Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Courts, the 

Internet, and Intellectual Property, 

Committee on the Judiciary, House of 

Representatives

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 1:00 p.m. EDT 

Thursday, September 8, 2005 INTELLECTUAL 

PROPERTY 

Improvements Needed to 

Better Manage Patent Office 

Automation and Address 

Workforce Challenges 

Statement of Anu K. Mittal, Director 

Science and Technology Issues 

and 

Linda D. Koontz, Director 

Information Management Issues 

GAO-05-1008T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-1008T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above.For 

more information, contact Anu Mittal at (202) 

512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov or Linda Koontz 

at (202) 512-6240 or koontzl@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-1008T, testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Courts, the 

Internet, and Intellectual Property, 

Committee on the Judiciary, House of 

Representatives 

September 8, 2005

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

Improvements Needed to Better Manage 

Patent Office Automation and Address 

Workforce Challenges 

As part of its strategy to achieve an electronic patent process, USPTO had 

planned to deliver an operational patent system by October 2004. It has 

delivered important capabilities, for example, allowing patent applicants to 

electronically file and view the status of their applications and the public to 

search published patents. Nonetheless, after spending over $1 billion on its 

efforts from 1983 through 2004, the agency has not yet developed the fully 

integrated, electronic patent process articulated in its automation plans, and 

when and how it will achieve this process is uncertain. Key systems that the 

agency is relying on to help reach this goal—an electronic application filing 

system and a document imaging system—have not provided capabilities that 

are essential to operating in a fully electronic environment. Contributing to 

this situation is the agency’s ineffective planning for and management of its 

patent automation initiatives, due in large measure to enterprise-level, 

systemic weaknesses in its information technology investment management 

processes. Although the agency has begun instituting essential investment 

management mechanisms, such as its enterprise architecture framework, it 

has not yet finalized its capital planning and investment control process, or 

established necessary linkages between the process and its architecture to 

guide the development and implementation of its information technology. 

The Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and the agency’s 

chief information officer have acknowledged the need for improvement. 

USPTO has taken steps to attract and retain a highly qualified patent 

examination workforce by, for example, enhancing its recruiting efforts and 

using many of the human capital benefits available under federal personnel 

regulations. However, it is too soon to determine the long-term success of 

the agency’s efforts because they have been in place only a short time and 

have not been consistently sustained because of budgetary constraints. 

Long-term uncertainty about the agency’s hiring and retention success is 

also due to the unknown impact of the economy. In the past, the agency had 

more difficulty recruiting and retaining staff when the economy was doing 

well. Further, USPTO faces three long-standing challenges that could 

undermine its efforts: the lack of an effective strategy to communicate and 

collaborate with examiners, outdated assumptions in production quotas that 

it uses to reward examiners, and the lack of required ongoing technical 

training for examiners. Patent examiners said the lack of a collaborative 

work environment has lowered morale and created an atmosphere of 

distrust between management and patent examiners. 

Overall, USPTO has made more progress in implementing its strategic plan 

initiatives aimed at increasing its patent processing capability through 

workforce and process improvements than in its initiatives to decrease 

patent pendency and improve electronic processing. It has fully or partially 

implemented all 23 capability initiatives, but only 8 of 15 initiatives to reduce 

patent pendency and improve electronic processing. The agency cited a lack 

of funding as the primary reason for not implementing all initiatives. 

The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO) is 

responsible for issuing patents that 

protect new ideas and investments 

in innovation and creativity. 

However, the volume and 

complexity of patent applications 

to the agency have increased 

significantly in recent years, 

lengthening the time needed to 

process patents and raising 

concerns about the validity of the 

patents that are issued. Annual 

applications have grown from 

about 185,000 to over 350,000 in the 

last 10 years and are projected to 

exceed 450,000 by 2009. Coupled 

with this growth is a backlog of 

about 750,000 applications. Further 

complicating matters, the agency 

has faced difficulty in attracting 

and retaining qualified staff to 

process patent applications. 

USPTO has long recognized the 

need to automate its patent 

processing and, over the past two 

decades, has been engaged in 

various automation projects. More 

recently, in its strategic plan, the 

agency articulated its approach for 

accelerating the use of automation 

and improving workforce quality. 

In two reports issued in June 2005, 

GAO discussed progress and 

problems that the agency faces as it 

develops its electronic patent 

process, its actions to attain a 

highly qualified patent examination 

workforce, and the progress of the 

agency’s strategic plan initiatives. 

At the Committee’s request, this 

testimony summarizes the results 

of these GAO reports. 
Page 1 GAO-05-1008T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to be here today to participate in your oversight hearing of 

the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) efforts to 

modernize its patent application processing capability. Our testimony 

focuses on several critical aspects of the agency’s overall goal: (1) its 

ongoing initiative to achieve a paperless, electronic patent process, (2) its 

actions to attract and retain a highly qualified patent examiner workforce 

and address human capital challenges, and (3) the implementation of 

critical initiatives outlined in its 21st Century Strategic Plan—issued in 

2002 in response to a congressional requirement that the agency improve 

patent quality, implement electronic government, and reduce the number 

of pending patent claims.1

Rapid growth in both the volume and complexity of patent applications to 

USPTO has lengthened the time needed to process patents and has raised 

concerns among intellectual property organizations, patent holders, and 

others about the quality of the patents that are issued. Over the last 10 

years, the number of patent applications filed annually has increased 91 

percent, from about 185,000 in 1994 to over 350,000 in 2004. Along with 

this growing workload is a 28-month backlog of approximately 750,000 

applications. Further complicating this picture, is that USPTO’s resources 

have not kept pace with the increases in its patent workload. Agency 

officials acknowledge that, at times, they have had difficulty competing 

with the private sector to attract and retain staff with the high degree of 

scientific, technical, and legal knowledge required to be patent examiners. 

