View Single Post
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to comp.dsp,comp.speech.research,comp.arch.embedded,comp.arch.fpga,rec.audio.pro
fatalist fatalist is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Fundamental DSP/speech processing patent for sale

On Nov 3, 6:57*am, Regis wrote:
A lawyer which you are should always check facts before posting and
never ever try to promote deliberate lies, even under pseudonym on the
internet


EPO can and does recycle same "prior art" references cited by
applicant himself to USPTO and already discussed in depth in office
actions and interviews with US examiners *... *just to prolong the
process and extort more money from poor applicant... until he is fed
up paying through his nose and walks away...


Just tell me why EPO keeps collecting huge annuities on pending
applications (and keeps them pending for many years) and why you have
to go through EU-registered attorney like yourself just to communicate
with EPO ?


*BTW, can you post your registration number ?


About verifying facts...
I'm not a lawyer but an EPO patent examiner.
An applicant can always request an accelerated search and examination
at the EPO, for free.
I was just questioning the legal certainty of a patent in the US,
which application has been abandoned at the EPO without even a reply
to the first communication, citing novelty destroying documents. I did
not check if these documents were also cited at the USPTO, before or
after the EPO search report had been issued.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Every US patent attorney is obligated to submit all prior art
references coming his way to USPTO during patent prosecution,
including references from EPO search reports
Once submitted prior art references are considered by examiner and
made of record (and discussed in office actions and interviews), and
US patent is officially granted then your chance of getting re-exam
request approved based on the very same references is ZERO