Comments on: Late Terminal Disclaimer Was Too Late? http://www.patentlit.com/2009/05/29/late-terminal-disclaimer-was-too-late/ Tracking Patent Appeals Mon, 01 Aug 2011 02:17:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: viewsonic http://www.patentlit.com/2009/05/29/late-terminal-disclaimer-was-too-late/comment-page-1/#comment-2297 viewsonic Wed, 15 Sep 2010 02:39:54 +0000 http://www.patentlit.com/2009/05/29/late-terminal-disclaimer-was-too-late/#comment-2297 <strong>viewsonic http://lvs.p5d.ii2.co : viewsonic...</strong> viewsonic... viewsonic http://lvs.p5d.ii2.co : viewsonic…

viewsonic…

]]> By: TIMOTHY http://www.patentlit.com/2009/05/29/late-terminal-disclaimer-was-too-late/comment-page-1/#comment-2171 TIMOTHY Mon, 06 Sep 2010 21:37:57 +0000 http://www.patentlit.com/2009/05/29/late-terminal-disclaimer-was-too-late/#comment-2171 <strong><blockquote><a href="http://cheaptabletsonline.com/" rel="nofollow">CheapTabletsOnline.com. Canadian Health&Care.Special Internet Prices.Best quality drugs.No prescription online pharmacy. Online Pharmacy. Buy drugs online</a>...</strong> Buy:Tramadol.Cialis Super Active+.VPXL.Cialis Professional.Viagra Super Force.Viagra.Cialis Soft Tabs.Viagra Super Active+.Zithromax.Cialis.Viagra Professional.Soma.Levitra.Propecia.Viagra Soft Tabs.Maxaman.Super Active ED Pack....
CheapTabletsOnline.com. Canadian Health&Care.Special Internet Prices.Best quality drugs.No prescription online pharmacy. Online Pharmacy. Buy drugs online…

Buy:Tramadol.Cialis Super Active+.VPXL.Cialis Professional.Viagra Super Force.Viagra.Cialis Soft Tabs.Viagra Super Active+.Zithromax.Cialis.Viagra Professional.Soma.Levitra.Propecia.Viagra Soft Tabs.Maxaman.Super Active ED Pack….

]]> By: Pittsburgh Patent Lawyer http://www.patentlit.com/2009/05/29/late-terminal-disclaimer-was-too-late/comment-page-1/#comment-3 Pittsburgh Patent Lawyer Fri, 04 Sep 2009 03:34:50 +0000 http://www.patentlit.com/2009/05/29/late-terminal-disclaimer-was-too-late/#comment-3 Good points jane. I believe that the patent office having an issue in front of should make the patent stronger becuase courts will defer to its decision abssent strong evidence to the contrary. The outcome of the 156 extension issue will also be interesting if necessary. Good points jane. I believe that the patent office having an issue in front of should make the patent stronger becuase courts will defer to its decision abssent strong evidence to the contrary. The outcome of the 156 extension issue will also be interesting if necessary.

]]> By: jane http://www.patentlit.com/2009/05/29/late-terminal-disclaimer-was-too-late/comment-page-1/#comment-2 jane Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:04:06 +0000 http://www.patentlit.com/2009/05/29/late-terminal-disclaimer-was-too-late/#comment-2 I don't understand how Boehringer can be faulted or accused of double patenting (which i assume involves intent) given that: a) the two patents were approved within 5.5 months of each other b) the second patent *references* the first c) the second patent received the above mentioned extension in 1999 all of which, to me, points to boehringer genuinely thinking they were each patentable, and the us patent office *agreeing* that both items were patentable. after all, why on earth have a patent office if it's purpose does not include ensuring that there is no duplication? why have patents at all, if the authority of the office that approves them carries no weight? seems to me if there is a question of responsibility for the existence of double patents, it should lie with the the entity charged with approving them - am i missing something? any light you could shed on this for me would be much appreciated. would also be grateful if you could direct me toward any more recent information on this matter. I don’t understand how Boehringer can be faulted or accused of double patenting (which i assume involves intent) given that:
a) the two patents were approved within 5.5 months of each other
b) the second patent *references* the first
c) the second patent received the above mentioned extension in 1999
all of which, to me, points to boehringer genuinely thinking they were each patentable, and the us patent office *agreeing* that both items were patentable. after all, why on earth have a patent office if it’s purpose does not include ensuring that there is no duplication? why have patents at all, if the authority of the office that approves them carries no weight?
seems to me if there is a question of responsibility for the existence of double patents, it should lie with the the entity charged with approving them – am i missing something?
any light you could shed on this for me would be much appreciated. would also be grateful if you could direct me toward any more recent information on this matter.

]]>