tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058786915356669476.post2306729837174264119..comments2024-03-27T08:57:40.383+00:00Comments on SOLO IP <br> for sole and small IP practices<br>: Jack of all TradesFilemothttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15735898485265104580noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058786915356669476.post-79010143693750103622013-10-08T17:09:10.611+01:002013-10-08T17:09:10.611+01:00An inventor who knows his own clever bits is a ver...An inventor who knows his own clever bits is a very handy client indeed. Often the question is "is this patentable" and interrogation is necessary to extract the clever bits. Many a patent specification flounders whether written by inventor or agent because that essential prelimianry analysis of what the inventive contribution is has not been done. As you rightly point out, it cannot be achieved without some knowledge of the prior art and if the inventor was working in a vacuum, then its probable he may have re-invented rather than invented. Searching is therefore an essential professional step too. Thankfully the resources made available on Espacenet and Google Patent make that a task inventors can reasonably undertake.Filemothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15735898485265104580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058786915356669476.post-36612559379838670582013-10-08T16:57:44.379+01:002013-10-08T16:57:44.379+01:00I suppose that an inventor would make the assumpti...I suppose that an inventor would make the assumption that they know most about the invention, and how it should be described. They know the problem they were solving, the thought processes they went through, the clever bits and the not so clever bits. However as patent attorneys we know that the problem solved, the contribution and what is clever about the invention can all change as prior art is found. Until such subtleties are realised by inventors they won't realise what we really do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7058786915356669476.post-29591222065075728962013-09-30T16:24:09.701+01:002013-09-30T16:24:09.701+01:00I agree that specialising as a solo practitioner i...I agree that specialising as a solo practitioner is not a viable option, but then I believe that it is not a sensible option for any patent attorney. Despite <a href="http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/who-can-be-upc-judge-thoughts-from-uk.html" rel="nofollow">those suggesting we seek appointments as technically qualified judges at the new Unified Patent Court in Europe</a> a patent attorney is there to guide an inventor through the legal aspects of the patent process, to act as an advocate, but not to invent or implement the technology. Therefore we need to specialise in our knowledge of law and procedure and be capable of understanding our clients but we are not competing with them.Filemothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15735898485265104580noreply@blogger.com