An Inventor wants someone to work with where the fees are reasonable and never a surprise. It is also important to find someone you can communicate well with and who has the expertise, time and will to actually understand the core of your invention. Both inventor and applicant need to view a patent is a business tool and not an end unto itself. Of corse a practitioner wants a client who can afford the services they need and can pay cheerfully. I hope it the case that a practitioner appreciates an inventor with a solid invention that they can sink their teeth into and that might make an impact. The inventor needs to be the one inventing, not thinking they are just "the big picture guy".

Some paradoxes: 1) it will go more smoothly if the inventor has finished inventing before the application writing starts. On the other hand it is important to have an open mind to alternate embodiments and to the core patentable part not being what you think it is. 2) it is very helpful if an inventor is knowledgable about patent law and procedures. On the other hand, while the practitioner should be happy to explain everything at least twice, they do not want to be continually second guessed by someone with insufficient appreciation for the depth and subtly of the field.

The inventor should demand a practitioner who can explain complex patent system issues in a way that is understandable, even if the logic behind the law isn't. And who can explain their invention to the examiner.

Some people work on an hourly basis and some on a project basis. Either way can work as long as all the cards are on the table.

I suspect I am the guilty party in the poster's scenario. Whether I am or am not, it is a good lesson for all of us to be considerate of people we communicate with.

An inventor wants someone to work with where the fees are reasonable and never a surprise. It is also important to find someone you can communicate well with and who has the expertise, time and will to actually understand the core of your invention. Both inventor and applicant need to view a patent is a business tool and not an end unto itself. Of corse a practitioner wants a client who can afford the services they need and can pay cheerfully. I hope it the case that a practitioner appreciates an inventor with a solid invention that they can sink their teeth into and that might make an impact. The inventor needs to be the one inventing, not thinking they are just "the big picture guy".

Some paradoxes: 1) it will go more smoothly if the inventor has finished inventing before the application writing starts. On the other hand it is important to have an open mind to alternate embodiments and to the core patentable part not being what you think it is. 2) it is very helpful if an inventor is knowledgable about patent law and procedures. On the other hand, while the practitioner should be happy to explain everything at least twice, they do not want to be continually second guessed by someone with insufficient appreciation for the depth and subtly of the field. 3) an inventor who helps with the process can be a help; an inventor who helps with the process can be a hindrance. Good help is being clear about the invention, having written starting point documents and drawings, reading and carefully reviewing documents sent by the practitioner. Unwelcome help is re-writing the application, insisting on being at the examiner interview.

The inventor should demand a practitioner who can explain complex patent system issues in a way that is understandable, even if the logic behind the law isn't. And who can explain their invention to the examiner.

Some people work on an hourly basis and some on a project basis. Either way can work as long as all the cards are on the table.

I suspect I am the guilty party in the poster's poor communication scenario. Whether I am or am not, it is a good lesson for all of us to be considerate of people we communicate with.

An Inventor wants someone to work with where the fees are reasonable and never a surprise. It is also important to find someone you can communicate well with and who has the expertise, time and will to actually understand the core of your invention. Both inventor and applicant need to view a patent is a business tool and not an end unto itself. Of corse a practitioner wants a client who can afford the services they need and can pay cheerfully. I hope it the case that a practitioner appreciates an inventor with a solid invention that they can sink their teeth into and that might make an impact. The inventor needs to be the one inventing, not thinking they are just "the big picture guy".

Some paradoxes: 1  )it will go more smoothly if the inventor has finished inventing before the application writing starts. On the other hand it is important to have an open mind to alternate embodiments and to the core patentable part not being what you think it is. 2) it is very helpful if an inventor is knowledgable about patent law and procedures. On the other hand, while the practitioner should be happy to explain everything at least twice, they do not want to be continually second guessed by someone with insufficient appreciation for the depth and subtly of the field.

The inventor should demand a practitioner who can explain complex patent system issues in a way that is understandable, even if the logic behind the law isn't. And who can explain their invention to the examiner.

Some people work on an hourly basis and some on a project basis. Either way can work as long as all the cards are on the table.

I suspect I am the guilty party in the poster's scenario. Whether I am or am not, it is a good lesson for all of us to be considerate of people we communicate with.

An Inventor wants someone to work with where the fees are reasonable and never a surprise. It is also important to find someone you can communicate well with and who has the expertise, time and will to actually understand the core of your invention. Both inventor and applicant need to view a patent is a business tool and not an end unto itself. Of corse a practitioner wants a client who can afford the services they need and can pay cheerfully. I hope it the case that a practitioner appreciates an inventor with a solid invention that they can sink their teeth into and that might make an impact. The inventor needs to be the one inventing, not thinking they are just "the big picture guy".

Some paradoxes: 1) it will go more smoothly if the inventor has finished inventing before the application writing starts. On the other hand it is important to have an open mind to alternate embodiments and to the core patentable part not being what you think it is. 2) it is very helpful if an inventor is knowledgable about patent law and procedures. On the other hand, while the practitioner should be happy to explain everything at least twice, they do not want to be continually second guessed by someone with insufficient appreciation for the depth and subtly of the field.

The inventor should demand a practitioner who can explain complex patent system issues in a way that is understandable, even if the logic behind the law isn't. And who can explain their invention to the examiner.

Some people work on an hourly basis and some on a project basis. Either way can work as long as all the cards are on the table.

I suspect I am the guilty party in the poster's scenario. Whether I am or am not, it is a good lesson for all of us to be considerate of people we communicate with.