Recognizing the need to improve its patent processing capability, over the 

past 2 decades, USPTO has undertaken various efforts to automate its 

patent process. In addition, as part of an aggressive 5-year modernization 

effort outlined in its strategic plan, the agency has articulated its approach 

to creating a more productive and responsive patent organization through 

accelerating its use of automation and enhancing the quality of its patent 

examination workforce. At the request of the Committee, our testimony 

today summarizes the work presented in two reports that we issued in 

June 2005—one addressing the agency’s progress, and problems faced, in 

developing and using electronic information and systems to achieve its 

 1

Patent and Trademark Office Authorization Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-273, § 13104, 116 

Stat. 1899, 1900, required USPTO to develop a 5-year strategic plan for meeting these three 

requirements. USPTO also prepared the Strategic Plan to fulfill the requirements of the 

Government Performance and Results Act. 
Page 2 GAO-05-1008T 

automated patent processing capability2 and the other addressing its steps 

to attract and retain a workforce of qualified patent examiners, three longstanding human capital challenges that could undermine recent efforts, 

and the overall status in implementing its strategic plan.3

In summary, we found the following: 

USPTO is pursuing a long-standing strategy to implement a paperless, 

electronic patent process, with the goal of replacing the manual 

processing of applications with an electronic process for researching 

patent information and viewing and manipulating application text 

throughout all processing phases. While the agency has achieved 

important electronic capabilities through information systems that it has 

implemented, such as electronic filing and patent application classification 

and search, collectively these functions have not provided the fully 

integrated electronic patent processing capability articulated in its 

automation plans. Two of the primary systems that the agency is relying 

on to enhance its capabilities—its electronic filing system and a document 

imaging system that it acquired from the European Patent Office—have 

not yielded processing improvements that the agency considers essential 

to operate successfully in an electronic environment. Contributing to this 

situation are ineffective planning and management of its patent 

automation projects—due in large measure to enterprise-level, systemic 

weaknesses in its information technology investment management 

processes.4

 Although the agency had begun instituting certain essential 

investment management mechanisms, it had not yet finalized its capital 

planning and investment control process and had not established the 

necessary linkages between the process and its enterprise architecture to 

ensure that projects will comply with the architecture.5

 As a result, the 

 2

GAO, Intellectual Property: Key Processes for Managing Patent Automation Strategy 

Need Strengthening, GAO-05-336 (Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2005). 

3

GAO, Intellectual Property: USPTO Has Made Progress in Hiring Examiners, but 

Challenges to Retention Remain, GAO-05-720 (Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2005). 

4

A key requirement of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C.§11312) is that agencies 

have capital planning and investment control processes. Such processes aid management 

by providing a means to obtain necessary information about the progress of an investment 

in terms of cost, capability of the system to meet specified requirements, timeliness, and 

quality. 

5

An enterprise architecture serves as a blueprint for systematically and completely defining 

an organization’s current operational and technology environment and as a roadmap 

toward the desired state. 
Page 3 GAO-05-1008T 

agency had not rigorously assessed its patent systems’ compliance with 

the enterprise architecture and it lacked reliable experience-based data to 

consistently demonstrate the costs and benefits of its systems. 

In addition, to help attract and retain a qualified patent examination 

workforce, USPTO has taken steps such as enhancing its recruiting efforts 

and using many of the human capital benefits available under federal 

personnel regulations. However, it is too soon to determine the long-term 

success of the agency’s recruiting efforts because they have been in place 

only a short time and have not been consistently sustained because of 

budgetary constraints. Long-term uncertainty about USPTO’s hiring and 

retention success is also due to the unknown impact of the economy. In 

the past, when the economy was doing well, the agency had more 

difficulty recruiting and retaining the staff it needed. Further, USPTO faces 

three long-standing challenges that could undermine its efforts to retain a 

qualified workforce: (1) the lack of an effective strategy to communicate 

and collaborate with examiners, (2) outdated assumptions in the 

application processing quotas it uses to reward examiners, and (3) the 

lack of required ongoing technical training for examiners. According to 

patent examiners, the lack of communication and a collaborative work 

environment has resulted in low morale and an atmosphere of distrust that 

is exacerbated by the contentious relationship between management and 

union officials. 

Overall, USPTO has made more progress in implementing its strategic plan 

initiatives to increase the agency’s capability than it has in implementing 

the initiatives to decrease patent pendency6

 and improve electronic 

processing. The agency has fully or partially implemented all 23 capability 

initiatives that focus on improving the skills of employees, enhancing 

quality assurance, and altering the patent system through changes in 

existing laws or regulations. In contrast, the agency has partially or fully 

implemented only 8 of the 15 initiatives aimed at reducing patent 

pendency and improving electronic processing. A lack of funding was 

cited as the primary reason for not implementing these initiatives. With the 

passage of legislation in December 2004 to increase fees available to 

USPTO for the next 2 years, the agency is reevaluating the feasibility of 

implementing some of these initiatives. 

