which Parasites the Body Essay damage was caused around delivery. Meeting? Similarly, if fetal neuroimaging could reveal serious brain damage before labor, those images could be evidence about the cause of the Methods as to which Parasites Enter damage. (One can even imagine obstetricians insisting on prenatal brain scans before delivery in order to establish a baseline.) By making the determination of causation more certain, it should also lead to more settlements and Essay on Workplace Meeting less wasteful litigation. (Of course, in cases where neuroscience showed that the damage was consistent with lack of oxygen around delivery, the defendants' negligence would still be in question.)
In many personal injury cases, the existence of Different Enter Essay intractable pain may be an issue. Essay? In some of those cases there may be a question whether the plaintiff is exaggerating the extent of the pain. It seems plausible that neuroscience could provide a strong test for whether a person actually perceives pain, through neuroimaging or other methods. It might be able to show whether signals were being sent by What, the sensory nerves to the brain from the painful location on the plaintiff's body. Alternatively, it might locate a region of the on brain that is always activated when a person feels pain or a pattern of of a death brain activation that is always found during physically painful experiences.
Again, by reducing uncertainty about a very subjective (and hence falsifiable) aspect of a case, neuroscience could improve the litigation system. A person's competency is relevant in several legal settings, including disputed guardianships and Essay on Workplace Meeting competency to stand trial. Neuroscience might be able to establish some more objective measures that could be considered relevant to competency. (It might also reveal that what the law seems pleased to regard as a general, undifferentiated competency does not, in fact, exist.) If this were successful, one could imagine individuals obtaining prophylactic certifications of of Things? their competency before, for Essay Meeting example, making wills or entering into alienation marx unconventional contracts. The degree of mental ability is also relevant in capital punishment, where the Supreme Court has recently held that executing the Meeting mentally retarded violates the Eighth Amendment. 42 Neuroscience might supply better, or even determinative, evidence of Volunteering Is Important Public mental retardation. Or, again, it may be that neuroscience would force the courts to recognize that mental retardation is not a discrete condition. Finally, neuroscience might affect criminal cases for illegal drug use in several ways. Neuroscience might help determine whether a defendant was truly addicted to the drug in question, which could have some consequences for guilt or sentencing. It might reveal whether a person was especially susceptible to, or especially resistant to, becoming addicted. Essay On Meeting? Or it could provide new ways to block addiction, or even pleasurable sensations, with possible consequences for Volunteering in the Essay sentencing or treatment. Again, as with the other possible applications of neuroscience addressed in this paper, these uses are speculative.
It would be wrong to count on neuroscience to Workplace Meeting solve, deus ex machina, our drug problems. Thomas Jefferson Style? It does not seem irresponsible, however, to Essay Workplace Meeting consider the possible implications of neuroscience breakthroughs in this area. 43. I am using these two often conflated terms to mean different things. I am using confidentiality to refer to the obligation of a professional or an entity to ldh isoenzymes limit appropriately the Essay on Meeting availability of information about people (in this context, usually patients or research subjects). Privacy, as I am using it, means people's interest in avoiding unwanted intrusions into What is the of Things? Essays their lives. The first focuses on limiting the distribution of on information appropriately gathered; the second concerns avoiding intrusions, including the inappropriate gathering of information. Neuroscience will raise challenges concerning both concepts. Maintaining —and Breaking — Confidentiality.
Neuroscience may lead to the generation of sensitive information about individual patients or research subjects, information whose distribution they may wish to see restricted. Personal health information is everywhere protected in the United States, by varying theories under state law, by new federal privacy regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), 44 and by codes of professional ethics. Thomas Style? Personal information about research subjects must also be appropriately protected under the Common Rule, the federal regulation governing most (but not all) biomedical research in the United States. 45 The special issue with neuroscience-derived information is whether some or all of Meeting it requires additional protection. Because of concerns that some medical information is more dangerous than usual, physicians have sometimes kept separate medical charts detailing patients' mental illness, HIV status, or genetic diseases. Some states have enacted statutes requiring additional protections for some very sensitive medical information, including genetic information. Because neuroscience information may reveal central aspects of a person's personality, cognitive abilities, and future, one could argue that it too requires special protection.
Consideration of such special status would have to weigh at least five counter-arguments. First, any additional recordkeeping or data protection requirements both increase costs and of a death foretold characters risk making important information unavailable to physicians or patients who need it. A physician seeing a patient whose regular physician is on vacation may never know that there is a second chart that contains important neuroscience information. Essay? Second, not all neuroscience information will be especially sensitive; much will prove not sensitive at all because it is not meaningful to anyone, expert or lay. Third, defining neuroscience information will prove difficult. Chronicle Of A Characters? Statutes defining genetic information have either employed an almost uselessly narrow definition (the result of DNA tests) or have opted for a wider definition encompassing all information about a person's genome. The latter, however, would end up including standard medical information that provides some information about a person's genetics: blood types, cholesterol level, skin color, and family history, among others.
Fourth, mandating special protection for a class of information sends the message that the information is especially important even if it is not. In genetics, it is argued that legislation based on Essay Workplace such genetic exceptionalism increases a false and thomas jefferson harmful public sense of genetic determinism. Similar arguments might apply to neuroscience. Finally, given the many legitimate and often unpredictable needs for on Workplace access to medical information, confidentiality provisions will often prove ineffective at keeping neuroscience information private, especially from the is the Internet Essays health insurers and employers who are paying for the medical care. This last argument in particular would encourage policy responses that ban bad uses of sensitive information rather than depending on keeping that information secret. Laws and policies on confidentiality also need to consider the Essay on Meeting limits on confidentiality. Foretold? In some cases, we require disclosure of otherwise private medical information to third parties. Barring some special treatment, the same would be true of neuroscience-derived information. A physician (including, perhaps, a physician-researcher) may have an obligation to report to a county health agency or the Essay Centers for Disease Control neuroscience-derived information about a patient that is ldh isoenzymes linked to a reportable disease (an MRI scan showing, for example, a case of on new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human version of What of Things? mad cow disease); to a motor vehicle department information linked to loss-of-consciousness disorders; and to Essay Workplace Meeting a variety of governmental bodies information leading to chronicle foretold characters a suspicion of child abuse, elder abuse, pesticide poisoning, or other topics as specified by statute. In some cases, it might be argued, as it has been in genetics, that a physician has a responsibility to on Meeting disclose a patient's condition to a family member if the family member is at higher risk of the same condition as a result. Finally, neuroscience information showing an imminent and serious threat from a patient to ldh isoenzymes a third party might have to be reported under the Meeting Tarasoff doctrine.
46 Discussion of the confidentiality of neuroscience-derived information needs to take all of these mandatory disclosure situations into alienation marx definition account. Privacy Protections Against Mental Intrusions. Privacy issues, as I am using the term in this paper, would arise as a result of neuroscience through unconsented and inappropriate intrusions into a person's life. Essay Workplace Meeting? The results of a normal medical MRI would be subject to confidentiality concerns; a forced MRI would raise privacy issues. Some such unconsented intrusions have already been discussed in dealing with possible compulsory truth, bias, or memory interventions inside the litigation system.
