examiners

Patent examiners with doctorates were paid more than examiners who didn't have PhD's, you see.

Some examiners seem to take pleasure in rejecting the application, even if they cannot find appropriate prior art.

They really need to find a way of firing patent examiners who grant these sort of patents.

Some examiners are impressed with the assignee name (Google, Apple, and such), and may be more likely to allow.

You could also post those on askpatents.com, which patent examiners are known to look at occasionally.

In a perfect world, there would be enough funding for examiners to spent a month examining every application that comes in.

However, the examiners surreptitiously gave some participants a cup of cold beverage to hold, while they gave the others a hot one.

And it would probably line the pockets of lawyers and medical examiners to a greater extent than those who suffered the harm.

The Trademark examiners are actually generally pretty good at this sort of stuff.

For years, the SEC was/is clamoring to hire more and more qualified examiners.

Some examiners are easier to hide the ball from than others.

In the common use case of culling the herd of police job applicants, polygraph examiners are there to provide a way to arbitrarily reject certain applicants.

Examiners are judged on how many responses ("Office Actions") they file, whether allowing or rejecting a patent.

The "manual guidance in between" is where CSI is so incredibly screwed up though (toolmark and fingerprint examiners, polygraph operators, etc).

What makes you think that the polygraph examiners "believe" in the machine.

About 30% of my success was due to my comfort working in front of an audience--even a panel of examiners is "an audience"--and I had a huge advantage over my peers because of it.

Examiners take seminars on writing headlines, writing in the third person and making full use of social media, all of which are Google manna.