Forgot your password?

Comment: mistresses (Score 1) 196

by ProfBooty (#46149061) Attached to: EU Commission: Corruption Across EU Costs €120 Billion

Americans get uppity about mistresses as it means the politician is compromised in some way. The politician could be blackmailed over it. The politician is not trustworthy. It implies that they are corruptible and have lied and makes us wonder what else they have lied about.

In our military, extra martial affairs are illegal for these very reasons.

Comment: Anyone check the IDS? Duty to Disclose (Score 1) 292

by ProfBooty (#45655337) Attached to: JPMorgan Files Patent Application On 'Bitcoin Killer'

Anyone check the IDS?

Applicant has a duty to disclose (See MPEP 2001) any and all prior art that they are aware of at the time of filing.

Per MPEP 2001.01

(c) Individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application within the meaning of this section are:
(1) Each inventor named in the application;
(2) Each attorney or agent who prepares or prosecutes the application; and
(3) Every other person who is substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application and who is associated with the inventor, with the assignee or with anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application.

Individuals having a duty of disclosure are limited to those who are “substantively involved in the preparation or prosecution of the application.” This is intended to make clear that the duty does not extend to typists, clerks, and similar personnel who assist with an application.

Comment: Re:Pinch Me, I Must Be Zooming (Score 1) 110

by ProfBooty (#44431255) Attached to: Pinch-To-Zoom Apple Patent Rejected By USPTO

Duty to disclose is only for art that applicant is aware of or believes is reasonably pertanant to the current application. This is why you see information disclosure statements which may have references cited in other pending cases, but may have nothing to do with the current claimset.

If applicant searches and finds new art then they should disclose it in a later IDS. Strangely applicants do cite prior art which reads on their claims and may be found by a foreign office, but do not ammend the claims to get around the prior art until a US examiner writes a rejection. This seems counter to the various compact prosection practices that the office and AIPLA advocate and may cost applicant more money.

When someone says "I want a programming language in which I need only say what I wish done," give him a lollipop.