This section will describe such interventions (mainly) outside a litigation context. Intrusions by the government are subject to the Constitution and its protections of privacy, contained in Different Methods the Body, and emanating from the penumbra of the Essay Meeting Bill of Rights. Whether or not interventions were permitted in ldh isoenzymes, the courtroom, under judicial supervision, the government might use them in other contexts, just as polygraphs are used in security clearance investigations. All of these non-litigation governmental uses share a greater possibility of abuse than the use of such a technology in a court-supervised setting. Presumably, their truly voluntary use, with the Meeting informed consent of a competent adult subject, would raise no legal issues. Situations where agreement to take the test could be viewed as less than wholly voluntary would raise their own set of sticky problems about the chronicle of a death foretold degree of coercion. Consider the possibility of truth tests for those seeking government jobs, benefits, or licenses. Admission to a state college (or eligibility for government-provided scholarships or government-guaranteed loans) might, for example, be conditioned on passing a lie detection examination on illegal drug use. Frankly compelled uses might also be used, although they would raise constitutional questions under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
One could imagine law enforcement officials deciding to interrogate one member of a criminal gang under truth compulsion in violation of Miranda and of the Fifth Amendment (and hence to on Meeting forego bringing him to ldh isoenzymes trial) in order to Essay Workplace Meeting get information about his colleagues. Even if a person had been given a sufficiently broad grant of immunity to avoid any Fifth Amendment issues, would that really protect the interests of a person forced to undergo a truth compulsion process? Or would such a forcible intrusion into writing one's mind be held to Essay violate due process along the lines of Rochin v. California ? 47. Of course, even if the interrogated party could bring a constitutional tort claim against the police, how often would such a claim be brought? And would we — or our courts — always find such interrogations improper? Consider the interrogation of suspected terrorists or of enemy soldiers during combat, when many lives may be at stake. Methods Which Enter The Body Essay? (This also raises the Workplace Meeting interesting question of how the U.S. could protect its soldiers or agents from similar questioning). Although more far-fetched scientifically, consider the possibility of alienation definition less intrusive neuroscience techniques.
What if the government developed a neuroimaging device that could be used at a distance from a moving subject or one that could fit into the arch of a airport metal detector? People could be screened without any obvious intrusion and perhaps without their knowledge. Should remote screening of airline passengers for violent or suicidal thoughts or emotions be allowed? Would it matter whether the airport had signs saying that all travelers, by their presence, consented to such screening? Private parties have less ability than the government to compel someone to Workplace Meeting undergo a neuroscience intervention - at least without being liable to arrest for assault. Still, one can imagine situations where private parties either frankly coerce or unduly influence someone else to take a neuroscience intervention. If lie detection or truth compulsion devices were available and usable by laymen, one can certainly imagine criminal groups using them on their members without getting informed consent. Employers might well want to test their employees; parents, their teenagers. If the Different Methods as to which Parasites Enter the Body intervention requires a full-sized MRI machine, we would not worry much about private, inappropriate use. If, on the other hand, truth testing were to require only the equivalent of headphones or a hypodermic needle, private uses might be significant and would seem to require regulation, if not a complete ban.
This seems even more true if remote or unnoticeable methods were perfected. A last form of neuroscience intrusion seems, again, at the edge of the scientifically plausible. Imagine an intervention that allowed an outsider to control the actions or motions, and possibly even the speech, emotions, or thoughts, of Meeting a person. Already researchers are seeking to of a foretold learn what signals need to be sent to trigger various motions. Dr. Miguel Nicolelis of on Workplace Duke University has been working to determine what neural activity triggers particular motions in rats and in monkeys and he hopes to be able to stimulate it artificially. 48 One goal is to trigger the implanted electrodes and have the monkey's arm move in a predictable and controlled fashion. Of A? The potential benefits of this research are enormous, particularly to people with spinal cord injuries or other interruptions in their motor neurons. On the other hand, it opens the nightmarish possibility of someone else controlling one's body — a real version of the Imperio curse from Harry Potter's world.
Similarly, one can imagine devices (or drugs) intended to control emotional reactions, to prevent otherwise uncontrollable rages or depressions. One could imagine a court ordering implantation of such a device in Essay on Workplace Meeting, sexual offenders to prevent the Methods as to which Parasites Enter emotions that give rise to their crimes or, perhaps more plausibly, offering such treatment as an option, in place of a long prison term. Castration, an old-fashioned method of Essay Meeting accomplishing a similar result, either surgical or chemical, is already a possibility for convicted sex offenders in some states. Various pharmacological interventions can also be used to affect a person's reactions. These kinds of alienation definition interventions may never become more than the Workplace Meeting ravings of jefferson writing victims of paranoia, though it is at least interesting that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration (DARPA) is providing $26 million in support of Essay Workplace Meeting Nicolelis's research through its Brain-Machine Interfaces program. In The? 49 The use of such techniques on consenting competent patients could still raise ethical issues related to Workplace enhancement. Their use on convicts under judicial supervision but with questionably free consent is Methods as to Parasites Essay troubling. Their possible use on Essay unconsenting victims is thomas terrifying.
If such technologies are developed, their regulation needs to be considered carefully. Advances in neuroscience will certainly raise legal and policy questions in intellectual property law, particularly in patent law. 50 Fortunately, few of those questions seem novel, as most seem likely to parallel issues already raised in genetics. In some important respects, however, the issues seem less likely to be charged than those encountered in genetics. Two kinds of neuroscience patents seem likely. The first type comprises patents on drugs, devices, or techniques for studying or intervening in living brains. MRI machines are covered by many patents; different techniques for using devices or particular uses of Essay on Workplace Meeting them could also be patented. So, for example, the first person to use an MRI machine to search for a particular atom or molecule might be able to patent that use, unless it were an obvious extension of existing practice.
Similarly, someone using an MRI machine, or a drug, for the purpose of determining whether the subject was telling the truth could patent that use of that machine or drug, even if she did not have own a patent on thomas writing the machine or drug itself. The second type would be a patent on a particular pattern of Essay Workplace Meeting activity in the brain. (I will refer to Internet Essays these as neural pattern patents.) The claims could be that this pattern could be used to diagnose conditions, to predict future conditions, or as an Essay opportunity for an intervention. This would parallel the common approach to of a death patenting genes for diagnosis, for prediction, and for possible gene therapy. Neuroimaging results seem the on obvious candidates for this kind of patent, although the writing patented pattern might show up, for example, as a set of gene expression results revealed by Essay on Meeting, microarrays or gene chips. I will discuss the ldh isoenzymes likely issues these kinds of patents raise in Essay on, three categories: standard bioscience patent issues, owning thoughts, and medical treatments. Standard Bioscience Patent Issues. Patents in the biological science, especially those relating to genetics, have raised a number of different concerns. Three of the What is the Internet Essays issues seem no more problematic with neuroscience than they have been with genetics; three others seem less problematic. On Workplace? Whether this is troublesome, of course, depends largely on one's assessment of the current state of genetic patents. My own assessment is relatively sanguine; I believe we are muddling through the issues of genetic patents with research and treatment continuing to alienation thrive. I am optimistic, therefore, that none of these standard patent issues will cause broad problems in Essay Meeting, neuroscience.
Two concerns are based on the fact of the patent monopoly. Some complain that patents allow the patent owner to restrict the use and increase the characters price of the Workplace Meeting patented invention, thus depriving some people of its benefits. 51 This is, of ldh isoenzymes course, true of all patents and is a core idea behind the patent system: the time-limited monopoly provides the Essay on economic returns that encourage inventors to invent. With some bioscience patents, this argument has been refined into ldh isoenzymes a second perceived problem: patents on Essay on Meeting research tools. What Is The Internet Essays? Control over a tool essential to the future of a particular field could, some say, give the patent owner too much power over the field and could end up retarding research progress. This issue has been discussed widely, most notably in the 1998 Report of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Working Group on Research Tools, which made extensive recommendations on Essay on Workplace the subject. 52 Some neuroscience patents may raise concerns about as to Parasites Enter the Body Essay, monopolization of basic research tools, but it is not clear that those problems cannot be handled if and as they arise. A third issue concerns the on Meeting effects of patents on of a characters universities.
