Honestly, most attorney arguments and accompanying claim amendments are trivially refutable rubbish. I am sort of curious what they are thinking when they do these things, but the answer could be less interesting than I imagine. I guess you are implying that it is because the attorneys are required to work on a larger set of technologies and so are often in unfamiliar territory. Occasionally, though, you do draw someone formidable.InTheHouse wrote: Aren't you already running circles around attorneys? My cases run the gamut and I'm lucky if I'm working on something close to my area of expertise. Aside from the examiners with huge communications issues, examiners rarely have trouble holding their own.
Basically, I am trying to justify getting a law degree because it would be an interesting thing to do and in general I would like a solid understanding of the field in which I am working. However, I am not really convinced that law firm life is an upgrade or noticeably better compensated on average or leads to more interesting work. Litigation sounds like fun in theory, but the impression I've gotten is that even that leads to a lot of drudgery once you are past the clerkship you may or may not get.
