Appeal Board Arguments
Sep. 27th, 2023 03:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ndrosenYesterday, as part of my continuing education, I listened to and viewed a couple of hearings before the Board of Appeals. (I was not the examiner for any of the cases.) The Board frequently bases its decisions on consideration of the applicant’s written Appeal Brief, and the written Examiner’s Answer, but sometimes attorneys do request oral hearings, which do not normally involve the examiners.
So I got to hear a couple of attorneys make their cases briefly (they had twenty minutes, total) as to why the examiners’ rejection were wrong, and the claims should be allowed. In one case, the claims had been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (basically, that the invention was a form of organizing human activity that involved only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology), and my impression, at least, was that the rejection was reasonable. In another case, the issues were different, and the attorney seemed to me to have a plausible case, but, judging from her questions, at least one judge seemed skeptical. Interesting stuff, if you’re the right kind of nerd.
And off to the second phase of my night’s sleep.
So I got to hear a couple of attorneys make their cases briefly (they had twenty minutes, total) as to why the examiners’ rejection were wrong, and the claims should be allowed. In one case, the claims had been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (basically, that the invention was a form of organizing human activity that involved only well-understood, routine, and conventional technology), and my impression, at least, was that the rejection was reasonable. In another case, the issues were different, and the attorney seemed to me to have a plausible case, but, judging from her questions, at least one judge seemed skeptical. Interesting stuff, if you’re the right kind of nerd.
And off to the second phase of my night’s sleep.