 6

The time between filing for and being granted a patent historically has been referred to as 

“patent pendency.” 
Page 4 GAO-05-1008T 

In our reports, we made recommendations aimed at improving the 

agency’s management of its patent automation strategy and related 

information technology investments and at enhancing communication and 

collaboration between management and patent examiners, and between 

management and union officials. USPTO generally agreed with the 

findings, conclusions, and recommendations in both reports, although it 

only partially agreed with several material aspects of our assessment of its 

patent automation strategy, including our recommendation that it reassess 

its approach to automating its patent process. 

USPTO helps promote industrial and technological progress in the United 

States and strengthen the national economy by administering the laws 

relating to patents and trademarks. A critical part of its mission is 

examining patent applications and issuing patents. A patent is a property 

right granted by the U.S. government to an inventor who secures, generally 

for 20 years from the date of initial application in the United States, his or 

her exclusive right to make, use, offer for sale, or sell the invention in 

exchange for disclosing it.7

 The number of patent filings to USPTO 

continues to grow and, by 2009, the agency is projecting receipt of over 

450,000 patent applications annually. 

Patent processing essentially involves three phases: pre-examination, 

examination, and post-examination. The process begins when an applicant 

files a patent application and pays a filing fee. During the pre-examination 

phase, patent office staff document receipt of the application and process 

the application fee, scan and convert the paper documents to electronic 

format, and conduct an initial review of the application and classify it by 

subject matter. During the subsequent examination phase, the application 

is assigned to a patent examiner with expertise in the subject area8

 who 

searches existing U.S. and foreign patents, journals, and other literature 

and, as necessary, contacts the applicant to resolve questions and obtain 

additional information to determine whether the proposed invention can 

 7

According to 35 U.S.C. §154(a)(1), a patentee may also exclude others from importing the 

patented invention into the United States. 

8

USPTO has eight technology centers that define its subject areas as follows: 

Biotechnology and Organic Chemistry; Chemical and Materials Engineering; Computer 

Architecture, Software, and Information Security; Communications; Semiconductors, 

Electrical and Optical Systems and Components; Designs for Articles of Manufacture; 

Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security and 

License and Review; Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products. 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-05-1008T 

be patented.9 Examiners document their determinations on the 

applications in formal correspondence, referred to as office actions. 

Applicants may abandon their applications at any time during this process. 

If the examiner determines that a patent is warranted, a supervisor 

reviews and approves it and the applicant is informed of the outcome. The 

application then enters the post-examination phase and, upon payment of 

an “issue fee,” a patent is granted and published.10 Historically, the time 

from the date that a patent application is filed to the date that the patent is 

either granted or the application is abandoned has been called “patent 

pendency.” 

Because of long-standing concerns about the increasing volume and 

complexity of patent applications, USPTO has been undertaking projects 

to automate its patent process for about the past two decades. In 1983, the 

agency began one of its most substantial projects—the Automated Patent 

System (APS)—with the intent of automating all aspects of the patent 

process. APS was to be deployed in 1990 and, when completed, consist of 

five integrated subsystems that would (1) fully automate incoming patent 

applications; (2) allow examiners to electronically search the text of 

granted U.S. patents and access selected abstracts of foreign patents; (3) 

scan and allow examiners to retrieve, display, and print images of U.S. 

patents; (4) help examiners classify patents; and (5) support on-demand 

printing of copies of patents. 

In reporting on APS more than 10 years following its inception, we noted 

that USPTO had deployed and was operating and maintaining certain parts 

of the system, supporting text search, limited document imaging, orderentry and patent printing, and classification activities.11 However, our 

report raised concerns about the agency’s ability to adequately plan and 

manage this major project, pointing out that its processes for exercising 

effective management control over APS were weak. Ultimately, USPTO 

never fully developed and deployed APS to achieve the integrated, end-toend patent processing system that it envisioned. The agency reported 

 9

A proposed invention is patentable if it is a new or useful process, machine, manufacture, 

or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof. 

10To keep the patent active, the patentee must pay maintenance fees at 3.5 years, 7.5 years, 

and 11.5 years. 

11GAO, Patent and Trademark Office: Key Processes for Managing Automated Patent 

System Development Are Weak, GAO/AIMD-93-15 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 1993). 
Page 6 GAO-05-1008T 

spending approximately $1 billion on this initiative from 1983 through 

2002.12

In addition, in 1998, the agency implemented an Internet-based electronic 

filing system at a reported cost of $10 million, enabling applicants to 

submit their applications online. Further, through 2002, the agency 

continued to enhance its capabilities that enabled examiners to search 

patent images and text, and upgraded its patent application classification 

and tracking systems.13

To help the agency address the challenges of reviewing an increased 

volume of more complex patent applications and of reducing the length of 

time it takes to process them, Congress passed a law requiring USPTO to 

improve patent quality, implement electronic government, and reduce 

pendency.14 In response to the law, in June 2002, the agency embarked on 

an aggressive 5-year modernization plan outlined in its 21st Century 

Strategic Plan, which was updated to include stakeholder input and rereleased in February 2003. The strategic plan outlines 38 initiatives related 

to the patent organization that focus on three crosscutting strategic 

themes: capability, productivity, and agility. The capability theme focuses 

on efforts to enhance patent quality through workforce and process 

improvements; the productivity theme focuses on efforts to decrease the 

pendency of patent applications; and the agility theme focuses on 

initiatives to electronically process patent applications. To fully fund the 

initiatives in its strategic plan, the agency requested authority from 

Congress to increase the user fees it collects from applicants and to spend 

all of these fees on patent processing.15 Legislation enacted in December 

 12The reported cost included system enhancements and maintenance through the end of 

the project’s life cycle in 2002. 

