**From:** Blynn Shideler \[mailto:Blynn@blklawgroup.com\]\
**Sent:** Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:42 PM\
**To:** BPAI Rules\
**Subject:** RE: comments to notice of proposed rulemaking (41.47 (i)
and (l))

Current rules have allowed for the applicant's to bring down a display
sample of the device (or prior art device) that is of record in the
file.  Indeed one primary use of Oral Arguments is to clarify arguments
on the record that may not be effectively, or as effectively,
demonstrated on the written record.  It should be sufficient that visual
aids, e.g. demonstration devices, be supported by the written record and
not limited thereto. 

            Regards;

Blynn L. Shideler

The BLK Law Group

3500 Brooktree Rd

Suite 200

Wexford PA 15090

724-934-5450(t)

724-934-5461 (f)

www.BLKLawGroup.com

***This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is expressly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.***

**From:** Blynn Shideler \[mailto:Blynn@blklawgroup.com\]\
**Sent:** Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:27 PM\
**To:** BPAI Rules\
**Subject:** RE: comments to notice of proposed rulemaking (41.37(v))

The requirement for DOUBLE SPACING (41.37(v)(2)) and 14 point Times New
Roman font or greater seems to minimize the space allowed for the
applicants arguments which must be in the 25 page brief limit.

As 1 ½ spacing and 12 point times new roman font are acceptable for
other portions of the record under 1.52 they should likewise be
acceptable for the appeal briefs

Further the 25 page limit should further exclude the proposed status of
claims, status of amendments, rejections to be reviewed and statements
of facts, which are not, by definition, being argued in the case.  The
point on page limits in briefs is to keep the attorneys from arguing
endlessly, as we have been known to do, and to require a focus in such
arguments.  As such the restrictions should be limited to ONLY the
arguments section.

            Regards;

Blynn L. Shideler

The BLK Law Group

3500 Brooktree Rd

Suite 200

Wexford PA 15090

724-934-5450(t)

724-934-5461 (f)

www.BLKLawGroup.com

***This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is expressly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.***

**From:** Blynn Shideler \[mailto:Blynn@blklawgroup.com\]\
**Sent:** Wednesday, August 29, 2007 12:00 PM\
**To:** BPAI Rules\
**Subject:** RE: comments to notice of proposed rulemaking (41.37(h))

The suggestion is that the proposed Jurisdictional statement will
"minimize the chance that the board would consider an appeal when the
application on appeal is abandoned"

This hardly seems likely and it saddles further obligations on EVERY
APPEAL BRIEF for a benefit of an exceedingly few cases (if any at all). 

In those cases where it would be applicable (i.e. in an obviously
inadvertently abandoned case as applicants will not likely file a brief
in an application that is INTENDED to go abandoned), will not the
examiner pick this up?  This seems like an easy thing for the Palm
system, specialist reviewing the appeal brief and/or the examiner to
pick up.  IF the applicant, the palm system, the appeal brief
specialist, the examiner, and the examiner's appeal review committee ALL
manage to let one slip through, cannot the docketing clerk at the Board
pick this up and remand the case? 

IF the board does manage to get one of these "abandoned" cases what harm
is there to remain it prior to acting on the case? 

Finally in those exceptionally rare cases where the board receives and
acts upon an "abandoned" case, cannot the decision on the apparently
abandoned case stand, subject to the applicant petitioning for a revival
of an unintentionally abandoned application, as presumably the applicant
did pay the appeal fee AND the appeal brief fee.

As a technical note, when is the petition for extension of time under
136(a) granted?  It would seem prudent to be required to identify the
date that a petition for extension of time was granted only for
extensions under 136(b).  The proposed language in the comments does NOT
have a statement identifying "the date the request was granted"

            Regards;

Blynn L. Shideler

The BLK Law Group

3500 Brooktree Rd

Suite 200

Wexford PA 15090

724-934-5450(t)

724-934-5461 (f)

www.BLKLawGroup.com

***This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is expressly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.***

**From:** Blynn Shideler \[mailto:Blynn@blklawgroup.com\]\
**Sent:** Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:35 AM\
**To:** BPAI Rules\
**Subject:** RE: comments to notice of proposed rulemaking (41.37(j))

It is not clear How the listing of Authorities with page numbers is
actually going to assist the Board in any meaningful way.  More awkward
is the listing of Statutes that is required.  Is knowing what page of
the brief that 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, 112, and now 134 (see 41.37(h))
is cited on really going to assist in the disposition of the appeals? 
This seems as it is merely another form with very little benefit.

 

            Regards;

Blynn L. Shideler

The BLK Law Group

3500 Brooktree Rd

Suite 200

Wexford PA 15090

724-934-5450(t)

724-934-5461 (f)

www.BLKLawGroup.com

***This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is expressly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.***

**From:** Blynn Shideler \[mailto:Blynn@blklawgroup.com\]\
**Sent:** Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:20 AM\
**To:** BPAI Rules\
**Subject:** RE: comments to notice of proposed rulemaking (41.37(k)

Section 41.37(k) Status of Pending claims seems redundant to the claims
section 41.37(q) which also requires that the status of each claim must
be identified.  41.37(k) as proposed does little to expedite the
appeals.

            Regards;

Blynn L. Shideler

The BLK Law Group

3500 Brooktree Rd

Suite 200

Wexford PA 15090

724-934-5450(t)

724-934-5461 (f)

www.BLKLawGroup.com

***This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is expressly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.***

**From:** Blynn Shideler\
**Sent:** Wednesday, August 29, 2007 11:13 AM\
**To:** \'BPAI.Rules@uspto.gov\'\
**Subject:** comments to notice of proposed rulemaking (paragraph
numbers)

The proposed rules make several specific references to "page" and "line"
number of the record, including the specification.  This language does
not seem to account for the use of paragraph numbers that the Patent
Office has requested for the specification.  Paragraph numbers, where
used, also clearly delineate a precise location of a specification, and
often are much easier to follow than line numbering (e.g. 3^rd^ line of
paragraph no. 0041 can be much faster to find than a similar reference
to Page 7 line 24).  Further, many applicants use paragraph number in
place of older line number schemes on the sides of the page (and some
automatic number schemes would not allow for BOTH automatic paragraph
numbering and separate page line numbering). 

Paragraph numbers (with line number of the paragraph, if needed) should
be expressly included as an acceptable method of identifying the
appropriate portion of a specification in addition to the page and line
citations. 

            Regards;

Blynn L. Shideler

The BLK Law Group

3500 Brooktree Rd

Suite 200

Wexford PA 15090

724-934-5450(t)

724-934-5461 (f)

www.BLKLawGroup.com

***This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s)
and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any
unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is expressly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.***