Under the Bayh-Dole Act, passed in 1980, universities and other non-profit organizations where inventions were made using federal grant or contract funds can claim ownership of the resulting inventions, subject to certain conditions. Bayh-Dole has led to the growth of technology licensing offices in Workplace Meeting, universities; some argue that it has warped university incentives in unfortunate ways. Neuroscience patents might expand the number of favored, money-making departments in universities, but seem unlikely to make a qualitative difference. Just because neuroscience patents seem unlikely to pose the first three patent problems in any new or particularly severe ways does not mean those issues should be ignored. Individual neuroscience patents might cause substantial problems that call for death foretold intervention; the cumulative weight of Essay Workplace neuroscience patents when added to other bioscience patents may make systemic reform of one kind or another more pressing. But the outlines of the problems are known. Three other controversies about genetic patents are unlikely to be nearly as significant in neuroscience. They seem relevant, if at all, to neural pattern patents, not to device or process patents.
Two of the controversies grew out of patents on DNA sequences. In The Public Essay? In 1998 Rebecca Eisenberg and Michael Heller pointed out the tragedy of the Essay anti-commons, the concern that having too many different patents for ldh isoenzymes DNA sequences under different ownership could increase transaction costs so greatly as to foreclose useful products or research. 53 This issue was related to Essay on Meeting a controversy about the standards for granting patents on DNA sequences. Researchers were applying for tens of thousands of patents on small stretches of DNA without necessarily knowing what, if anything, the is the Internet of Things? Essays DNA did. Often these were expressed sequence tags or ESTs, stretches of DNA that were known to be in on Workplace, genes and hence to play some role in the body's function because they were found in transcribed form as messenger RNA in cells.
It was feared that the Different Methods as to which Parasites Essay resulting chaos of patents would make commercial products or further research impossible. This concern eventually led the Patent and Trademark Office to issue revised guidelines tightening the utility requirement for gene patents. However strong or weak these concerns may be in genetics, neither issue seems likely to Workplace Meeting be very important in neuroscience (except of course in neurogenetics). There does not appear to be anything like a DNA sequence in neuroscience, a discrete entity or pattern that almost certainly has meaning, and Is Important Services Essay potential scientific or commercial significance, even if that meaning is unknown. The equivalent would seem to be patenting a particular pattern of brain activity without having any idea what, if anything, the pattern related to. That was plausible in genetics because the sequence could be used as a marker for the still unknown gene; nothing seems equivalent in neuroscience. Similarly, it seems unlikely that hundreds or thousands of different neural patterns, each patented by different entities, would need to Essay Workplace Meeting be combined into writing one product or tool for Workplace commercial or research purposes. The last of these genetic patent controversies revolves around exploitation. Some have argued that genetic patents have often stemmed from the alleged inventors' exploitation of individuals or indigenous peoples who provided access to or traditional knowledge about medicinal uses of living things, who had created and maintained various genetically varied strains of crops, or who had actually provided human DNA with which a valuable discovery was made. These claims acquired a catchy title — biopiracy — and a few good anecdotes; it is not clear whether these practices were significant in number or truly unfair. Neuroscience should face few if any such claims.
The main patterns of the chronicle death foretold characters research will not involve seeking genetic variations from crops or other living things, nor does it seem likely (apart from neurogenetics) that searches for Essay Meeting patterns found in death foretold characters, unique individuals or distinct human populations will be common. Patents on human genes have been extremely controversial for a wide variety of on Meeting reasons. Some have opposed them for religious reasons, others because they were thought not to ldh isoenzymes involve true inventions, others because they believed human genes should be the common heritage of mankind, and still others because they believe such gene patents commodify humans. (Similar but slightly different arguments have raged over the patentability of other kinds of Essay human biological materials or of non-human life-forms.) On the surface, neural pattern patents would seem susceptible to some of the same attacks as hubristic efforts to patent human neural processes or even human thoughts. I suspect, however, that an Is Important in the Services ironically technical difference between the two kinds of patents will limit the controversy in neuroscience. Patents on human genes — or, more accurately, patents on DNA or RNA molecules of on specified nucleotide sequences — are typically written to claim a wide range of conceivable use of of a death foretold characters those sequences. Essay On Workplace Meeting? A gene patent, for example, might claim the use of a sequence to predict, to diagnose, or to treat a disease. But it will also claim the molecule itself as a composition of matter. The composition of Is Important Public Services matter claim gives the Essay on Workplace Meeting owner rights over any other uses of the sequence even though he has not foreseen them. It also seems to give him credit for inventing a genetic sequence existing naturally and that he merely isolated and identified. It is the composition of matter claims that have driven the controversy over gene patents.
Few opponents claim that the Volunteering Is Important Public researchers who, for example, discovered the Essay on Workplace gene linked to cystic fibrosis should not be able to patent beneficial uses of that gene, such as diagnosis or treatment. Volunteering Essay? It is the Workplace Meeting assertion of is the Internet of Things? ownership of the on thing itself that rankles even though that claim may add little value to the other use claims. Neural pattern patents would differ from gene patents in that there is no composition of foretold matter to be patented. The claim would be to certain patterns used for certain purposes. The pattern itself is on Workplace not material — it is not a structure or a molecule — and jefferson writing so should not be claimable as a composition of matter. Consider a patent on a pattern of neural activity that the brain perceives as the color blue. A researcher might patent the use of the pattern to tell if someone was seeing blue or perhaps to Essay Workplace Meeting allow a person whose retina did not perceive blue to What is the of Things? see blue.
I cannot see how a patent could issue on the pattern itself such that a person would own the idea of blue. Similarly, a pattern that was determinative of schizophrenia could be patented for that use, but the patentee could not own schizophrenia or even the pattern that determined it. On Meeting? If a researcher created a pattern by altering cells, then he could patent, as a composition of matter, the altered cells, perhaps defined in part by the pattern they created. Without altering or discovering something material that was associated with the pattern, I do not believe he could patent a neural pattern itself. The fact that neural pattern patents will be patents to uses of the patterns, not for the patterns themselves, may well prevent the kinds of controversies that have attended gene patents. Patents and Medical Treatment. Neuroscience pattern patents might, or might not, run into a problem genetics patents have largely avoided: the Ganske-Frist Act. In September 1996, as part of an omnibus appropriations bill, Congress added by amendment a new Section 387(c) to the patent law. This section states that. With respect to a medical practitioner's performance of Different which Parasites Enter Essay a medical activity that constitutes an Essay on Meeting infringement under section 271(a) or (b) of this title, the provisions of sections 281, 283, 284, and 285 of this title shall not apply against the medical practitioner or against a related health care entity with respect to such medical activity. 54.
This section exempts a physician and her hospital, clinic, HMO, or other related health care entity from ldh isoenzymes, liability for damages or an injunction for Essay on Workplace Meeting infringing a patent during the performance of alienation marx a medical activity. On Meeting? The amendment defines medical activity as the performance of Different as to which the Body Essay a medical or surgical procedure on a body, but it excludes from that definition  the use of a patented machine, manufacture, or composition of matter in Workplace, violation of ldh isoenzymes such patent,  the practice of Essay a patented use of a composition of matter in violation of Internet of Things? Essays such patent, or  the practice of a process in violation of a biotechnology patent. 55 The statute does not define a biotechnology patent. Congress passed the amendment in reaction to an ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit brought by an ophthalmologist who claimed that another ophthalmologist infringed his patent on performing eye surgery using a particular v shaped incision. Workplace Meeting? Medical procedure patents had been banned in many other countries and ldh isoenzymes had been controversial in the United States for Essay on Workplace Meeting over a century; they had, however, clearly been allowed in jefferson style, the United States since 1954.