13The initial deployment of USPTO’s patent tracking system occurred in 1980. This system 

provides workflow tracking, status reporting, and examiner production information. 

14Patent and Trademark Office Authorization Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-273, § 13104, 116 

Stat. 1899, 1900. 

15USPTO is authorized to collect fees from the public for specific activities related to 

processing applications. The spending of those fees is subject to provisions in annual 

appropriations acts at the discretion of the Congress. 
Page 7 GAO-05-1008T 

2004 increased the fees available to USPTO; 16 however, the increases are 

only effective for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. 

As was its intent with APS, USPTO has continued to pursue a paperless, 

end-to-end, automated patent process. In 2001, the agency initiated its 

Tools for Electronic Application Management (TEAM) automation project, 

aiming to deliver an end-to-end capability to process patent applications 

electronically by fiscal year 2006. Under the TEAM concept, the agency 

had planned to integrate its existing electronic filing system and the 

classification and search capabilities from the earlier APS project with 

new document management and workflow capabilities, and with imageand text-based processing17 of patent applications to achieve a 

sophisticated means of handling documents and tracking patent 

applications throughout the examination process. By implementing imageand text-based capabilities, the agency had anticipated that patent 

examiners would be able to view and process applications online, as well 

as manipulate and annotate text within a patent application, thus 

eliminating manual functions and improving processing accuracy, 

reliability, and productivity, as well as the quality of the patents that are 

granted. 

With the issuance of its 21st Century Strategic Plan, however, USPTO 

altered its approach to accomplishing patent automation. The strategic 

plan, among other things, identified the agency’s high-level information 

technology goals for fully automating the patent process as part of the 5-

year modernization effort. It incorporated automation concepts from the 

TEAM project, but announced an accelerated goal of delivering an 

operational system to electronically process patent applications by 

October 1, 2004, earlier than had been scheduled under TEAM. 

 16Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, § 801, Pub. L. No. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 2924 

(Dec. 8, 2004). 

17Image-based processing uses a graphic representation of documents produced by 

scanning paper documents or by converting electronic documents into images. To 

transform image content into text, optical character recognition (OCR) software is used to 

derive text from the image. OCR can convert image documents to hidden text, which is 

searchable. In text-based processing, the words and sentences in the document are 

retained as text and can be stored, processed, and retrieved by a document management 

system. Unlike image-based processing, text-based processing allows the text to be 

searched and extracted. 

USPTO Continues to 

Pursue a Fully 

Automated Patent 

Process, but Has Not 

Effectively Managed 

its Strategy for 

Achieving This 

Capability 
Page 8 GAO-05-1008T 

In carrying out its patent automation plans, USPTO has delivered a 

number of important processing capabilities through the various 

information systems that it has implemented. For example, an automated 

search capability, available since 1986, has eliminated the need for patent 

examiners to manually search for prior art in paper files, and the 

classification and fee accounting capabilities have facilitated assigning 

applications to the correct subject areas and managing collections of 

applicable fees. In addition, the electronic filing system that has existed 

since 1998 has enabled applicants to file their applications with the agency 

via the Internet. Using the Internet, patent applicants also can review the 

status of their applications online and the public can electronically access 

and search existing published patents. Further, an imaging system 

implemented in August 2004, called the Image File Wrapper, has given 

USPTO the capability to scan patent applications and related documents, 

which can then be stored in a database and retrieved and reviewed online. 

The agency’s progress in implementing its automated patent functions is 

illustrated in figure 1. 

Figure 1: USPTO’s Patent Automation Progress 

Nonetheless, even with the progress that has been made, collectively, 

these automated functions have not provided the fully integrated, 

electronic patent processing capability articulated in the agency’s 

automation plans. Two of the key systems that it is relying on to further 

enhance its capabilities—the electronic filing system and the Image File 

Wrapper—have not yielded the processing improvements that the agency 

has deemed essential to successfully operate in a fully integrated, 

electronic environment. 
Page 9 GAO-05-1008T 

Specifically, in implementing its electronic filing system, USPTO had 

projected significant increases in processing efficiencies and quality by 

providing patent applicants the capability to file online, thus alleviating the 

need for them to send paper applications to the agency or for patent office 

staff to manually key application data into the various processing systems. 

However, even after enhancements in 2002 and 2004, the system did not 

produce the level of usage among patent filers that the agency had 

anticipated. For example, although USPTO’s preliminary justification for 

acquiring the electronic filing system had projected an estimated usage 

rate of 30 percent in fiscal year 2004, patent officials reported that, as of 

April 2005, fewer than 2 percent of all patent applications were being 

submitted to the agency via this system. As a result, anticipated processing 

efficiencies and quality improvements through eliminating the manual rekeying of application data have not been realized. 

