Posts Tagged: "patent prosecution"

The beginning of Part 2 of my interview picks up where we left off, but more generally broadens out to generically ask how Kappos approaches the daunting task of getting over 6000 patent examiners on the same page to provide uniformity when by the very nature of the decisions they make they are dealing with one-of-a-kind innovations. There is always going to be subjectivity in prosecution, but the Kappos Administration seems to have gone back the philosophy of old, which is that patents should be granted on patentable inventions and it is the job of patent examiners, with the help of applicants and attorneys, to work together to find patent allowable matter in applications. But getting the message from the 10th floor of the Madison Building to trickle down to 6000+ patent examiners is something that cannot be taken for granted.

Early in my career, I encountered a series of approximately 20 patent applications that were assigned to a small number of different art units. During the time it took to bring the cases to resolution, I kept detailed notes of my experiences prosecuting each case. It eventually occurred to me that the information I’d collected might be useful to other prosecutors working with the same examiners and/or art units. I wondered whether my colleagues, by reviewing my notes and gaining insight from my experiences, might be able to accomplish resolution more effectively and efficiently. However, the subjective and anecdotal nature of my notes limited their practicality. Recognizing that fact, I began to consider strategies for facilitating ways in which practitioners could more effectively share their prosecution experiences with one another.

Director Kappos was extremely gracious with his time, speaking to me on the record for nearly 90 minutes. He answered every one of my questions without dodging, and even spent time to discuss several things I did not raise. Truthfully, I could have spoken with Director Kappos for many additional hours, but I believe you will find that neither I or he shied away from any topics. We chatted about the problems with lengthy application delays, the increasing discontent within the patent bar regarding RCE filings, the America Invents Act and the challenges he faces getting 6000+ patent examiners on the same page with policy initiatives, among many other things.

What if you could have a crystal ball looking inside the United States Patent and Trademark Office to easily determine an array of statistical information related to a particular Art Unit or even a specific Patent Examiner? Can you imagine the types of strategic consultations you could engage in with clients? Clients hate being surprised with additional fees and unexplained and/or unexpected delays. What if you could with a few clicks of your mouse find out all kinds of information about a Patent Examiner and/or Art Unit? The amount of cases requiring an RCE, the average number of office actions, how often appeals are successful, how long it takes on average to get a patent, among much more information? Thanks to a new system created by patent attorneys Chris Holt and Joseph Kelly — the PatentCore™ system — you can obtain actionable and immediate intelligence on any patent examiner and on any Art Unit.

Breakthroughs in science and engineering create foundations for new industries, new companies, and new jobs. This is undeniably true. The question is how do we unleash this engine of growth? I am in favor of streamlining the technology transfer process, but I believe that it needs to begin from within. Universities have to revise the view of their appropriate role. Universities are not supposed to be in the business of technology transfer to make money, but rather to facilitate the development of exciting new innovations while training the next generation of engineers and scientists. By developing exciting new innovations and then placing them into the private sector the University plays a vital role in the innovation economy. Under-funding and over-working technology transfer departments is counter-productive.

The best thing to do is explain why your invention solves problems and/or is important for the relevant consumer audience. In order to accomplish this you do not explain what else available to consumers and why it is inferior, missing functionality or missing parts. Remember, the focus of the application MUST be on your invention. It can be extremely helpful to create a comparison chart or write text comparing the prior art you know about with your invention, but this should be used by you or provided to your patent attorney or agent. It will be exceptionally helpful to have this information, and I ask my clients to provide it to me whenever they are willing to be so involved. This information informs how you describe the invention, and will be helpful later during prosecution, but it is not appropriate in a patent application.

Upon hearing Rader make such a bold statement the first thought that ran through my mind was — Really? Did he just say that? I have heard from others for some time that Rader has been heard to say these or similar things relating to obviousness, but I just discounted them as one would discount the output of a game of telephone. After something gets stated, shared and restated there is typically little of the same message remaining. That had to be why Rader was reported to have said such curious things about obviousness and the impact of KSR. But then I was sitting right there listening to Chief Judge Rader say something that is provably incorrect. I’ll bite. I’ll take that challenge.

If (B) gives a blanket exclusion to subject matter, which cannot be used as prior art after a disclosure by an inventor, that would lead to nearly ridiculous results. Imagine for example that an inventor discloses a specific embodiment of a coffee cup and then subsequently another who did not derive independently comes up with and discloses a coffee cup with a lid. If (B) does more than relate to a personal grace-period the subsequent disclosure could not be used against the first to publish inventor as prior art because it relates to the same “subject matter.” That would mean that the inventor could incorporate the cup and the lid into his/her patent application and obtain claims. You might be tempted to say that is impossible, but if the cup with the lid is not prior art then under what rationale could an examiner issue a good rejection? This would lead to results that turn the patent system upside down, and was clear evidence to me that those arguing that 102(b)(1)(B) excluded out subsequent independently disclosed inventions was fanciful at best.

I like writing about esoteric patent law topics and the question of “intervening rights” in reexaminations/reissues is one of the more esoteric. See my 1998 JPTOS article entitledIntervening Rights: A Potential Hidden Trap for Reexamined Patent. The case of Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon, Inc. is one of those rare instances in this esoteric area of patent law where the Federal Circuit announced a new “wrinkle” on when “intervening rights” apply in reexamination. Unfortunately, the rule announced by the majority in Marine Polymer Technologies (“intervening rights” apply to unamended claims based on statements made during reexamination) is squarely in conflict with the express language of 35 U.S.C. § 307(b), as Judge Lourie’s dissent vigorously (and more importantly, correctly) points out.

For example, does a hair dryer with integrated radio, beer bottle opener, shaving cream dispenser that floats sound marketable? Perhaps as a gag gift maybe, but the addition of random features for the sake of obtaining a patent is not usually wise. I’ve seen terribly broad disclosures filed for an inventor with one extraordinarily specific embodiment. Right away I can tell what is happening. The patent attorney (or patent agent) is drafting the disclosure so that at least one claim, no matter how narrow, can be obtained. Unfortunately, it does not typically make sense to layer on specifics unless those specifics contribute to marketability, and in most cases layer after layer of detailed specifics only makes the claim narrow and less valuable. So if you are going to try and get around prior art to obtain a patent make sure the specifics added will provide an advantage.

The real sin is that reexamination could be a much better process. Those in Congress talk about alleviating the burden on the district courts by having a reexamination proceeding available, but they don’t seem to appreciate why it is that reexamination is under utilized. On top of that, patent reform circulating in Congress does absolutely nothing to revamp reexamination in a way that would streamline the process and make it more appealing. What patent reform does do, however, is add yet another procedure to bog down the Patent Office while not allowing the Patent Office to set fees and keep those fees they collect to do the work that is promised when they accept those fees. So if patent reform passes you can anticipate that the reexamination pendency numbers will get even more ugly, making the option even less appealing.

While the applicability of Therasense is easy to see as it applies to prosecution of a patent application, the strategic opportunities presented in reexamination are not all together apparent on the face of the ruling, inter partes reexamination offers an excellent opportunity for provoking comments from the patentee, which might be useful in an ongoing or anticipated infringement litigation, particularly with respect to such issues as claim construction, willful infringement or materiality.