Martin Reiffen takes a whipping at the CAFC
The written description requirement comes up in the non-precedential In re Reiffen, with a cite to Vas-cath v. Mahukar, 935 F.2d 1555.
The idea that pro se applicants get a less stringent look also comes up, with a cite to Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335.
***UPDATE***
When this IPBiz post first came out, Google indexed a secondary source (www.kinja.com/user/nip - 48k ) but NOT IPBiz! How can a secondary source, copying a primary source, be "more reliable"?
As to "Vai Sikahema," Google still gives the later cite: A search on +"Vai Sikahema" +"Rutgers is Wrong" yielded the message that the search did not match any documents.
The idea that pro se applicants get a less stringent look also comes up, with a cite to Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335.
***UPDATE***
When this IPBiz post first came out, Google indexed a secondary source (www.kinja.com/user/nip - 48k ) but NOT IPBiz! How can a secondary source, copying a primary source, be "more reliable"?
As to "Vai Sikahema," Google still gives the later cite: A search on +"Vai Sikahema" +"Rutgers is Wrong" yielded the message that the search did not match any documents.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 4:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home