u/Practical_Bed_6871

I've read various reddits and something happened about 9 months or so ago that locked an apparently huge number of individuals out of their Yahoo email accounts.

I lost access to any Yahoo email account that I had used another yahoo email account as a recovery email. Each email account wanted a code from the other email account before Yahoo would let me into the email account. In other words, I was caught in a security loop. The thing is, I never activated 2FA! Yet, it was acting as if I had! My user names and passwords were correct but the accounts would not let me in unless I had a code from another account I could not get into without a code from the first account!

I called up Yahoo customer help and was ready to pay money to regain access. I even sent my driver license to them to prove who I was. However, that was no help because, 25 years ago, when I opened these Yahoo email accounts, I never used my real birthdate to set up the accounts. So, that was a no go.

I repeatedly tried to sign in over the next few months but eventually gave up. Then, just the other day, I tried once more and I was immediately granted access to my account. There were a few warnings from Yahoo saying that my account was inactive and would be completely deleted one year from my last date of activity. I immediately added a good phone number to my recovery security and added a gmail account for recovery.

Was there some lawsuit that forced them to give back access or did Yahoo correct this on their own?

How much does it cost these days to appeal to the Federal Circuit from the PTAB?

From decisions I'm reading, it seems that their only purpose is to rescue the Examiner from the Examiner's own bad rejections by finding other new grounds to reject the claims.

I'm looking for case law where the Federal Circuit/SCOTUS overturned overly rigid applications of tests for various issues relating to obviousness in view of KSR which required more flexibility in the analysis. For example, overly rigid application of the Wands factors, etc.

I asked the Examiner to rejoin claims directed to product-by-process when the process claims were allowed. The product claim specifically incorporates the allowed independent claim for the process. The Examiner said that it could not be done because MPEP 821.04 only talks about allowing process claims when the product claim is allowed. However, nothing in 821.04 actually says you can't allow the product claim that incorporates the allowed process claim.

I think the Examiner is just letting a badly written MPEP section interfere with rejoining an allowable claim since the MPEP section doesn't specifically say you can't rejoin a product claim that incorporates the allowed process claim. Thoughts?

Update:

The claim goes "A ____ product produced by the method of Claim 1, wherein said product _______. Claim 1 was allowed. Everything in the independent product claim was claimed in the examined dependent claims.

From the modern Examiner perspective, do you interpret the following as meaning the same thing?:

"attached to at least one of the front and back sides"

"attached to at least one of the front or back sides"

Over the years, members of my Board have given misleading information about project costs and budgets. Do Board members have to give accurate information about costs associated with fixing roofs and things like that? What if they make an honest mistake? Do they still have to correct it?

A homeowner video recorded a portion of an open Board meeting when one of the members went on a rant against the Board. We don't allow recording of Board meetings yet the Board used this video recording against the homeowner during a disciplinary hearing but brought no disciplinary hearing against the homeowner who recorded the video.

Does this fall within the realm of selective enforcement? It's okay to violate the rules when it benefits the Board?

I was not the homeowner who went on a rant.

The President of my HOA is an ex officio member of all committees under the By-laws. Last month, during a meeting of one of those committees, the President claimed that he was a regular appointed member of a particular committee because his name was stated when the Board approved the people appointed to that particular committee for the year.

IMHO, his so-called "appointment" at the meeting was moot because he (the President) was already part of that committee ex officio under the By-laws. During the meeting, he threw a hissyfit about it as if he had more power as a regular member than an ex officio member. As far as I know, there's no difference. Is there?

Quality of Office Actions is just circling the toilet. Examiners aren't giving the slightest amount of effort above bare minimum. Our clients are getting overcharged for the quality they are receiving.

Rant off.