October 23, 2019

October 23, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 22, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 21, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Logic, Arguments and Patents

Patent prosecution involves one side arguing for, and another side arguing against, the validity of claims in a patent application.  This takes the form of a written discourse, in which an Examiner for the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) generally argues (in an Office action) the claims are not valid, and a patent practitioner acting on behalf of an applicant generally argues (in a reply) that the claims are valid.  To be effective at this, generally each side tries to set forth facts, premises and arguments that it believes valid, and tries to find fallacies in the supposedly valid facts, premises and arguments that the opposition has presented.  Each argument is fit to the particulars of the situation at hand, and choices of what to pursue, and possible pitfalls, are manyfold.

Missing premises and hidden assumptions are especially vital to find.  Finding one of these in an argument made by an opponent may offer a path to disproving an assertion or conclusion.  Finding one of these in one’s own argument may offer a path to improving the argument, by making explicit the premise or assumption and backing it up with a factual finding, or may suggest a weakness in the argument and reevaluation of whether the argument is worth making or whether there is another argument to be made.

Psychology plays a role, often, in this.  As a patent practitioner and somewhat of a reformed idealist, I often wish this were not so, and we could proceed solely on the basis of objectivity, rationality, reasonability, and an agreed-upon set of rules.  This is, I think, an ideal.  Yet, I often find it helpful to understand the mindset of an Examiner, to grasp why a rejection is being made and why the Examiner has (apparently) a set of beliefs about the claim interpretations and the interpretations of the cited references that differs (often substantially) from my own.  Doing so then affords insights as to how to frame, focus and carry out a discussion and argument, because then I know what to address in terms of what part of the understanding that I have is lacking in my opponent.  Combining these insights, gleaned from psychology, with argument styles and techniques drawn from these many sources and experiences, can produce successful arguments in patent prosecution.  All part of the art of patenting.

Copyright © 2019 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.


About this Author

Christopher M. Hall, Womble Carlyle Law Firm, patent agent
Patent Agent

Chris Hall counsels clients in preparing and prosecuting patents in the electrical, telecommunications, computer software, and mechanical arts. 

Specifically, Chris has handled patents for:

  • Semiconductor processing, fabrication and integrated circuitry,
  • Optics
  • Optoelectronics
  • Artificial intelligence
  • 3-D imaging and image generation
  • Fault tolerance
  • Robotics

*Chris Hall is a registered patent agent and is not licensed to practice law. His activities are directly supervised by members...