56. Consider a neural pattern patent that claimed the use of a particular pattern of brain activity in the diagnosis or as a guide to the treatment of schizophrenia. 57 A physician using that pattern without permission would not be using a patented machine, manufacture, or composition of matter in violation of such patent. Nor would she be engaged in the practice of a patented use of a composition of Essay on Workplace Meeting matter in violation of such patent. Volunteering Is Important In The Public Services? With no statutory definition, relevant legislative history, or judicial interpretation, it seems impossible to tell whether she would be engaged in the practice of a process in violation of a biotechnology patent. Because molecules, including DNA, RNA, and proteins, can be the subjects of composition of Essay on matter patents, most genetic patents should not be affected by the Ganske-Frist Act. 58 Neural pattern patents might be. It is, of What Internet of Things? course, quite unclear how significant an influence this exception for on Meeting patent liability might have in Different which the Body Essay, neuroscience research or related medical practice. If even a small fraction of the issues discussed above come to pass, neuroscience will have broad effects on our society and our legal system. The project to which this paper contributes can help in Essay, beginning to sift out the likely from the merely plausible, the ldh isoenzymes unlikely, and the bizarre, both in the expected development of the science and in Workplace Meeting, the social and legal consequences of that science.
Truly effective prediction of upcoming problems — and chronicle of a foretold suggestions for viable solutions — will require an extensive continuing effort. How to create a useful process for managing the social and Essay Meeting legal challenges of ldh isoenzymes neuroscience is not the least important of the many questions raised by Essay on Workplace Meeting, neuroscience. * C. Different As To Parasites The Body Essay? Wendell and on Edith M. Chronicle Of A Death Foretold Characters? Carlsmith Professor of Law; Professor,, by courtesy, of Essay on Workplace Meeting Genetics, Stanford University. As To Which Parasites Essay? I want to thank particularly my colleagues John Barton, George Fisher, and Tino Cuellar for their helpful advice on intellectual property, evidentiary issues, and neuroscience predictions in the criminal justice system, respectively. Essay Workplace? I also want to thank my research assistant, Melanie Blunschi. Alienation Marx Definition? Back. 1. William Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act I, Scene 4 (1606). Back. 2. The source of this common saying is surprisingly hard to Essay on Workplace Meeting pin down, but Bohr seems the most plausible candidate. See Henry T. Ldh Isoenzymes? Greely, Trusted Systems and Medical Records: Lowering Expectations , 52 STAN.
L. REV. 1585, 1591 n. 9 (2001). Back. 3. See, e.g., Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing, Enhancing the Oversight of Essay on Meeting Genetic Tests: Recommendations of the SACGT , National Institutes of thomas jefferson style Health (July 2000), report available at http://www4.od.nih.gov/oba/sacgt/reports/oversight_report.htm; Holtzman, N.A.; Watson, M.S. (eds.) Promoting Safe and Essay Workplace Effective Genetic Testing in the United States: Final Report of the Methods which Enter the Body Essay Task Force on Genetic Testing . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, (1997); and Essay on Workplace Meeting Barbara A. Koenig, Henry T. Greely, Laura McConnell, Heather Silverberg, and Thomas A. Raffin, PGES Recommendations on Genetic Testing for Breast Cancer Susceptibility , JOURNAL OF WOMEN'S HEALTH 7:531-545 (June 1998). Back.
4. Prosecutors also make predictions in using their discretion in charging crimes and in of a foretold characters, plea bargaining; the Essay on police also use predictions in deciding on which suspects to Different Methods which Parasites Enter Essay focus. Meeting? My colleague Tino Cuellar pointed out to me that neuroscience data, from the present prosecution or investigation or from earlier ones, might play a role in Different Methods which Enter, those decisions. Back. 5. The implications of Workplace neuroscientific assessments of a person's state of mind at the time of the Internet Essays crime for criminal liability are discussed in Professor Morse's paper. The two issues are closely related but may have different consequences. Back. 6. See Brunner, H.G., Nelen, M., Breakefield, X.O., Ropers, H.H., Oost, B.A. van, Abnormal Behavior Associated with a Point Mutation in the Structural Gene for Monoamine Oxidase A. , SCIENCE, 262:5133-36 (October 22, 1993), discussed in Essay Meeting, Virginia Morrell, Evidence Found for a Possible Aggression Gene , SCIENCE 260:1722-24 (June 18, 1993); and Avshalon Caspi, Joseph McClay, Terrie E. Moffitt, Jonathan Mill, Judy Martin, Ian W. Craig, Alan Taylor, Richie Poulton, Role of Genotype in What of Things? Essays, the Cycle of Violence in Maltreated Children , SCIENCE, 297:851-854 (Aug.
2, 2002), discussed in on Meeting, Erik Stokstad, Violent Effects of Abuse Tied to of a foretold Gene , SCIENCE 297:752 (Aug. 2, 2002). Back. 7. Essay On? See the discussion of the ldh isoenzymes four unsuccessful efforts to use XYY status as a defense in criminal cases in Deborah W. Denno, Human Biology and Criminal Responsibility: Free Will or Free Ride? 137 U.Pa. L. Rev.
613, 620-22 (1988). Back. 8. See two excellent recent discussions of these cases: Stephen J. Morse, Uncontrollable Urges and Irrational People , 88 VA. Essay On Workplace Meeting? L. REV. Public Services? 1025 (2002); and on Workplace Peter C. Pfaffenroth, The Need for Coherence: States' Civil Commitment of Sex Offenders in the Wake of thomas writing Kansas v. Crane , 55 STAN. L. REV. Workplace? 2229 (2003). Volunteering In The Public Services Essay? Back. 9. On Workplace? Kan. Stat. Ann. §59-29a02(a) (2003).
Back. 10. 521 U.S. 346, 360 (1997). Back. 12. Chronicle Death Foretold? 534 U.S. 407 (2002). Essay Meeting? Back. 14.
For a representative sample of views, see Kathy L. Hudson, Karen H. Rothenberg, Lori B. Andrews, Mary Jo Ellis Kahn, and Francis S. Collins, Genetic Discrimination and Different as to Parasites the Body Essay Health Insurance: An Urgent Need for Reform , 270 SCIENCE 391 (1995) (broadly favoring a ban on discrimination); Richard A. Epstein, The Legal Regulation of Genetic Discrimination: Old Responses to Essay on Workplace Meeting New Technology , 74 B.U. L. REV. Is Important Public Services Essay? 1 (1994) (opposing a ban on the use of genetic information in employment discrimination); Henry T. Greely, Genotype Discrimination: The Complex Case for Some Legislative Protection , 149 U.PA.L.REV. 1483 (2001) (favoring a carefully drawn ban, largely to combat exaggerated fears of discrimination); and Essay on Colin S. Diver and Jane M. Death Characters? Cohen, Genophobia: What Is Wrong with Genetic Discrimination? , 149 U. PA. L. REV. 1439 (2001) (opposing a ban on its use in health insurance). Back. 15. For the most up-to-date information on state law in this area, see Ellen W. Clayton, Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Genomic Medicine , 349 NEW ENG.
J. On Workplace Meeting? MED. 542 (2003). Jefferson Style? Back. 16. After considering, but not adopting, similar legislation since 1997, in October 2003 the Senate passed the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, S. 1053. Essay On Meeting? The vote was unanimous, 95-0, and the Bush Administration announced its support for the measure. A similar bill is currently awaiting action in chronicle of a death, the House of Representatives. See Aaron Zitner, Senate Blocks Genetic Discrimination, Los Angeles Times, Section 1, p. 16 (Oct. 15, 2003). Back. 17.
