OAs, 你们平常花多少时间? - 未名空间MITBBS历史存档

国际科技财经博客移民网络热点娱乐民生时事公众号

Redian新闻

>未名空间

>Law - 律师事务所

OAs, 你们平常花多少时间?

OAs, 你们平常花多少时间?# Law - 律师事务所

S*n2012-03-07 08:03

1 楼

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/business/20bailout.html?_r=1&ref=business
"simply by converting the government existing loans to the nation's
19 biggest banks into common stock."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~un-fucking-belivable,hehe
So every tax payer owns a piece of these shit banks.
Where have we seen this "conversion of debt to equity"?
Answer: in a bankruptcy event.
BTW: I think this will be a huge huge dilution for affected banks.

i*p2012-03-07 08:03

2 楼

不是我写的application, 但要我回OA, 我需要about 20 hours (at least), faint ah!
partner really liked the end product, but it is taking waaayyy to long, I
can maybe get it done in 12-15 hours, but the quality is gonna suffer.
sigh, 你们平常花多少时间?share your tips pls!
谢过.

L*h2012-03-07 08:03

3 楼

discuss with your partners/supervisors/co-workers/mentors.

d*e2012-03-07 08:03

4 楼

20 hours? How do you survive? 20 hours is enough for drafting a new
application.
4 hours should be enough. at most 7 hours.
You have to keep the budget in mind. the firm got to make money.

ah!

【在 i*******p 的大作中提到】

: 不是我写的application, 但要我回OA, 我需要about 20 hours (at least), faint ah!
: partner really liked the end product, but it is taking waaayyy to long, I
: can maybe get it done in 12-15 hours, but the quality is gonna suffer.
: sigh, 你们平常花多少时间?share your tips pls!
: 谢过.

T*y2012-03-07 08:03

5 楼

I started working at law firm 5 months ago. Right onw it takes me about 8-15
hours to do an OA if it is a new case (i.e., if I need to read the
specification and all the references), and about 6-10 hours otherwise.

ah!

【在 i*******p 的大作中提到】

d*e2012-03-07 08:03

6 楼

the following is how I write a response:
1. read the current claims, but do not read the spec.
2. if the claims are clear and understandable, check every argument the
examiner made and find those that are rebuttable.
3. rebut every rebuttable argument.

ah!

【在 i*******p 的大作中提到】

i*p2012-03-07 08:03

7 楼

(1)is it correct to assume you don't read "detailed description" part unless
u have to?
(2)for 103 obviousness rejections you have to read all the "detailed
description' sections?

【在 d********e 的大作中提到】

: the following is how I write a response:
: 1. read the current claims, but do not read the spec.
: 2. if the claims are clear and understandable, check every argument the
: examiner made and find those that are rebuttable.
: 3. rebut every rebuttable argument.
:
: ah!

B*t2012-03-07 08:03

8 楼

orz
崇拜一下你....
偶知道偶们往美国申请经常被开出的天价账单咋来的了...

ah!

【在 i*******p 的大作中提到】

I*n2012-03-07 08:03

9 楼

Different technologies, different cases warrant different budget. I don't
think there should be a bright line rule about the time budget.

i*p2012-03-07 08:03

10 楼

you are wrong, we are on a flat fee billing for OAs.
but thanks for you valuable insights

【在 B*****t 的大作中提到】

: orz
: 崇拜一下你....
: 偶知道偶们往美国申请经常被开出的天价账单咋来的了...
:
: ah!

y*o2012-03-07 08:03

11 楼

这个，难道和billing rate无关么？一小时bill $100的人和一小时bill $300的人，不
可能花同样多的时间吧。。。

ah!

【在 i*******p 的大作中提到】

i*p2012-03-07 08:03

12 楼

you are correct in that a person's billing rate should be taken into
consideration, sry I wasn't very clear, but even for my (dissimal) hourly
rate, the amount of time spent (seems to me) is tooo long.

【在 y**o 的大作中提到】

: 这个，难道和billing rate无关么？一小时bill $100的人和一小时bill $300的人，不
: 可能花同样多的时间吧。。。
:
: ah!

o*s2012-03-07 08:03

13 楼

Of course it depends on the complexity of the application, the references
cited, and the examiner's arguments. But generally, 15 hours, not to
mention 20, are way too long. I usually bill about 8-10 hours for unfamiliar
cases and about 4-6 hours for familiar cases. The actual time used is about
10-20% more.
Don't worry, you'll improve your speed with time.

ah!

