The result? Retaliation. I have two cases where I petitioned these issues (or rather the premature final rejection arising from them). In one case, the Technology Center director held that my act of filing papers to seek corrections of the examiner’s error was an abandonment of the application.

In other cases, the same T.C. Director -

(a) reframed my petition. T.C. Directors and the Petitions Office almost never decide the issue presented. Both consistently rewrite petitions into different issues, and then deny the rewritten issue.

(b) In another case, the same T.C. Director quoted back the Federal Circuit case I had cited, and said “It cannot be seen why…” and just overrode both precedent of the Director and the Federal Circuit to make up the law for himself. In a follow-up telephone call, he confirmed that he would not even look at the law, he would make it up for himself.

I used these papers by this T.C. Director in my presentations at OMB to kill the Continuations, Claims, and Appeal rules – this clown has given the PTO a bad black eye.

The law means nothing if it won’t be enforced. Granted, these events occurred during the depths of the Dudas/Doll years. One hopes that Director Kappos will make absolutely clear to T.C. Directors that they serve at his pleasure, and only for so long as he perceives them as helpful in carrying out his oath to “see that the laws are faithfully executed.”

If anyone from the PTO reads this and cares to root out a really bad apple who has already caused the agency considerable embarrassment and harm, you know where to find me. I’ll give it to you all on papers with the T.C. Director’s signature on the bottom.

David Boundy