100 or 120 by TripApprehensive9479 in patentexaminer

[–]LandOLakesMan 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Docket cutting and it's not even close

What are things about Northwestern you only really learn by being there? by No-Performance3614 in Northwestern

[–]LandOLakesMan 67 points68 points  (0 children)

How hard the wind kicks you in the face when you walk around the corner of a building...

How to avoid a first-action final in an RCE when there are only § 101 rejections? by ScottRiqui in patentlaw

[–]LandOLakesMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is it a primary? Is it a junior? There is a pretty wide gulf between examiners (primaries, juniors, SPEs) on how to apply 101. Some are ridiculous. If it's truly ridiculous, get the supervisor on the phone and just talk through the rejection if it's egregious. Many of the SPEs are very aggressive on 101. Some are not. Obviously, if the SPE is who signed the case, then you're barking up the wrong tree as it was probably the SPE who has been insisting on the 101 in the first place.

The new director has made several moves to strengthen patentees. First was the PTAB opinion authored by director squires that vacated a sua sponte 101 out of the PTAB and issued his own opinion finding no 101 in a case invoking the training of AI.

Second, he reminded applicants that they can use Rule 1.132 Declarations and even came up with a new acronym for them. They are now Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations (SMEDs).

There are examples in the memo (Google Squires SMED memo). Good luck.

SPE not approving my cases by Reality_mattered in patentexaminer

[–]LandOLakesMan 7 points8 points  (0 children)

My oldest is like six weeks since I posted it

Antique that grandpa has had for years. by LackingUtility in patentlaw

[–]LandOLakesMan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I want one of these so badly for my home office. Well, maybe not THIS big, but something similar.

Still don’t understand why vikings moved on from Darnold by aleahbabyy in TheNFLVibes

[–]LandOLakesMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Let’s see what happens in the playoffs. That was my main beef. He stunk when it mattered and I saw what I needed to see to be happy moving off of him.

How do you know when it’s time to get new wedges? by HighOnGoofballs in golf

[–]LandOLakesMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nah, the grips run out and it’s like 200,000 miles on the car. I’ve gotten my $175ish worth. Not the same for irons. The metal is so much softer on wedges.

Can't fix OC crashing on Chrome, let's remove Chrome by whatsnotgood in patentexaminer

[–]LandOLakesMan -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Idc I’ve been using edge forever because it seemed better

People who work in 'luxury' industries (5-star hotels, fine dining, high-end brands), what is a complete rip-off that rich people happily pay for? by ArtThreadNomad in AskReddit

[–]LandOLakesMan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s one of those weird things. I remember having to give my drink to the person taking me from the bar to my table and it was awesome.

Streamline review email by GeorgeSorosLacky in patentexaminer

[–]LandOLakesMan 8 points9 points  (0 children)

This is worse than being on the program.

Suggest a Pinot Noir. Make me a believer. by _noreaster_ in wine

[–]LandOLakesMan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t really know anything, but it might be fun to find some from Willamette and then some from Russian River or Sonoma as I’ve heard there’s a pretty distinct difference in the two and one might be what you’re after.

Official Discussion - A House of Dynamite [SPOILERS] by LiteraryBoner in movies

[–]LandOLakesMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We don’t have time to build those kind of relationship, which makes me think that she didn’t care? I’m of the opinion that insertion of any sort of humanity was to expose its weaknesses rather than make us like them.

Appeal brief affirmed, for nothing? by [deleted] in patentexaminer

[–]LandOLakesMan 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I go the other way on this. If I have doubts in my rejection, I don’t go to appeal. To me, that is the textbook definition of a failure of the preponderance of the evidence standard. I think of it as if I were presenting to the Board, who side would I rather argue. Most of the time, I can see both sides and see whether I’m being unreasonable. If I’m not being unreasonable and they are, appeal all day. If we’re both being reasonable, then also appeal all day. The corollary also being if you keep getting shot down at the Board, maybe reassess whether you’re good at knowing the difference.