Re: NEC-LIST: Patents

>
> I have been through the drill of getting an antenna patent
> using Mid-West attorneys. I did not choose the first firm,
> and quickly found that they didn't have anybody who knew
> antenna fundamentals. Further, I discovered the PTO
> examiner didn't understand antenna fundamentals either. I
> didn't get anywhere until my University gave up the effort
> and gave the rights back to me. Then I ound a second firm
> with more humility and we worked around the examiner's
> ignorance to get a patent. The U. spent about $25k and I
> spent about $2600.
>

    The first patent attorney I tried had ads in QST and elsewhere. He
turned out to be pretty worthless, complaining that the patent I wrote had
"too many claims", while at the same time telling me of all his headaches
trying to load some sort of Microsoft software. I fired him after three
months of no progress.

    The second attorney was by way of a referral from a consulting client.
This fellow turned out to be a real blessing, and in one month of working
with me on a consultation basis I had a complete patent ready for filing
with less than one month to go due to having published the subject. Now, I
have six patents issued with as many as four more in the works. My average
cost including filing and issue fees has been less than $1800 each.

    It is a waste of money to have a patent attorney or agent write a patent
for you from the ground up. Most of the money you spend goes to educating
the attorney or agent to understand what you already know intimately, and
since they don't understand the subject they will make more errors than you
would. So, go find some related patents and learn how they are written.
After a while you'll learn what makes a good patent. Then write your patent
as you best understand it. Then find an attorney or agent who will work
with you to put it in finished form.

    But never, never make a patent application without consulting with a
licensed patent attorney. Writing the description and making the drawings
is fairly easy, but it's the claims where you need the expertise. Trying to
do it entirely on your own is less than a very bad idea.

    And I've had my share of bad examiners. I had one argue with me for
almost an hour on the phone about how overworked he was and how he did not
have any time to help pro se applicants. I got hold of his primary examiner
and the questions were taken care of in less than five minutes. I also had
one try to reject a base patent for a linearization method because he did
not like me using the word "augmentation". In my response, I first quoted
the Oxford dictionary, and then the section of the MPEP where it states that
the applicant has the freedom to name his invention any way he wants, more
or less. Never heard another word about it.

    Just remember: Most patent attorneys finished in the bottom 10% of
their engineering class, and patent examiners are patent attorneys who
couldn't make it in the profession. Do the math.

Chris

     ,----------------------. High Performance Mixers and
    / What's all this \ Amplifiers for RF Communications
   / extinct stuff, anyhow? /
   \ _______,--------------' Chris Trask / N7ZWY
  _ |/ Principal Engineer
 oo\ Sonoran Radio Research
(__)\ _ P.O. Box 25240
  \ \ .' `. Tempe, Arizona 85285-5240
   \ \ / \
    \ '" \ IEEE Member #40274515
     . ( ) \
      '-| )__| :. \ Email: christrask_at_earthlink.net
        | | | | \ '. http://www.home.earthlink.net/~christrask
       c__; c__; '-..'>.__

                       Graphics by Loek Frederiks

-- 
The NEC-List mailing list <nec-list_at_gweep.ca>
http://www.gweep.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/nec-list