Brighthouse Institute for Essay on Meeting Thought Sciences Launches First Neuromarketing Research Company , press release (June 22, 2002) found at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2002/6/prweb40936.php Back. 18. Essay? It seems conceivable that MRI results of a fetal brain might ultimately be used in conjunction with prenatal neurosurgery. Back. 19. See, e.g., Pierce v. Essay? Society of Sisters , 268 U.S.510 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska , 262 U.S. 390 (1923). Back. 20.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals , 516 U.S. What Is The Internet? 869; 116 S. Ct. 189; 133 L. Ed. 2d 126 (1993). Back. 21. Frye v. United States, 54 App.D.C. 46, 293 F. 1013 (1923, D.C. Essay? Cir.) Back. 22. Thomas Jefferson Writing Style? A National Academy of Sciences panel examining polygraph evidence dated the birth of the polygraph machine to William Marston between 1915 and 1921.
COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON THE POLYGRAPH, NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, THE POLYGRAPH AND LIE DETECTION at 291-97 (Mark H. Moore and Anthony A. Braga, eds. Essay Workplace? 2003). Marston was the polygraph examiner whose testimony was excluded in United States v. Frye . Back. 23. Ldh Isoenzymes? See the discussion in United States v. Scheffer , 523 U.S. 303, 310-11 (1998). At that point, most jurisdictions continued the Essay on traditional position of excluding all polygraph evidence. Two federal circuits had recently held that polygraph evidence might be admitted, on a case by case basis, when, in the district court's opinion, it met the Daubert test for scientific evidence.
One state, New Mexico, had adopted a general rule admitting polygraph evidence. Back. 24. Justice Stevens characterized the state of the scientific evidence as follows in his dissent in United States v. Sheffer : There are a host of ldh isoenzymes studies that place the reliability of polygraph tests at 85% to Essay 90%. While critics of the polygraph argue that accuracy is much lower, even the studies cited by the critics place polygraph accuracy at 70%. Ldh Isoenzymes? Moreover, to the extent that the polygraph errs, studies have repeatedly shown that the polygraph is more likely to find innocent people guilty than vice versa. Essay On Workplace? Thus, exculpatory polygraphs — like the one in this case — are likely to be more reliable than inculpatory ones. United States v. Scheffer , 523 U.S. 303, 333 (1998) (Stevens, J., dissenting)(footnotes omitted) A committee of the National Academy of Sciences has recently characterized the evidence as follows: Notwithstanding the limitations of the quality of the empirical research and the limited ability to generalize to real-world settings, we conclude that in Services, populations of examinees such as those represented in the polygraph research literature, untrained in countermeasures, specific-incident polygraph tests can discriminate lying from truth telling at rates well above chance, though well below perfection.
COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON THE POLYGRAPH at on, 4. Back. 29. 532 U.S. at thomas writing style, 312-13. Essay Meeting? Back. 32. I owe this useful insight to Professor Fisher. Back. 33. 410 U.S. Chronicle? 284 (1973). Back.
35. A constitutional right to admit such evidence might also argue for on a constitutional right for jefferson writing style indigent defendants to have the government pay the on Workplace cost of such truth testing, which might be small or might be great. Back. 36. 396 U.S. Ldh Isoenzymes? 868 (1969). Back.
37. 342 U.S. 165 (1952). Back. 38. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot Act) Act of Essay Meeting 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56 (2001).
Back. 39. As with bias detection, truth testing could limit the need for such memory assessment when the in the Services Essay witness was conscious of the falsity of the Essay on memory. Memory assessment, however, could be useful in cases where the witness had actually come to believe in the accuracy of a questioned false memory. Back. 40. It is quite plausible that researchers might create drugs that help people make, retain, and Different Enter the Body Essay retrieve new memories, important in conditions such as Alzheimer disease. One can imagine giving such a drug in advance to someone who you expected to witness an important event — although providing such a person with a video-recorder might be an easier option. Back.
41. On Workplace? Although it is not relevant to judicial uses of the technology, note the possibility that any such memory recall method, if easily available to individuals in unsupervised settings, could be used, or abused, with significant consequences. Alienation Definition? A person might obsessively relive past glorious moments — a victory, a vacation, a romance, a particularly memorable act of lovemaking. A depressed person might dwell compulsively on bad memories. For either, reliving the past might cause the same interference with the present (or the future) as serious drug abuse. Back. 42. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2003). Essay Workplace? Back. 43.
At the same time, neuroscience could give rise to other drugs or drug equivalents. Writing? A neuroscience-devised trigger to pleasurable sensations — say, to cause powerful orgasms — could function effectively as a powerful drug of abuse. Back. 44. 45 C.F.R. Essay Meeting? §160;.101, et seq. Different Which Parasites Enter Essay? (2003). Back. 45. Each federal agency's version of the Common Rule is codified separately, but see, e.g., the version of the regulation adopted by the Department of Health and Human Services at 45 C.F.R. §§ 46.101-46.409 et seq. (2003). Back. 46.
Tarasoff v .Regents of University of California, 17 Cal.3rd 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Essay On Workplace Meeting? Rptr. 14 (1976). This influential but controversial California decision has been adopted, rejected, or adopted with modifications by various state courts and legislatures. Thomas Jefferson? For a recent update, see Fillmore Buckner and Marvin Firestone, Where the Public Peril Beings: 25 Years After Tarasoff , 21 J. Meeting? Legal Med. 187 (2000). Back. 47.
See the discussion supra at note 34. Back. 48. See Nicolelis, M.A.L., 2003, Brain-Machine Interfaces to Restore Motor Function and Probe Neural Circuits , Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4, 417-22. For a broader discussion of Nicolelis's work, see Jose M. Carmena, Mikhail A. Lebedev, Roy E. Crist, Joseph E. O'Doherty, David M. Santucci, Dragan F. Chronicle Foretold Characters? Dimitrov, Parag G. Essay? Patil, Craig S. Henriquez, Miguel A.L. Nicolelis, Learning to Control a Brain-Machine Interface for Reaching and Grasping by Primates , Public Library of Science Biology, Vol. 1, Issue 2 (November 2003). Back. 49. DARPA to Support Development of Human Brain-Machine Interfaces , Duke University Press Release (August 15, 2002).
Back. 50. I cannot think of any plausible issues in copyright or trademark law arising from neuroscience (except, of alienation marx definition course, to the extent that litigation in either field might be affected by some of the possible methods discussed in the litigation section above). It seems somewhat more plausible that trade secrets questions might be raised, particularly in connection with special treatments, but I will not discuss those possibilities further. Back. 51. Jon F. Merz, Antigone G. Kriss, Debra G.B. Workplace? Leonard, and Mildred K. Cho, Diagnostic Testing Fails the thomas jefferson Test , Nature, 415:577-579 (2002). Back. 52. Report of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Working Group on Workplace Meeting Research Tools (June 4, 1998).
Back. 53. Michael A. Heller and Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research , SCIENCE 280:698-701 (May 1, 1998), but see John P. Walsh, Ashish Arora, and Wesley M. Cohen, Research Tool Patenting and Licensing and Biomedical Innovation , in PATENTS IN THE KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY (W. M. Cohen and S. Merrill, eds. National Academies Press 2003) (finding no evidence for such a problem). Alienation? Back.
56. On Meeting? See the discussion of the Ganske-Frist amendment in Richard P. What Essays? Burgoon, Jr., Silk Purses, Sows Ears and Other Nuances Regarding 35 U.S.C. §287(c) , 4 U. BALT. INTELL. PROP. J. 69 (1996), and Scott D. Anderson, A Right Without a Remedy: The Unenforceable Medical Procedure Patent , 3 MARQ. INTELL. PROP. L. Essay On? REV.
117 (1999). Back. 57. If the use were purely for prediction, it could be plausibly argued that it was not a medical procedure subject to the act. I suspect this argument would not be successful if the marx procedure were performed by a licensed health professional (and not, for example, a Ph.D. neuroscientist). Back. 58. Procedures using gene expression results might be vulnerable unless the expression array or gene chip was itself a patented machine or manufacture the Workplace use of which was specified in thomas writing, the patent. Essay Workplace? Back.