In September 2004, USPTO convened a forum of senior officials 

representing the largest U.S. corporate and patent law firm filers to 

identify causes of patent applicants’ dissatisfaction with the electronic 

filing system and determine how to increase the number of patents being 

filed electronically. According to the report resulting from this forum, the 

majority of participants viewed the system as cumbersome, timeconsuming, costly, inherently risky, and lacking a business case to justify 

its usage. Among the barriers to system usage that the participants 

specifically identified were (1) users’ lack of a perceived benefit from 

filing applications electronically, (2) liability concerns associated with 

filers’ unsuccessful use of the system or unsuccessful transmission of 

patent applications to USPTO, and (3) significant disruptions to filers’ 

normal office/corporate processes and workflow caused by factors such 

as difficulty in using the automated tools and the inability to download 

necessary software through firewalls. 

Several concerns raised during the forum mirrored those that USPTO had 

earlier identified in a 1997 analysis of a prototype for electronic filing. 

However, at the time of our review, the agency had not completed plans to 

show how it would address the concerns regarding use of the electronic 

filing system. 

The agency’s Image File Wrapper also had not resulted in critical patent 

processing improvements. The system includes image technology for 

storage and maintenance of records associated with patent applications 

and provides the capability to scan each page of a submitted paper 

application and convert the pages into electronic images. Patent 

examiners in a majority of the focus groups that we conducted 
Page 10 GAO-05-1008T 

commented that the system had provided them with the ability to easily 

access patent applications and related information. In addition, patent 

officials stated that the system had enabled multiple users to 

simultaneously access patent applications. 

Nonetheless, patent officials acknowledged that the system had 

experienced performance and usability problems. Specifically, in speaking 

about the system’s performance, the officials and agency documentation 

stated that, after its implementation, the Image File Wrapper had been 

unavailable for extended periods of time or had experienced slow 

response times, resulting in decreased productivity. To lessen the impact 

of this problem, patent officials said they had developed a backup tool to 

store images of an examiner’s most recent applications, which can be 

accessed when the Image File Wrapper is not available. Further, in 

commenting on this matter, the USPTO director stated that the system’s 

performance had begun to show improvement. 

Regarding the usability of the system, patent officials and focus group 

results indicated that the Image File Wrapper did not fully meet processing 

needs. For example, the officials stated that, as an image-based system, 

the Image File Wrapper did not fully enable patent examiners to 

electronically search, manipulate, or track and log changes to application 

text, which were key processing features emphasized in the agency’s 

automation plans. The examiners also commented that a limited capability 

to convert images to text, which was intended to assist them in copying 

and reusing information contained in patent files, was error-prone, 

contributing to their need to download and print the applications for 

review. Further, because the office’s legacy systems were not integrated 

with the Image File Wrapper, examiners were required to manually print 

correspondence from these systems, which then had to be scanned into 

the Image File Wrapper in order to be included as part of an applicant’s 

electronic file. 

Patent and Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO) officials largely 

attributed the system’s performance and usability problems to the 

agency’s use of software that it acquired from the European Patent Office. 

The officials explained that, to meet the accelerated date for delivering an 

operational system as outlined in its strategic plan, the agency had decided 

in 2002 to acquire and use a document-imaging system owned by the 

European Patent Office, called ePhoenix, rather than develop the 
Page 11 GAO-05-1008T 

integrated patent processing system that had been described in its 

automation plans.18 According to the officials, the director, at that time, 

had considered ePhoenix to be the most appropriate solution for further 

implementing USPTO’s electronic patent processing capabilities given (1) 

pressures from Congress and from customers and stakeholders to 

implement an electronic patent processing system more quickly than 

originally planned and (2) the agency’s impending move to its new facility 

in Alexandria, Virginia, which did not include provisions for transferring 

and storing paper patent applications.19

However, they indicated that the original design of the ePhoenix system 

had not been compatible with USPTO’s technical platform for electronic 

patent processing. Specifically, they stated that the European Patent 

Office had designed the system to support only the printing of files for 

subsequent manual reviews, rather than for electronic review and 

processing. In addition, they stated that the system had not been designed 

for integration with other legacy systems or to incorporate additional 

capabilities, such as text processing, with the existing imaging capability. 

Further, an official of the European Patent Office noted that ePhoenix had 

supported their office’s much smaller volume of patent applications.20

Thus, with USPTO’s patent application workload being approximately 

twice as large as that of its European counterpart, the agency placed 

greater stress on the system than it was originally designed to 

accommodate. OCIO officials told us that, although they had tested certain 

aspects of the system’s capability, many of the problems encountered in 

using the system were not revealed until after the system was deployed 

and operational. 

Patent and OCIO officials acknowledged that the agency had purchased 

ePhoenix although senior officials were aware that the original design of 

the system had not been compatible with USPTO’s technological platform 

 18In November 2002, patent officials entered into an agreement with the European Patent 

Office, in which that office agreed to provide USPTO with a license to use its patent 

processing software and to provide technical assistance in customizing the software to 

meet USPTO’s needs. USPTO completed its implementation of the system in August 2004, 

at a reported total cost of approximately $14 million. 

