Proof
We ran it before we sold it.
Real prosecution, anonymized. Three ways a response can go, and one blind test.
A rejection built on a reference that did not actually teach the limitation it was cited for. We carried the independent claim on the merits. No amendment needed.
The limitation was genuinely taught. So we did not argue it. We amended with pinpoint spec support, no new matter, and cleared the ground clean.
Multiple rejections across §102 and §103, each one taken in turn, none left for the examiner to raise again.
The Honest One
We drafted blind, and matched the theory the attorney filed.
We took a real office action, drafted a response without seeing the reply the attorney of record actually filed, and then compared. Our independent draft landed on the same theory they did. That is the test that matters, because there was no answer key to copy.
[CONFIRM] Add Eric's Case E result here once the blind replay is complete and cleared. Keep anonymized.
"If the Rejection Read says there is no response worth writing, we tell you that, and we do not send an invoice."
Honest by design is not a tagline for us. It is the reason the work survives your review, and your client's diligence after that.