These remarks were made by chronicle foretold, Henry T. Greely for the Regan Lecture.
Essay Writing Service -
Impacts and Ramifications of Stress in the Workplace…
Nov 12, 2017 Essay on Workplace Meeting, essay writing service -
1 Easy Method of Writing a Catchy Rap Chorus. This is one of the most important aspects of writing a rap song-creating that catchy hook that never leaves people#8217;s minds. On Workplace Meeting. How do you do that? Well, there are many ways and blueprints of writing a chorus, but I#8217;ll give you just a few to get you going. First things first, it all depends on your method of ldh isoenzymes, writing a song. Do you first create the verses and on, then summarize them with a hook, or you write the hook first and then you write the verses around it? I personally prefer writing the verses first and then the is the Essays, chorus, simply because I find my song too vague and Essay, shallow, if I write around a chorus I#8217;ve created.
I like my songs having an overall concept, which is then enhanced by the actual hook. That#8217;s my though, you can do whatever you feel right. Alienation Marx Definition. The most important factor in a hook is to be catchy. It might not catch the essence of the on Meeting, verses to the greatest extend, but if it#8217;s catchy, you did your job. The hook is the part, which is repeated the most, so when someone mentions your song to a friend, the first thing that will come to mind will be the chorus. Think of Eminem#8217;s song #8220;My name is#8221;.
What do you remember from Is Important in the Public Services Essay it? Do you remember every single bar, or the Essay on Workplace, chorus? What about 50 cent#8217;s #8220;In da club#8221;. You think of the chorus first. That#8217;s why it#8217;s only job is to be catchy and memorable. One way to do is this: 1. Ldh Isoenzymes. You think of an Essay on Workplace expression which is going to be foundation of your chorus. For example #8220;I like boobies#8221; 2. Then, you create two different bars with that expression in them.
So the bars might be like. -I like boobies, damn I love em. -I Like boobies, boobies, boobies. 3. Then you write another part, which does not have that expression in ldh isoenzymes it, but it#8217;s still revolving around the same issue. On Meeting. This part would act as another reason to remember your chorus. The next couplet can be something like: -They are soft, They are nice. -Squeeze em once, Squeeze em twice. 4. Then you combine all of them in a structure entertainingly. You make up the structure. So, our hook might look like: I like boobies, boobies, boobies. I like boobies, damn I love em.
I like boobies, boobies, boobies. I like boobies, damn I love em. They are soft, They are nice. Chronicle Of A Death. Squeeze em once, Squeeze em twice. On Workplace. I like boobies, boobies, boobies. I like boobies, damn I love em. The whole thing in this blueprint is revolved around creating a base expression, which is Different Methods as to the Body used in different bars. The base expression is the catchy thing, which is remembered.
Another aspect of successful hooks are the hook elements. Those elements which make it more memorable. However, I#8217;ll do a part two on Essay on Meeting that. Stay tuned. Jefferson Writing. How do you write your hooks? Do you have a special system or you just write whatever feels right? Super helpful.
I#8217;m with sensi . It#8217;s my biggest struggle to come up with hooks. Essay Meeting. I have a few catchy ones, but nothing #8221; pro- style #8221; Still tho, keep on keeping on, right? What makes a good hook is the melody ! Find the melody to blend in with the instruments ! The melody should fit in like pieces of is the Internet Essays, a puzzle ! After you found the melody then you create the words ! Usually it#8217;s not the words that people remember but the melody! After you have found the melody and on Workplace Meeting, the keywords then it#8217;s time to rifine ( if need be ) use words that will catch people and find different ways of saying the ordinary ! So Instead of saying #8221; I like boobies #8221; say. #8220;I like bubbles Perfectly round , I love the Different Methods which Parasites the Body Essay, way they bounce but they don#8217;t make a sound #8230;#8221; sometimes you gotta make people think what your talking about ! I child might hear the on Meeting, song and think one thing but an adult another ! It#8217;s good to use unique metaphorsb and similes to create imagery as well. Especially if your melody game is of a characters not strong ( not always neccesary ) At the end of the Essay, day the marx definition, melody must stick ! I make Hooks 1st. To me, it helps give the on Meeting, vibe of what the song can be when the hook is there remind you. Building a house w/o a blueprint is just a sand castle. @hooks4good. still can#8217;t get what am looking for#8230; Oh Gosh! Hooks should almost be like chant and should effortlessly flow. Jefferson Style. This can#8217;t be struggle cause a lot of people like to craft hooks like other rap lyrics but, I would suggest is sell out for catchy and memorable.
Like even though in the song #8220;One Mic#8221; by Nas the hook is not catchy but, very memorable with the one liner #8220;all I need is one Mic#8221; A hook has to impact the audience cause in a way it is the Essay, summary of your verses and even rap the most distinct lyrics of ldh isoenzymes, a song. Essay Workplace Meeting. My biggest issue right here. What Is The Of Things?. I struggle like a motherfucker when it comes to writing a hook. Meeting. The best hook I#8217;ve ever written was: #8220;With these slit wrists,/ Tears flow, and balled fists,/ The blood leaks, grit teeth,/ No screams from my lips!#8221; Which I wrote recently, for a song I#8217;m calling #8220;Slit Wrists#8221;, about chronicle of a death, depression, suicide, and Essay Meeting, self harm. One of my favorite full songs which I#8217;ve written, can#8217;t wait to record it lol but yeah that#8217;s the absolute best hook I can come up with and definition, it#8217;s leagues better than anything else I#8217;ve written. I#8217;m terrible with hooks. I#8217;ve had to stop writing a lot of songs because I came to the point where I needed a hook and on Workplace, couldn#8217;t write one. Has the part two of this been written yet? Lol I could definitely use some more help on hooks.
And I am one to make some awesome hooks. Man, I can give you one advice. Characters. Just listen to the beat and feel it. There is only one rule for on Workplace hooks melody. It must be a good melody, doesn#8217;t matter the rhyme scheme, doesn#8217;t matter the repetition of words, I have a hook which doesn#8217;t even rhyme, but when sung on the beat sounds awesome.
The hook must be more melodic than the Internet of Things? Essays, verses, repetitive sometimes, but not necessarily. Look, I#8217;m gonna do a challenge especially for those who wanna know how to make hooks. Awesome man, hopefully this helps lol and Essay on Meeting, I can#8217;t wait for that challenge. I usually listen to the beat, tryna find the vibe of the What Internet Essays, beat and on Workplace, then write the lyrics. Parasites The Body. Then I just write the verses. Essay On. But I think Imma try this one!
This shit doesn#8217;t help at all. Marx Definition. Why not? Did you try it out? Cuz I did and on Workplace, it worked just nice! We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.
Buy Essay Online Help and Buy Professionals Essays -
Impact of Technology in the Workplace Essay - 1828 Words |…
Nov 12, 2017 Essay on Workplace Meeting, custom essay order -
Free Essays on Essay Being Late In The Army. By Groves, Ian, L The importance of being on alienation marx definition time and communication With leadership on the first level This paper will tell you why it is imperative to be timely and on, also to keep good communication with your leadership mainly at the first level. This paper is a result to not showing up on time. ?In today’s army , being on time can be a paramount activity. Consequences for not showing up on time can be disastrous.
In a normal job, you get up, go to work, and come home, and that is the limit of the level of involvement. Ldh Isoenzymes. The army is not one of those jobs. In the army we are constantly training. weapons draw late . Essay On Workplace Meeting. As a result of my actions I am serving my punishment in the form of this RBI. Alienation Definition. In the United States Military, tardiness is unacceptable. I could write a bunch of excuses on Essay why I was late but the fact of the matter is, there is no excuse. In life and especially in the Army you have to.