19In December 2003, USPTO began relocating its headquarters from Arlington (Crystal 

City), Virginia, to Alexandria, Virginia, with the intent of consolidating all of its major 

operations in a central facility. The agency completed this move in July 2005. 

20Over the past 2 years, the European Patent Office reported processing about 160,000 to 

170,000 patents per year using ePhoenix. 
Page 12 GAO-05-1008T 

for electronic patent processing. They stated that, despite knowing about 

the problems and risks associated with using the software, the agency had 

nonetheless proceeded with this initiative because senior officials, 

including the former USPTO director, had stressed their preference for 

using ePhoenix in order to expedite the implementation of a system. 

Patent and OCIO officials acknowledged that management judgment, 

rather than a rigorous analysis of costs, benefits, and alternatives, had 

driven the agency’s decision to use this system. 

To a significant extent, USPTO’s difficulty in realizing intended 

improvements through its electronic filing system and Image File Wrapper 

can be attributed to the fact that the agency took an ad hoc approach to 

planning and managing its implementation of these systems, driven in part 

by its accelerated schedule for implementing an automated patent 

processing capability. The Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996,21 as well as 

information technology best practices and our prior reviews, emphasize 

the need for agencies to undertake information technology projects based 

on well-established business cases that articulate agreed-upon business 

and technical requirements; effectively analyze project alternatives, costs, 

and benefits; include measures for tracking projects through their life 

cycle against cost, schedule, benefit, and performance targets; and 

ultimately, provide the basis for credible and informed decision making 

and project management. Yet, patent officials did not rely on established 

business cases to guide their implementation of these key automation 

initiatives. 

The absence of sound project planning and management for these 

initiatives has left the agency without critical capabilities, such as text 

processing, and consequently, has impeded its successful transition to an 

integrated and paperless patent processing environment. The Under 

Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, who serves as the 

director of USPTO, stated at the conclusion of our review that he 

recognized and intended to implement measures to address the 

weaknesses in the agency’s planning and management of its automated 

patent systems. 

 2140 U.SC. §11312. 
Page 13 GAO-05-1008T 

USPTO’s ineffective planning for and management of its patent 

automation projects, in large measure, can be attributed to enterpriselevel, systemic weaknesses in the agency’s information technology 

investment management processes. A key requirement of the ClingerCohen Act is that agencies have established processes, such as capital 

planning and investment control, to help ensure that information 

technology projects are implemented at acceptable costs and within 

reasonable and expected time frames, and contribute to tangible, 

observable improvements in mission performance. Such processes guide 

the selection, management, and evaluation of information technology 

investments by aiding management in considering whether to undertake a 

particular investment in information systems and providing a means to 

obtain necessary information regarding the progress of an investment in 

terms of cost, capability of the system to meet specified requirements, 

timeliness, and quality. 

Further, our Enterprise Architecture Framework22 emphasizes that 

information technology projects should show evidence of compliance with 

the organization’s enterprise architecture, which serves as a blueprint for 

systematically and completely defining an organization’s current 

(baseline) operational and technology environment and as a roadmap 

toward the desired (target) state. Effective implementation of an 

enterprise architecture can facilitate an agency by informing, guiding, and 

constraining the decisions being made for the agency, and subsequently 

decrease the risk of buying and building systems that are duplicative, 

incompatible, and unnecessarily costly to maintain and interface. 

At the time of our study, USPTO had begun instituting certain essential 

information technology investment management mechanisms, such as a 

framework for its enterprise architecture and components of a capital 

planning and investment control process. However, it had not yet 

established the necessary linkages between its enterprise architecture and 

its capital planning and investment control process to ensure that its 

automation projects would comply with the architecture or fully instituted 

enforcement mechanisms for investment management. For example, 

USPTO drafted a capital planning and investment control guide in June 

2004 and issued an agency administrative order on its integrated 

 22For more information, see GAO, Information Technology: A Framework for Assessing 

and Improving Enterprise Architecture Management (Version 1.1), GAO-03-584G

(Washington, D.C.: April 2003). 

USPTO Lacks Essential 

Information Technology 

Investment Management 

Processes to Support Its 

Patent Automation 
Page 14 GAO-05-1008T 

investment decision practices in February 2005. However, according to 

senior officials, many of the processes and procedures in the guide had not 

been completed and fully implemented and it was unclear how the agency 

administrative order was being applied to investments. 

In addition, while the agency had completed the framework for its 

enterprise architecture, it had not aligned its business processes and 

information technology in accordance with the architecture. According to 

OCIO officials, the architecture review board responsible for enforcing 

compliance with the architecture was not yet in place; thus, current 

architecture reviews were of an advisory nature and were not required for 

system implementation. Our analysis of architecture review documents 

that system officials provided for the electronic filing system and the 

Image File Wrapper confirmed that the agency had not rigorously assessed 

either of these systems’ compliance with the enterprise architecture. 

Adding to these conditions, a study commissioned by the agency in 2004 

found that its Office of Chief Information Officer was not organized to help 

the agency accomplish the goals in its automation strategy and that its 

investment management processes did not ensure appropriate reviews of 

automation initiatives. 

