In April 2013, a patent attorney filed a response to an office action on behalf of a client. Unlike the typical response, this response was so degrading and humiliating that it was first posted to Public PAIR, then removed from Public PAIR, then posted again briefly before being ultimately removed forever.
The patent attorney (who for purposes of this article will remain nameless) filed a response that read, in part:
“Are you drunk? No, seriously… are you drinking scotch and whiskey with a side of crack cocaine while you ‘examine’ patent applications? (Heavy emphasis on the quotes.) Do you just mail merge
rejection letters from your home? Is that what taxpayers are getting in exchange for your services? Have you even read the patent application? I’m curious. Because you either haven’t read the patent application or are… (I don’t want to say the ‘R’ word) ‘Special.’
“Numerous examples abound in terms of this particular Examiner not following the law. Clearly, the combination of references would render the final product to be inoperable for its intended use.
However, for this Special Needs Examiner, logic just doesn’t cut it. It is manifestly clear that this Examiner has a huge financial incentive to reject patent applications so he gets a nice Christmas bonus at the end of the year. When in doubt, reject right?
“Since when did the USPTO become a post World War II jobs program? What’s the point of hiring 2,000 additional examiners when 2,000 rubber stamps would suffice just fine? So, tell me
something Corky…what would it take for a patent application to be approved? Do we have to write patent applications in crayon? Does a patent application have to come with some sort of pop-up
book? Do you have to be a family member or some big law firm who incentivizes you with some other special deal? What does it take Corky?”
Despite being offensive, politically incorrect and hardly calculated to lead to a Notice of Allowance, this inappropriate reaction may strike a nerve with some patent practitioners, inventors and
patent applicants who wonder why patents are not issued when they ought to be. Still, we should all be able to agree that this is not the way to handle even the most recalcitrant patent examiner.
Professional decorum must be maintained at all times.
The nameless patent attorney was suspended. This was not the first time this patent attorney had pulled a stunt like this. Administrative Law Judge Alexander Fernandez took a very dim view of these antics, finding that the remarks were not only offensive to patent examiners but disrespectful of those with mental disabilities.
