Blaise Pascal has quite a legacy - including having units of pressure named after him, along with a programming language. And, it turns out he has some good advice for patent attorneys, although it is not of an engineering nature.

Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and Catholic theologian (wiki) who you might remember from fluid mechanics in engineering. Pascal’s law for in-compressible fluids states that a pressure change at any point in the fluid is transmitted throughout the fluid. This principle explains why a high column of water can be used to make a barrel burst from the hydro-static pressure transferred to the fluid in the barrel. Pascal also developed some important aspects of probability theory and decision theory.

But, Pascals work in philosophy is the main topic today. As reported here, Pascal also recognized important practical aspects of persuasion that psychologists have experimentally proven to be true:

When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true. ... People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.

Some might argue that patent prosecution attorneys get more day-to-day work in presenting arguments to a fact-finder in order to convince them to change their position than many other areas of the law. This is because patent prosecutors are constantly presenting arguments, via interviews or persuasive wiring in responses to Office actions, to an examiner that has already made up their mind to reject an application. Pascal’s advice here is particularly relevant as this approach is highly applicable to the patent prosecution context. At the same time, patent applicants must be extremely careful never to actually admit anything that the Patent Office examiner can use against them, as the Office is known to do (see previous posts on admissions here).

For example, the patent applicant can approach an obviousness rejection by noting how, at first glance, the proposed combination may seem appealing for certain reasons, but that upon considering the issue from the implementation point of view, problems arise.

Of course Pascal’s wisdom is applicable in every area of the law, but patent prosecution attorneys might particularly benefit from considering his view when drafting responses to Office actions.