USPTO has an explicit responsibility to ensure that the automation 

initiatives that it is counting on to enhance its overall patent process are 

consistent with the agency’s priorities and needs and are supported by the 

necessary planning and management to successfully accomplish this. At 

the conclusion of our review, the agency’s director and its chief 

information officer acknowledged the need to strengthen the agency’s 

investment management processes and practices and to effectively apply 

them to USPTO’s patent automation initiatives. 

Since 2000, USPTO has also taken steps intended to help attract and retain 

a qualified patent examination workforce. The agency has enhanced its 

recruiting efforts and has used many human capital flexibilities to attract 

and retain qualified patent examiners. However, during the past 5 years, its 

recruiting efforts and use of benefits have not been consistently sustained, 

and officials and examiners at all levels in the agency told us that the 

economy has more of an impact on their ability to attract and retain 

examiners than any actions taken by the agency. Consequently, how 

USPTO’s actions will affect its long-term ability to maintain a highly 

qualified workforce is unclear. While the agency has been able to meet its 

hiring goals, attrition has recently increased. 

USPTO Has Taken 

Steps to Help Attract 

and Retain a Qualified 

Patent Examiner 

Workforce, but LongTerm Success Is 

Uncertain 
Page 15 GAO-05-1008T 

USPTO’s recent recruiting efforts have incorporated several measures that 

we and others identified as necessary to attract a qualified workforce.23

First, in 2003, to help select qualified applicants, the agency identified the 

knowledge, skills, and abilities that examiners need to effectively fulfill 

their responsibilities. Second, in 2004, its permanent recruiting team, 

composed of senior and line managers,24 participated in various recruiting 

events, such as job fairs, conferences sponsored by professional societies, 

and visits to the 10 schools that the agency targeted based on the diversity 

of their student population and the strength of their engineering and 

science programs.25 Finally, for 2005, USPTO developed a formal recruiting 

plan that, among other things, identified hiring goals for each technology 

center and described the agency’s efforts to establish ongoing partnerships 

with the 10 target schools. In addition, the agency trained its recruiters in 

effective interviewing techniques to help them better describe the 

production system and incorporated references to the production-oriented 

work environment in its recruitment literature. 

USPTO has also used many of the human capital benefits available under 

federal personnel regulations to attract and retain qualified patent 

examiners. Among other benefits, it has offered 

• recruitment bonuses ranging from $600 to over $10,000; 

• a special pay rate for patent examiners that is 10 percent above federal 

salaries for comparable jobs; 

• non-competitive promotion to the full performance level; and 

• flexible working schedules, including the ability to schedule hours off 

during midday. 

 23See GAO, Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders, 

GAO/OCG-00-14G, version 1 (Washington, D.C.: September 2000); and Office of Personnel 

Management, Human Capital Assessment Accountability Framework, (Washington, D.C., 

Sept. 20, 2000). 

24USPTO’s permanent recruiting team was established in 2002. However, the agency 

suspended recruiting efforts in 2002 and 2003 in the face of budgetary uncertainty. 

25The 10 target schools selected were Florida International University, North Carolina 

Agricultural and Technical State University, North Carolina State University, University of 

Florida, University of Maryland, University of Pennsylvania, University of Puerto RicoMayaguez, University of Virginia, University of Wisconsin-Madison, and Virginia 

Polytechnic and State University. 
Page 16 GAO-05-1008T 

According to many of the supervisors and examiners who participated in 

our focus groups, these benefits were a key reason they were attracted to 

the agency and are a reason they continue to stay. The benefits that 

examiners most frequently cited as important were the flexible working 

schedules and competitive salaries. 

However, it is too soon to determine the long-term effect of the agency’s 

efforts, in part because neither its recruiting efforts nor the human capital 

benefits have been consistently sustained due to budgetary constraints. 

For example, in 2002 the agency suspended reimbursements to examiners 

for law school tuition because of funding limitations, although it resumed 

the reimbursements in 2004 when funding became available. Examiners in 

our focus groups expressed dissatisfaction with the inconsistent 

availability of these benefits, in some cases saying that the suspension of 

benefits, such as law school tuition reimbursement, provided them an 

incentive to leave the agency. More recently, in March 2005, USPTO 

proposed to eliminate or modify other benefits, such as the ability of 

examiners to earn credit hours and to set their own work schedules. 

