tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1949935810569534550.post4422549488240720429..comments2023-08-17T14:09:24.945+01:00Comments on PatLit: the patent litigation weblog: Beware of Digital Signature FoldersUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1949935810569534550.post-50022125288011353282015-02-24T15:49:46.303+00:002015-02-24T15:49:46.303+00:00"...the attorney in question qualified in the...<i>"...the attorney in question qualified in the 1980s."</i><br /><br />Looks like a divisional was filed before the original decision to refuse was issued, so the applicant might not actually be affected very much (I haven't reviewed the content of parent or divisional). <br /><br />Quite an old school move but it may have saved the day in this case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1949935810569534550.post-70985202205576418882015-02-15T19:00:28.879+00:002015-02-15T19:00:28.879+00:00I disagree, by the way, with the first two comment...I disagree, by the way, with the first two commenters. In my opinion, it is absolutely imperative that the EPA checks that the documents that have been prepared ready for signing are correct within the viewing software. I have never considered it to be a sensible practice to check a printout on the assumption that what you see on paper will be the same as what has been uploaded. Regardless of how reliable your secretary is, you should never assume that they will be the same. Those attorneys who are used to signing paper documents, and who haven't grown up with electronic documents, are probably those most in danger of falling into this trap. This appears to be the case here, as the attorney in question qualified in the 1980s. This case should be a wake-up call for such attorneys, who really need to get used to properly checking things on screen. The quality and size of screens that are available nowadays really leaves no room for excuses.Tufty the Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09803006996232662500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1949935810569534550.post-25457203103880161352015-02-15T18:52:07.692+00:002015-02-15T18:52:07.692+00:00Interestingly, it appears that the secretary took ...Interestingly, it appears that the secretary took the hit for the mistake, as she is referred to in the past tense in the facts supporting the request for re-establishment. Tufty the Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09803006996232662500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1949935810569534550.post-55138363281066024272015-02-15T17:09:00.419+00:002015-02-15T17:09:00.419+00:00Amazingly, according to the EP register all 3 appl...Amazingly, according to the EP register all 3 applications are still with the representative.Tufty the Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09803006996232662500noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1949935810569534550.post-30213182789905624652015-02-13T11:56:05.776+00:002015-02-13T11:56:05.776+00:00Really painful, indeed. I really prefer reviewing ...Really painful, indeed. I really prefer reviewing things on paper but it is difficult do you make sure that the paper is identical to the electronic version.Michael Thesenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11216937613426928728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1949935810569534550.post-81019149152190001712015-02-13T11:16:36.092+00:002015-02-13T11:16:36.092+00:00It is not so difficult to get this wrong. Especial...It is not so difficult to get this wrong. Especially, when filing multiple documents of similar name - First Request, Second Request etc, when you might miss out the Main Request because its seems sensible that the First Request is the first document to enclose!<br /><br />Sometimes you have to sit back and review things slowly -one painful page at a time!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com