【在 i*******p 的大作中提到】

m*02012-03-07 08:03

14 楼

what's your billing rate then? $150?

【在 i*******p 的大作中提到】

: you are correct in that a person's billing rate should be taken into
: consideration, sry I wasn't very clear, but even for my (dissimal) hourly
: rate, the amount of time spent (seems to me) is tooo long.

d*e2012-03-07 08:03

15 楼

unless
true
no. reading the detailed description too early will contaminate my
understanding of the claims. if I cannot understand the claims by
themselves, I'll browse the spec and probably amend the claims.

【在 i*******p 的大作中提到】

: (1)is it correct to assume you don't read "detailed description" part unless
: u have to?
: (2)for 103 obviousness rejections you have to read all the "detailed
: description' sections?

d*e2012-03-07 08:03

16 楼

That's very true, but sometimes the client imposes a cap on the fees. The
firm has to make money.
Say, the client has a $2000 cap on each response and one's rate is $300/hr.
One can only spend 6 hours at most and leave the remaining $200 for 20
minutes of the partner's review time.

【在 I*****n 的大作中提到】

: Different technologies, different cases warrant different budget. I don't
: think there should be a bright line rule about the time budget.

i*p2012-03-07 08:03

17 楼

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sry i wasn't very clear. I was referring to the detailed description
sections of the alleged prior arts. you have to read them b/c they
(1)the examiner refers to specific places for reasons of "teaching or
suggestion".
(2)they may contain languages that the examiner did not quote, but never the
less can counter your reasonings in your OA moot?
I am talking about 103 obviousness rejections btw.

【在 d********e 的大作中提到】

: That's very true, but sometimes the client imposes a cap on the fees. The
: firm has to make money.
: Say, the client has a $2000 cap on each response and one's rate is $300/hr.
: One can only spend 6 hours at most and leave the remaining $200 for 20
: minutes of the partner's review time.

i*p2012-03-07 08:03

18 楼

I have a few templates I can plug stuff into and get the OA done in a lot
shorter time, but the argument will seem "mechanical", or even worse,
largely 咬文嚼字, and lacking substantial substantace. Doesn't mean that's
unacceptable, judging from some of the OAs floating around the network drive
....

.

【在 d********e 的大作中提到】

d*e2012-03-07 08:03

19 楼

I only read the portions the examiner cited. if the examiner's position is
very difficult to rebut, I browse other portions for teaching away or
inoperability. Just don't read the references word by word, especially the
secondary references.
This is a balance between thoroughness and efficiency.

the

【在 i*******p 的大作中提到】

: I have a few templates I can plug stuff into and get the OA done in a lot
: shorter time, but the argument will seem "mechanical", or even worse,
: largely 咬文嚼字, and lacking substantial substantace. Doesn't mean that's
: unacceptable, judging from some of the OAs floating around the network drive
: ....
:
: .

i*p2012-03-07 08:03

20 楼

"I browse other portions for teaching away or
how about the prior art skipped over a required element/limitation all
together (for 102)? sounds too familiar?
I had to read the entire refernce couple of times to make sure it indeed is
absent. and then can confidently argue "nowhere does the "the prior art"
discloses or suggests the feautre of......."
hehe
is
the

d*e2012-03-07 08:03

21 楼

for 102 rejections, the examiner has to show what in the reference
corresponds to each claimed feature.
You check each of those statements in the OA. If the examiner fails to
address some feature in the claim or the alleged correspondence is
rebuttable, you simply say that. E.g., the OA fails to show the reference
discloses the feature "..." recited in Claim 1.
Remember, it's the examiner's duty to show unpatentability.

is

【在 i*******p 的大作中提到】

: "I browse other portions for teaching away or
: how about the prior art skipped over a required element/limitation all
: together (for 102)? sounds too familiar?
: I had to read the entire refernce couple of times to make sure it indeed is
: absent. and then can confidently argue "nowhere does the "the prior art"
: discloses or suggests the feautre of......."
: hehe
: is
: the