<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is the Patent Office Against Patent Applicants?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://inventivestep.net/2008/12/16/is-the-patent-office-against-patent-applicants/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://inventivestep.net/2008/12/16/is-the-patent-office-against-patent-applicants/</link>
	<description>A blog dedicated to a discussion of patent law issues and strategies</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 13:21:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amendments to America Invents Act &#171; INVENTIVE STEP</title>
		<link>http://inventivestep.net/2008/12/16/is-the-patent-office-against-patent-applicants/#comment-8503</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Amendments to America Invents Act &#171; INVENTIVE STEP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 18:00:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inventivestep.net/?p=179#comment-8503</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] and Ryan, the bill should be defeated in its entirety.  IP professionals that practiced under previous administrations that were adverse to patent applicants have difficulty granting the Office so much power.  Director Kappos has entirely reversed this [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] and Ryan, the bill should be defeated in its entirety.  IP professionals that practiced under previous administrations that were adverse to patent applicants have difficulty granting the Office so much power.  Director Kappos has entirely reversed this [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: New BPAI Rules Raised Again &#171; INVENTIVE STEP</title>
		<link>http://inventivestep.net/2008/12/16/is-the-patent-office-against-patent-applicants/#comment-791</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[New BPAI Rules Raised Again &#171; INVENTIVE STEP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 19:15:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inventivestep.net/?p=179#comment-791</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...]  Several weeks ago, the PTO published a notice in the Federal Register regarding the previously delayed final rules regarding procedures at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  Several weeks ago, the PTO published a notice in the Federal Register regarding the previously delayed final rules regarding procedures at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BPAI Appeal Load Out of Control &#171; INVENTIVE STEP</title>
		<link>http://inventivestep.net/2008/12/16/is-the-patent-office-against-patent-applicants/#comment-655</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[BPAI Appeal Load Out of Control &#171; INVENTIVE STEP]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 15:18:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inventivestep.net/?p=179#comment-655</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] would have limited the number of RCE and continuation filings.  If they don&#8217;t implement the onerous appeal brief rules, this should help [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] would have limited the number of RCE and continuation filings.  If they don&#8217;t implement the onerous appeal brief rules, this should help [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Looming Crisis at BPAI &#171; Inventive Step</title>
		<link>http://inventivestep.net/2008/12/16/is-the-patent-office-against-patent-applicants/#comment-413</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Looming Crisis at BPAI &#171; Inventive Step]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 15:26:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inventivestep.net/?p=179#comment-413</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] and to reduce the number of remands back to the examiners.  The BPAI has also been pushing for controversial new rules that would make it more onerous to file an appeal brief.  Ostensibly, these changes are being [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] and to reduce the number of remands back to the examiners.  The BPAI has also been pushing for controversial new rules that would make it more onerous to file an appeal brief.  Ostensibly, these changes are being [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PTO Publishes Rules Agenda for 2009 &#171; Inventive Step</title>
		<link>http://inventivestep.net/2008/12/16/is-the-patent-office-against-patent-applicants/#comment-300</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[PTO Publishes Rules Agenda for 2009 &#171; Inventive Step]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 19:19:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inventivestep.net/?p=179#comment-300</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] the PTO seems to be proceeding with the new rules to limit Markush claims that were first published in August 2007 and then put on hold in October [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the PTO seems to be proceeding with the new rules to limit Markush claims that were first published in August 2007 and then put on hold in October [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Patent Reform Debate Has a Sense of Deja Vu &#171; Inventive Step</title>
		<link>http://inventivestep.net/2008/12/16/is-the-patent-office-against-patent-applicants/#comment-130</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Patent Reform Debate Has a Sense of Deja Vu &#171; Inventive Step]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:16:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inventivestep.net/?p=179#comment-130</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] that the PTO may &#8220;offer incentives to applicants&#8221; to submit such search reports.&#160; In light of recent PTO activities, this is an extremely dangerous [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] that the PTO may &#8220;offer incentives to applicants&#8221; to submit such search reports.&nbsp; In light of recent PTO activities, this is an extremely dangerous [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Comiskey at the Federal Circuit, Rehearing En Banc Denied &#171; Inventive Step</title>
		<link>http://inventivestep.net/2008/12/16/is-the-patent-office-against-patent-applicants/#comment-49</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Comiskey at the Federal Circuit, Rehearing En Banc Denied &#171; Inventive Step]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:29:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://inventivestep.net/?p=179#comment-49</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] to the Federal Circuit multiple times is not cheap.  Is this evidence that the Federal Circuit is also against patent [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to the Federal Circuit multiple times is not cheap.  Is this evidence that the Federal Circuit is also against patent [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
