|
I took the advice from the SOmething Awful Lawyers Thread OP into my exam. I should do ok. *fails*
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
even I think this pile-on is a little mean and, as this thread loves to point out, I am a terrible person
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
Nah, the pile-on won't bother me. My prep was that I read a 150 page primer called "The Patent Bar Study Guide" on the bus over the last 3 months, then 9 days ago I started preparing in earnest by reading some commercial outlines and taking old exams. I had never taken any kind of patent law class or study before this. I realized on the exam that I'm still missing a few key concepts. So I had to look up quite a few answers that I should have been freebies. I got my advice from a couple of my old law school classmates. I knew I was under-prepared, but I didn't have much choice. I'm a Category B applicant, and I wanted to see if I was allowed to take the test before I bothered studying at all. Once I applied in Sept., I was granted a 90 day window to take the test. I didn't know I had a 90 day limit, and that's my fault. At the time I was more focused on whether I could take the test than how I would take it. But once registered, why not? My job is notoriously busy during most of the 4th quarter. So I wanted to take the exam in March, because my workload is much lighter then and I can probably study at work. And now, that's the time I'm going to be taking the test again anyhow. So I'm going to chalk this whole experience up to being an exceptionally realistic review session.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:How many years ago did you take it? "open book searchable" is a bit of an exaggeration when 1/3 of the tested material (stuck in Federal Register Notices) isn't searchable and the stuff that is takes 20 seconds to load. Folly: try not to worry too much about your results this time. No one will care after you take it again and pass. Ersatz fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Soothing Vapors posted:even I think this pile-on is a little mean and, as this thread loves to point out, I am a terrible person Your small heart grew three sizes today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Yeah. You guys are kind of making me feel like a bit of a care bear here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 02:21
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Yeah. You guys are kind of making me feel like a bit of a care bear here. Well...
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
the real answer in practice to everything on the patent bar is "you'll be given an incomprehensible disclosure from a foreign client without any power to make changes, get an office action two years later from an examiner who has clearly not even attempted to understand the underlying invention and puts forward a rejection that makes vague reference somewhere in the direction of a reference, don't hear back from the client until four and a half months later, miss the six month date because your firm's docketing software is a piece of poo poo, file a petition"
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
Incorrect. The real answer is you'll be given the spec someone else wrote two years earlier and a disclosure for a competitors product and told "make it read."
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
that's why kalman makes the big bucks
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Clearly the answer is "Receive a disclosure from your boss' fishing buddy of the form 'its like X, but with Y' as your boss nods vigorously and cuts you off when you try to explain that §103 is a thing. Two years later after they lose touch, get an insultingly terse office action, then get fussed at by the fishing buddy because they figured their application fee also entitled them to all-you-can-draft office responses. Relay a cut-rate offer that will pay for maybe four hours of your time, wait for them to drag their feet through at least a first extension before they agree, then get stuck pushing claims you would have to try to infringe due to aforementioned §103 issues."Deceptive Thinker posted:How many years ago did you take it? "open book searchable" is a bit of an exaggeration when 1/3 of the tested material (stuck in Federal Register Notices) isn't searchable and the stuff that is takes 20 seconds to load. Elotana fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
e:dp
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
drat you guys make my clients seem almost downright reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
gret posted:drat you guys make my clients seem almost downright reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Incorrect. The real answer is you'll be given the spec someone else wrote two years earlier and a disclosure for a competitors product and told "make it read." Those were some quality applications.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Elotana posted:They aren't using the 9th edition of the MPEP yet? It switched in October but there are still a number of questions that relate to material that hasn't been updated yet and there are 2 or 3 register notice files in the mix Supposedly things arent nearly as disjointed as it was before the update but now there's more stuff they're testing on that makes up for it (PPH)
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Deceptive Thinker posted:It switched in October but there are still a number of questions that relate to material that hasn't been updated yet and there are 2 or 3 register notice files in the mix
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Haha, at my last job I would have murdered for as much as four slides of disclosure. Once, I was handed a napkin. Literally. On a tech my boss didn't even remotely understand, even in the most basic sense (no, a transistor is not the same thing as an LED).
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
I predict about a billion PPH filings coming off ISRs from the Korean Patent Office
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I predict about a billion PPH filings coming off ISRs from the Korean Patent Office Why? Due to the KIPO being increasingly selected as the ISA for software inventions?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
You guys sure do love your acronyms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
gret posted:Why? Due to the KIPO being increasingly selected as the ISA for software inventions? I can't speak to their actual patent searches, but their PCT searches suck
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I can't speak to their actual patent searches, but their PCT searches suck http://youtu.be/IRsPheErBj8
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Yall sounding like a bunch of scientologists up in here
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
The reason everyone is using them now is they are cheaper than everyone else. And even when good searches are returned by whomever, nobody trusts anyone (especially not the us) and does their own search anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I can't speak to their actual patent searches, but their PCT searches suck And that's coming from a US patent examiner, so if he thinks KR searches suck, you know they're really, really bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
Phil Moscowitz posted:Yall sounding like a bunch of scientologists up in here Phil is probably working tonight y'all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Meatbag Esq. posted:The reason everyone is using them now is they are cheaper than everyone else. And even when good searches are returned by whomever, nobody trusts anyone (especially not the us) and does their own search anyhow. I did a non-final a few years ago only to have them cite the art I used in an IDS a month ago as cited in a Korean ISR that clearly adopted my reasoning to reject the claims and I was touched because they were like stackexchange posts
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Phil is probably working tonight y'all. lol @ your career if u aint billing on christmas eve
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Phil is probably working tonight y'all. quote:"Let me hear another sound from you,'' said Moscowitz, "and you'll keep your Christmas by losing your situation. " quote:Mookie was dead: to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of his burial was signed by the clergyman, the clerk, the undertaker, and the chief mourner. Moscowitz signed it. And Moscowitz's name was good upon 'Change, for anything he chose to put his hand to. Old Mookie was as dead as a door-nail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
I don't practice but I put in 8 hours today. Now I'm drunk, alone on a flight to Austin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
tau posted:I don't practice but I put in 8 hours today. Now I'm drunk, alone on a flight to Austin. I yelled at a pro bono client for calling me on my day off today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
any of you freaks play e-talisman?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:38
|
|
|
tau posted:I don't practice but I put in 8 hours today. Now I'm drunk, alone on a flight to Austin. You coming to visit me tau?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 06:05
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:You guys sure do love your acronyms. Seriously. I still haven't figured out what IMGAY stands for yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
Merry Christmas, thread! I drew a seasonal comic. (and with that, Bro Enlai easily reclaims the title of nerdiest poster in the thread)
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 09:36
|
|
|
Bro Enlai posted:Merry Christmas, thread! I drew a seasonal comic. I would actually like to be working today just because I haven't in a couple of weeks. Holidays are slow for the taco truck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 14:44
|
|
|
I'm probably going to work today Jewish supremacy
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Merry Christmas, you lovely people, you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 16:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 08:02 |
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Merry Christmas, you lovely people, you. Did your kids get take out for dinner again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 17:14
|
|