tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5677385.post243380807751725918..comments2012-02-13T07:51:47.977-08:00Erin-Michael Gillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04073642945006189878noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5677385.post-83560026368380281442007-11-26T19:17:00.000-08:002007-11-26T19:17:00.000-08:00Sorry Tim - I just can't buy the premise that "no human process can do that well". <BR/><BR/>With all the six-sigmaesque, process improvement type systems out there, there should be a way, without reducing quality or decreasing examiner time, to enable the 5000+ or so USPTO examiners to average 3 "new" cases per bi-week. <BR/><BR/>Actually, let me think about that a bit more and blog a proposal tomorrow. <BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>Erin-MichaelErin-Michael Gillhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04073642945006189878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5677385.post-13502220198005897132007-11-26T17:28:00.000-08:002007-11-26T17:28:00.000-08:00I agree that it is not a perfect solution, but the $50,000 fee is really designed to relieve the USPTO from having to process 413,000 patent applications next year. Of course, no human process can do that well, so we either reduce the number of applications filed, or we accept low quality patents. I vote for the reduction in number and an increase in quality.Tim Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06073366480423507725noreply@blogger.com