Talk:Patent examiner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] American examiners

The section "American examiners" is POV and sounds advertisement-like. Needs strong cleanup. --Edcolins 08:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It all factual. It's the requirements of the examiner. I also put in advert tag, as that is your objection. It doesn't need that much of a clean up. If it does, please state the precise points so that it can be done. Otherwise the tag should be removed. USPatent 15:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Please state WHY this is an advertisement? USPatent
Do not scream, right, be patient. I cannot edit both pages at the same time! Well, for instance:
  1. "The American "patent examiner" position is at the forefront of new technologies" sounds like an advertisement to me. Patent examiners in all countries are somewhat at the forefront of new technologies since they can gain knowledge of inventions before patent applications are published. Patent attorneys gain knowledge of inventions before patent examiners, and of course inventors and employees in R&D dept are probably at the very forefront of technology.
  2. What do you mean by "GS-5, GS-7, or GS-9 grade levels"?
  3. "Legal, technical and automation training is provided to examiners at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to ensure they possess the necessary knowledge and skills to perform their job." sounds POV. Looking to hire examiners?
  4. "[EPO clerks] support innovation and competition for the benefit of its member states citizens." POV as well
Lets's see ...
  1. Sound like that sould be moved up to the duties of all examiners.
  2. GS-5, GS-7, or GS-9 grade levels are the employee classification scheme within the US government.
  3. Are they or are they not provided with this?
  4. They don't support innovation and competition?
USPatent 17:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Ok now.
  2. I added a note. Ok now.
  3. The tone does not seem to be appropriate.
  4. The issue is that this has not been verified (see Wikipedia:Verifiability).
--Edcolins 20:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  1. Great.
  2. Great.
  3. I'll cut off the ending "they possess the necessary knowledge and skills to perform their job"
  4. I put in a ref.
USPatent 16:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Additions: Because this article is about American patent examiners, I plan to add facts about examiners' experience, such as tools used to examine applications, examiner rating/evaluation system, promotion program to primary examiner or supervisory patent examiner. Just another paragraph or so. Please critique it and let me know your thoughts. Juxtapos99 05:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Hmm... the article is about patent examiner and should represent a worldwide view. The section about the "United States" should not grow too long. Feel free to create an article Patent examiner in the United States or Patent examiner at the United States Patent and Trademark Office for instance where the subject could be develop in more details. I would be very interested in reading it and in contributing to it. Go ahead! (just make sure proper to cite your sources). Thanks in advance for your contributions. --Edcolins 09:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
OK. Good suggestion. Makes sense. Juxtapos99 08:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forefront......

I really don't like the sentence "Patent Examiners can gain knowledge of patent applications before the public can, so that they may be viewed somewhat as being at the forefront of new technologies."

While I admire patent clerks; there job is certainly important and I have no doubt that they are all inteligent well qualified people. But they are not at the forefront of new technologies. If I invent the worlds greatest widget and take a taxi to the patent office is the taxi driver at the forefront of technology. They have contributed to the widgets success? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemec2 (talk • contribs)

I removed the sentence under WP:NOT#SOAP. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. --Edcolins 09:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isn't "Examiner" the more common term these days?

Patent Clerk strikes me as an old fashioned term, from the days of Einstein. In my experience, the phrase patent examiner is used exclusively when referring to those people working at the USPTO, the JPO and the EPO. The word examiner is also used to refer to those working at the UK Patent Office and German Patent Office. I have never heard them referred to as Patent Clerks.

I think the term patent clerk is also more likely to refer to people working at Patent Offices where there is little or not real examination - such as the French Patent Office.

The term "clerk" also has a slightly pejorative ring to it: definition from Dictionary.com is "a person employed, as in an office, to keep records, file, type, or perform other general office tasks". Hardly representative of the technical and legal training that every examiner in the three big patent offices has. Not to mention the high level of language skills for those at the EPO - not that I'm bitter at being unable to get a job there due to not speaking German! :).

So, I suggest that the redirect from Patent Examiner to Patent Clerk be reversed and the article be re-named "Patent Examiner". Although I admit to not being quite sure how this would be done.

Comments? GDallimore 14:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your (excellent) proposal and sorry for having taken so long to "implement" it. I have just moved the article. I will change the Category:patent clerks as well for consistency. --Edcolins 18:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trade union

I just wonder why this sentence

Although considered white collar employees, examiners are represented by a trade union, Patent Office Professional Association (POPA).

starts with "Although considered white collar employees". What's surprising in trade union of white collar employees? Is it rare in the United States? --Edcolins 09:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in the US the stereotypical union is blue collar. Mojodaddy 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)