Slashdot Mirror
Lawyer Loses It In Letter To Patent Office
bizwriter writes "Nobody would ever say that the world of patent law is a roller coaster of excitement but every now and then something interesting happens. Take this attorney who was angry over a patent examiner's rejection of his client's application. Here are a few snippets from the lawyers letter to the examiner: '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."....Your job is not a joke, but you are turning it into a regular three ring circus. If you can't motivate yourself to take your job seriously, then you need to quit and let someone else take over what that actually wants to do the job right.'"
Of course! Insulting the US patent office is a known technique to guarantee your submission will be calmly and objectively reviewed. Do it now.
would react. Seriously, who these lawyers think they are ? God incarnate ?
He should be disbarred for giving lawyers a bad name (yes, that's possible...)
No sig today...
A tripod sprinkler. Seriously, a tripod sprinkler with telescopic legs.
I agree with the patent office worker in this case, maybe the lawyer should try and patent a method of getting a patent application rejected, consisting of plurality of idiotic patent application and an angry letter by the said lawyer to the patent office.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/20120286075;jsessionid=01F66ADD5B77B6F5B576659888D85D1B
here you go. products on the market look just like this
As usual, the better article is not the one linked to in TFA, but in a deeper link:
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/dont-write-this-letter-to-the-patent-office.html
Has a picture. Looks like a sprinkler on a tripod and you can raise or lower the sprinkler head. Somehow I'm guessing this is not the first such sprinkler.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
http://www.google.com/patents/US20120286075
The clever bit, you see, is that you film it. And then you watch it ... backwards!
Wonderful way to relax.
Seriously, he's a lawyer, in what particular does he think the rejection is wrong?
The nearest thing to a substantive accusation is that the examiner is simply rejecting the application because he's lazy and that's easy. But it's my understanding that, in fact, patent examiners face a lot of pressure to approve applications, which is faster and easier than rejection, because it takes less effort to justify approval, and because approvals don't generally get appealed by the applicant. So while I am sure laziness afflicts patent examiners from time to time, it's not obvious that this is an example.
As for "doing his job", his job is not to approve applications, it's to examine them and make a determination. Rejection is one possible outcome, and is not by itself proof that the job wasn't done.
So, yeah, faceless bureaucrats are lazy and stupid, ha ha. Tell me again what problem you solved by making this assertion?
2*3*3*3*3*11*251
"It's just the bad 95% of us that give the rest a bad name" -- Ray Beckerman (quoted from memory, might be inexact)
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
I am amazed at how many Slashdotters fell for this story. The part that made it obviously fake was when the patent office rejected an application.Try to be a bit more discerning Slashdot.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Probably misquoted as well, but I always liked, "It's just some of the lawyers out there that give a really bad name to the other three."
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
* Lawyer: "Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "Did you check for blood pressure?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "Did you check for breathing?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "How can you be so sure, Doctor?"
* Witness: "Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar."
* Lawyer: "But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?"
* Witness: "Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere."
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Two links from the summary: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/04/dont-write-this-letter-to-the-patent-office.html
It contains the letter and an excerpt of the patent application. This is a case of the USPTO doing it's job.
Brueske; David November 15, 2012
Telescoping tripod sprinkler cart
Abstract
A Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart comprising a tripod junction unit, a plurality of support members, a sprinkler support assembly, and a telescoping assembly. In some preferred embodiments, the Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart may also include a carriage assembly to enable the portability of the Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart.
Inventors: Brueske; David; (Olympia, WA)
Serial No.: 068530
Series Code: 13
Filed: May 12, 2011
Current U.S. Class: 239/722
Class at Publication: 239/722
International Class: B05B 3/00 20060101 B05B003/00
Claims
1. A Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart comprising a tripod junction unit, a plurality of support members, a sprinkler support assembly, and a telescoping assembly; the tripod junction unit comprises a first leg, and a second leg, and a hose conduit; the plurality of support members are sized to mate with the legs; the legs comprise a detent orifice sized to mate with a detent on a support member; the support members comprise a detent for the purpose of fastening the support member to the tripod junction; the sprinkler support assembly is disposed upon the hose conduit of the tripod junction.
2. The Telescoping Tripod Sprinkler Cart of claim 1 further comprising a carriage assembly; the carriage assembly comprises an axle, an axle housing, a pair of wheels, and a pair of struts.
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[0001] The present invention is in the area of lawn sprinklers, and more particularly pertains to an apparatus for irrigation.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0002] One of the most common chores for a homeowner to address is watering or irrigating a lawn. While some people may use a simple lawn hose to manually irrigate their lawns, most people use various irrigation systems. These irrigation systems can be used to cover large swaths of landscape quickly and efficiently.
[0003] However, the problem with sprinkler systems is their relative high cost and attendant installation. Their relative high cost can stem in large part from the installation thereof. Effective installation requires that underground tunnels or troughs be dug. In many instances, these distances can exceed 50 yards in length. As a consequence, this installation can require a substantial amount of back-breaking work.
[0004] Therefore, what is clearly needed in the art is an apparatus which enables someone to irrigate a large lawn, orchard, or garden and cover a large diameter of space.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0005] It is an object of the present invention to provide an apparatus to elevate an irrigation sprinkler to increase the surface area to be covered. By manually adjusting the height of the sprinkler head above ground, a person will be enabled to cover wide areas of lawn, landscape, gardens, orchards, or other areas where constant irrigation is required.
[0006] It is an object of the present invention to provide a portable apparatus with pneumatic wheels to place an elevated tripod sprinkler cart in its desired destination. Oftentimes, long hoses can become heavy, and with the wheels, the towing thereof can be made substantially easier.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING FIGURES
[0007] FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.
[0008] FIG. 2 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.
[0009] FIG. 3 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.
[0010] FIG. 4 is a perspective view of a preferred embodiment of the present invention.
You picked a bad example, because this is actually the one that the patent is applied for. Notice "PATENT PENDING: Copyright 2011 Slip Fit Manufacturing." A search will show applicant David Brueske as a representative of "Yelm Farm & Pet And Slipfit Manufacturing". http://transportation-services.findthedata.org/l/1413764/Yelm-Farm-And-Pet-And-Slipfit-Manufacturing
You forgot the most important part.
sprays juvenile insults on the internet.
THL phish sticks
I for one completely understand the rage. I think I was assigned this examiner - some of the things done must have been very similar to what he describes. It enraged my otherwise calm, quiet reserved patent attorney to the point he had to wait a week before responding or it would have been in much the same way. This poor bastard just didn't wait the week.
or didn't call the examiner's supervisor. The supervisor's name and phone number are provided with every official notice that explains a rejection. And there is more than one option to appeal and get the Examiner's reasoning reviewed by people with higher pay-grades.
Full-blown appeals are admittedly expensive, but are far more worthwhile than raving and ranting like an unprofessional. Such rants will simply be ignored at best, or (at worst) circulated around the Patent Office as an example of a bad patent attorney to watch out for. And the inventor/applicant? On the hook for attorney fees, regardless.
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...