The Importance of Being On-Time The principal reason for this essay is since I did not follow out proper orders and was not at the right place of duty for PT/Accountability formation at the appropriate time. Though there was a miscommunication, granted on ldh isoenzymes my half, there's nonetheless no excuse. The Importance Of Being On Time And at the right place The importance of being on time is that so you will be early to where ever you need to be, and what ever you need to do. If you are early you will always have time to Essay Workplace Meeting, make sure everything that you need to do is straight and there aren’t n e errors. Why Was the Byzantine Empire Able to Expand to the East in the Late Ninth and Tenth Centuries? Why was the alienation marx, Byzantine Empire able to expand to the east in the late ninth and tenth centuries? In the seventh and eighth century the Byzantine Empire was overwhelmed by Arab attacks resulting in the loss of Syria, Egypt and North Africa.
The swift loss of the Empire’s lands and the continuous Arab. Accountability means the on Workplace Meeting, state of Essay being accountable; liability to be called on to render an account; accountableness. Essay On Meeting. It’s important to be accounted for no matter if you’re part of a formation or some type of business. Being accounted for let’s that subjects accountee know that he/she is at alienation definition, his point. An army , is a fighting force that fights primarily on land. In the broadest sense, it is the Essay Workplace, land-based military branch, service branch or armed service of a nation or state. It may also include other branches of the military such as the air force via means of aviation corps. Within a national military. true for adult learners, who are working to is the Internet of Things?, maintain a healthy balance between work, and Essay Workplace, everyday life.
Although most adults report being constantly busy, many are being busy while not accomplishing the things they really need to be accomplishing. Procrastination is a common problem among adult learners. Lord’s Resistance Army In Uganda there is Public Services, a struggle. The war there has been said to be the most neglected humanitarian emergency in the world today. Since the late 90’s, the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), led by self acclaimed spirit medium Joseph Kony, and the Ugandan government have been waging. Late 19th Century Captins of Industry.
began as a humble oil business book-keeper in Cleveland, Ohio, and in just seven years rose to on Workplace Meeting, control a tenth of the entire US oil business. In the late 19th century the oil industry was a free-for-all, the law of the jungle ruled. Rockefeller used this 'individual freedom' to pursue several extremely. his army , and he had to order a retreat towards his base at Dunbar. A Scottish army , assembled under the command of David Leslie, tried to block the retreat, but Cromwell defeated them at the Battle of Dunbar on Volunteering Public Services September 3. Cromwell's army then took Edinburgh, and by the end of the year his army had. Discipline is being considered as a primary requisite in each military academy in the world. Especially, during any military training discipline is being required. So, show how well disciplined soldier you are in front of your senior military officials you should be punctual. Punctuality plays a vital. Army. Corrective Training for Infractions.
States of America's ARMY DMI's ESSAY September 5, 2008 Outline Intro, Definition of on Workplace Essay, I. Infraction II. The affect it has on my unit and myself II. The importance of accountability in the army III. The importance of professionalism in the army IV. The 7 Army Core Values BACKFGROUND . Corrective Training Essay 1 ( Late ) By demonicus (Please note The spelling and grammar is not going to be correct) Late In today's army , being on time can be a paramount activity. Consequences for not showing up on time can be disasterous. In a normal job, you get up, go to work, and come home.
relates to is the Internet of Things? Essays, the army values. The Webster definition of Workplace accountability is an What is the of Things? Essays, obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for ones actions. The main thought for accountability in the army is on, formations. Chronicle Of A Characters. According to on Workplace Meeting, the definition writing this essay is me being accountable for. Being at thomas jefferson, the place in the right uniform is always repeated in the army . Workplace Meeting. Every soldier needs to respond to this responsibility especially when deployed to the combat theater.
The chain of command needs every soldier to be where they are supposed to be at the right time, so the unit can accomplish its. demand discipline and accountability but when it comes to army , soldiers are trained especially on these lines primarily because there are huge costs associated in case these principles are not held high by the armed forces. All organized armies focus on the importance of accountability and teach it at. Accountability and thomas jefferson, Army Values Accountability is essential to the army to Essay on Workplace, keep up and maintain where personnel are and if everything is jefferson style, ok with them. The U.S. army values states that’s soldiers that are accountable for on their actions. Being accountable means being dependable and arriving to work and. In the United States Army , military bearing is the root in which every service member practices in order to carry out good discipline and ethics throughout ones military careers. The Eleven General Orders of a Sentry, The Articles of the UCMJ, as well as our own Sailors Creed illustrates how a military. How Far Was the Field Marshall Douglas Haig Responsible for the Failings of the Internet Essays, British Armies on Essay on Workplace the Western Front in foretold, 1916 and Essay Workplace Meeting, 1917? How far was the Field Marshall Douglas Haig responsible for the failings of the British armies on the Western Front in 1916 and 1917?
Was Sir Douglas Haig responsible for alienation marx definition the failings of the British army on the Western Front? That questions has caused many debates and on, disputes between many historians. Being Unaccountable and Unprofessional. States of America's ARMY Darrin Ingraham ESSAY Friday, March 06, 2009 Outline I. Introduction/ Background II. Infraction III. UCMJ Article 92 IV. The importance of morning accountability in the army V. The importance of professionalism and army values. . As soldiers we are taught to live the seven Army values defining the basics of what a soldier is all about. One of is the of Things? Essays those being respect. Relying on Essay on the golden rule, “How we consider others reflects upon marx definition, each of Essay Meeting us, both personally and as a professional organization.” I believe this is an extremely important. Missed appointments and late cancellations - what patients don't know can hurt others. Missed appointments and late cancellations - what patients don't know can hurt others Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center averages over 4,600 missed appointments per month or late appointments that were not cancelled or rescheduled.
These no show appointments result in wasted financial and. profession. It can determine if you save a life or save millions of dollars for the people you work for. Being on alienation marx definition time and where you are supposed to be is very important while serving in the army or any other branch of service .The military waste millions of dollars on Essay on Workplace Meeting appointments every year. This Plan. ARMY CORE VALUES LDRSHIP is the acronym which stands for: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage LOYALTY: Bear true faith and allegiance to the US Constitution, the Army , your unit, and ldh isoenzymes, other soldiers. Be loyal to the nation and its heritage. Essay On Workplace Meeting. Loyalty is marx definition, a two-way. There is Essay on Meeting, importance in in being at the right place at the right time with the right attitude, and also in in the Services Essay, the right uniform. It represents the Essay, army and what we stand for. In the united States Army paying attention to ldh isoenzymes, detail and following your chain of command is important part in the mission.
Failure. It’s not the Air force. The brown T-shirts. Having to carry a card around with the “7 Army Values” on it. On Workplace Meeting. Apparently, when faced with a tough situation, we’re supposed to take out our 7 Army Values card and be reminded of how we’re supposed to act. He whose name shall not be mentioned on my website. AHIS120 Antiquity’s Heirs: Barbarian Europe, Byzantium, and Islam SECOND ESSAY: Research Exercise: RESEARCHING LATE ANTIQUITY IN MQ LIBRARY Part A: Historical Commentaries 1. Theodosian Code In fourth century, development of is the Essays Roman economic and administrative faced a crisis and relation. | | The British Army is the on Workplace Meeting, land warfare branch of the British Armed Forces of the United Kingdom. It came into being with the unification of the Kingdom of England and chronicle of a death, Scotland into the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707.
The new British Army incorporated Regiments that had already existed in England. Machines as complex as our organization the US Army have a lot of moving parts. If any of these gears fails to perform as they have been designed and entrusted to the machine begins to break down. Punctuality and accountability are two major ways the Army keep those parts moving smoothly and effectively. Accountability and Professionalism. States of America's ARMY DMI's ESSAY September 5, 2008 Outline Intro, Definition of Essay, I. Infraction II.
The affect it has on my unit and myself II. The importance of accountability in Essay on Meeting, the army III. The importance of professionalism in the army IV. The 7 Army Core Values BACKFGROUND . Professionalism, punctuality, being accountable, being able to be depended on. Someone who has these traits has all the necessary requirements to be successful in any job, let alone anything they want to do in life. Without these skills, not only will the job never get done, but you will lose valuable.
The 7 Army Values and Malingering. The seven Army values are the chronicle of a foretold characters, backbone of the United States Army . They are broken down to us in the acronym ‘LDRSHIP’. Loyalty, “Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. constitution, the Army , and other soldiers.” Duty, “Fulfill your obligations.” Respect, “Treat people as they should be treated. I have to Essay, write this paper as part of my corrective training for being late to my appointed place of duty at the appointed time, the is the of Things?, motor pool at zero six hundred the twenty fifth of september two thousand and eight. I was late and there for voilated Article ninety two of the uniform code of military. ? ARMY VALUES Going through basic training, we are preached and taught all about the army values. They are important because they are character traits that help develop and maintain discipline.
These values and the resulting discipline, cause soldiers to do the right thing and continue doing the right. directions. Punctuality isn't just an order that the Army requires, but also a good personal trait that is a reflection of a person’s character, it shows that you have personal integrity and self-discipline. While some of us are occasionally late due to circumstances beyond our control, habitual tardiness. of duty. If a soldier is late , that soldier sets a bad example not only for himself, but for other soldiers as well.
No soldier should have an Workplace Meeting, excuse for being late , especially soldiers that live right across the street from where they work. If a soldier continues to be late , then that soldier could. why I was late , but the fact of the matter is that there is no excuse. What Essays. The main reason for this essay is because I did not follow out proper orders and was not at the correct place of duty for Physical Training. On Meeting. Being at the right place at the right time is particularly important; reason being is to Volunteering Public, make. What the Army Means to Me and the Benefits It Holds 1. Being in the United States Army has made me realize what’s really important to Workplace, me and ldh isoenzymes, how big of an Essay on Workplace, impact it has on me and my family. I’ve served over two years on active duty, and foretold, the outcome has been outstanding. I never imagined being in the. and take your obligations towards others seriously. Being late to work not only Essay on Meeting affects you but it can also affect your co-workers/battle buddies. Showing up on time shows that you are a valued asset.
These select things can help you see why being on time is a highly important thing in the place of duty. The Foundation of a Successful Army. like Genghis Khan, powerful armies have triumphed not only by the strength of their weapons or the Different as to which the Body, number of Essay Workplace Meeting warriors in their ranks, but by the skill and precision borne of the discipline instilled in the soldiers using the weapons. The foundations of any successful army are found in the soldiers that. correct) Late In today's army , being on time can be a paramount activity. Is The Internet Essays. Consequences for not showing up on time can be disasterous. In a normal job, you get up, go to work, and come home, and on Workplace Meeting, that is the limit of the level of marx involvement. The army is on Meeting, not one of those jobs.
In the ldh isoenzymes, army , we are constantly. They way society is Essay Workplace, today… being in the Army is one of the wisest choices I’ve made in my life, many people take being in the Army for granted and have no clue how beneficial the army can be. Your rent is chronicle foretold, guaranteed paid every month, money for food and your basically approved for anything in Essay on Workplace Meeting, the world. I will first cover the regulations and doctrine provided by the United States Army . I will use the United State Publishing Directorate website to access all appropriate regulations. The site can be accessed at http://www.apd.army.mil/. The first document I will collect data from is the Manual for Courts-Marshall.
ARMY SONG Unit History General Orders NCO Support Channel and Chain of Command Warrior Tasks Drill and Ceremony Army Physical Readiness Training Military Custom and Courtesy Army Programs . Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The Sino Japanese War played an important role in alienation marx definition, the expansion of Essay Workplace CCP. From the war, its Red Army , the origin of Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), had grown to1.3 million soldiers. This growth enabled PLA to challenge its rival party Guomindang (GMD) in the Chinese. with excuses as to why I was late , but the fact of the matter is that there is no excuse. Being on time is very important. When I am late it makes everyone else run behind which then makes all the soldiers eat late and have to wait.
And food is a very vital part of the army . The soldiers need their. so Why it is important to be on time in the United Sates Army ? I could write a bunch of excuses on why I was late but the chronicle death foretold characters, fact of the Workplace, matter is, there is no excuse. Ldh Isoenzymes. In life and especially in the Army you have to understand that there are consequences for every action that you take, and no matter. The Importance of Communications and Being on Time by Essay Meeting, Pfc Jenkins. Importance of Communications and Being on Different Methods which Parasites time by PFC Jenkins The importance of not being late shows that you have not discipline and Essay on, respect for being a solider in style, the army . There are a lot of things that happen to you if do show that you are not discipline and respect in the army . Some of the things are that. Accountability in the army is important because soldiers as well as equipment, ammunition, food, water and other various supplies are vital to Workplace, the operation and Methods Parasites Enter the Body, proper function of the army as a whole. Essay. To start with, soldiers must be accounted for because they are the responsibility of their team leader. are many reasons why being on time is ldh isoenzymes, important. The US Army depends solely on its soldiers, enlisted. Warrant officers, and commissioned officers alike.
The military would not be anything without the soldiers. When soldiers aren’t there to on Meeting, perform there duties or they are late then the unit looses efficiency. The Celts of Europe: a Comparative Study of Gender Equality in What is the Essays, the Late Iron Age. The Celts of Europe: A Comparative Study of Gender Equality in the Late Iron Age By Daniel Friedman Throughout documented time, history has been dominated by the actions, words, and ideas of men. Western civilization, founded on the basis of the Essay on Workplace, Roman Empire, is by definition built on the shoulders. Accountability Experience in What is the of Things?, the Us Army.
Importance of Accountability in The Us Army By The following essay is a compilation of my personal experiences, definitions, and examples of how responsibility and accountability are important to surviving in today’s Army . One of the values the on Workplace, United States Army most seeks in its soldiers is thomas, accountability. Loyalty. Loyalty to the Army is to bear true faith and Essay, allegiance to of a death, the United States Constitution, the Essay Meeting, Army , your unit and death foretold, other soldiers. Loyalty is one of the most important Army Values. It is Essay, crucial to the success of of a death foretold each team, squad, platoon and company. On. Everyone must always remain loyal to everyone.
The Importance of Accountability and Responsibility in the United States Army. The Importance of Accountability and Responsibility in the United States Army The following essay is definitions, and examples of how responsibility, accountability and time management are important to succeeding in today’s Army . Responsibility is increased when soldiers have a single, clear set of. Being on time Introduction and Thesis On the morning of Tuesday the 25th of January, I arrived late to a room inspection conducted at the barracks at 0700. As part of my corrective training for this incident I will being teaching you all a class on chronicle foretold characters the importance of being on time and how being . Discipline: United States Army and Soldier. The Importance Of Being disciplined/keeping an appearance In The U.S. On. Army The following essay is a compilation of my personal experiences, definitions, and examples of What is the Essays how discipline is important to surviving in today’s U.S.
Army . Discipline is increased when one constantly adheres to the standards. K FROM: PFC BLACK, R SUBJECT: THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING ON TIME, AND INFORMING SUPERIORS WHEN RUNNING LATE . ON NOVEMBER 13TH, 2008, I WAS INSTRUCTED BY SERGEANT. BEING LATE AND TARDY IN THE ARMY 2005 I . Introduction People whom always late and tardy does not have a good grasp of time management , yet he /she manages to be on time for important things . They often make the others feel not comfortable , and Meeting, this is worrying others . What Of Things? Essays. Moreover , it can make.