Another, and possibly the most important, factor adding to the uncertainty 

of USPTO’s recruiting efforts is the unknown potential impact of the 

economy, which, according to agency officials and examiners, has a 

greater effect on recruitment and retention than any actions the agency 

may take. Both agency officials and examiners told us that when the 

economy picks up, more examiners tend to leave the agency and fewer 

qualified candidates are attracted to it. On the other hand, when there is a 

downturn in the economy, the agency’s ability to attract and retain 

qualified examiners increases because of perceived job security and 

competitive pay. When discussing their reasons for joining USPTO, many 

examiners in our focus groups cited job security and the lack of other 

employment opportunities, making comments such as, “I had been laid off 

from my prior job, and this was the only job offer I got at the time.” This 

relationship between the economy and USPTO’s hiring and retention 

success is part of the reason why the agency has met its hiring goals for 

the last several years. However, the agency has recently experienced a rise 

in attrition rates. In particular, a high level of attrition among younger, less 

experienced examiners could affect its efforts to maintain a highly 

qualified patent examination workforce. Attrition of examiners with 3 

years or less experience is a significant loss for the agency because 

considerable time and dollar resources are invested to help new 

examiners become proficient during their first few years. 
Page 17 GAO-05-1008T 

While USPTO has undertaken a number of important and necessary 

actions to attract and retain qualified patent examiners, it continues to 

face three long-standing human capital challenges which, if not addressed, 

could also undermine its recent efforts. First, although organizations with 

effective human capital models have strategies to communicate with 

employees and involve them in decision making, the lack of good 

communication and collaboration has been a long-standing problem at 

USPTO. We found that the agency does not have a formal communication 

strategy and does not actively seek input from examiners on key 

management decisions. Most of the emphasis is on enhanced 

communication among managers but not between managers and other 

levels of the organization, such as patent examiners. Patent examiners and 

supervisory patent examiners in our focus groups frequently stated that 

communication with agency management was poor and that managers 

provided them with inadequate or no information, creating an atmosphere 

of distrust of management. The examiners also said that management was 

out of touch with them and their concerns and that communication with 

the managers tended to be one way and hierarchical, with little 

opportunity for feedback. Management officials told us that informal 

feedback can always be provided by anyone in the organization—for 

example, through an e-mail to anyone in management. 

The lack of communication between management and examiners is 

exacerbated by the contentious working relationship between 

management and union officials and by the complexity of the rules about 

what level of communication can occur between managers and examiners 

without involving the union.26 Some managers alluded to this contentious 

relationship as one of the reasons why they had limited communication 

with patent examiners, who are represented by the union even if they 

decide not to join it. Specifically, they believed they could not solicit the 

input of employees directly without engaging the union. Another official, 

however, told us that nothing prevents the agency from having “town hall” 

type meetings to discuss potential changes in policies and procedures, as 

long as the agency does not promise examiners a benefit that impacts their 

working conditions. Union officials agreed that USPTO can invite 

comments from examiners on a plan or proposal; however, if the proposal 

concerns a negotiating issue, the agency must consult the examiners’ 

 26Patent examiners are represented by, but not required to join, the Patent Office 

Professional Association (POPA), an independent union of professional employees formed 

in 1964. 

USPTO Faces LongStanding Human 

Capital Challenges 

that Could Undermine 

Its Recruiting and 

Retention Efforts 
Page 18 GAO-05-1008T 

union, which is their exclusive representative with regard to working 

conditions. 

Second, human capital models suggest that agencies should periodically 

assess their monetary awards systems to ensure that they help attract and 

retain qualified staff. However, patent examiners’ awards are based largely 

on the number of applications they process, and the assumptions on which 

application processing quotas are based have not been updated since 1976. 

Patent examiners and management have differing opinions on whether 

these assumptions need to be updated. Examiners in our focus groups told 

us that, in the last several decades, the tasks associated with and the 

complexity of processing applications have greatly increased while the 

time allowed has not. As a result, many of the examiners and supervisory 

patent examiners in our focus groups and respondents to previous agency 

surveys reported that examiners do not have enough time to conduct highquality reviews of patent applications. The examiners noted that these 

inadequate time frames create a stressful work environment and are cited 

in the agency’s exit surveys as a primary reason that examiners leave the 

agency. In contrast, USPTO managers had a different perspective on the 

production model and its impact on examiners. They stated that the time 

estimates used in establishing production quotas do not need to be 

adjusted because the efficiencies gained through actions such as the 

greater use of technology have offset the time needed to address the 

greater complexity of the applications and the increase in the number of 

claims. Moreover, they said that for an individual examiner, reviews of 

applications that take more time than the estimated average are generally 

offset by other reviews that take less time. 

Finally, counter to current workforce models, USPTO does not require 

ongoing technical education for patent examiners, which could negatively 

affect the quality of its patent examination workforce. Instead, the agency 

requires newly hired examiners to take extensive training only during their 

first year of employment; all subsequent required training is focused on 

developing legal expertise. Almost all patent examiners are required to 

take a range of ongoing training in legal matters, including patent law. In 

contrast, patent examiners are not required to undertake any ongoing 

training to maintain expertise in their area of technology, even though the 

agency acknowledges that such training is important, especially for 

electrical and electronic engineers. In 2001 the agency stated, “Engineers 

who fail to keep up with the rapid changes in technology, regardless of 

degree, risk technological obsolescence.” However, agency officials told 

us that examiners automatically maintain currency with their technical 

fields by just doing their job. Patent examiners and supervisory patent 
Page 19 GAO-05-1008T 

examiners disagreed, stating that the literature they review in applications 

is outdated, particularly in rapidly evolving technologies. The agency does 

offer some voluntary in-house training, such as technology fairs and 

industry days at which scientists and others are invited to present lectures 

to patent examiners that will help keep them current on the technical 

aspects of their work. In addition, the agency offers voluntary external 

training and, for a small number of examiners, pays conference or 

workshop registration fees. Agency officials could provide no data on the 

extent to which examiners have taken advantage of such training 

opportunities. 

In carrying out its strategic plan to become a more productive and 

responsive organization, our work found that USPTO has made greater 

progress in implementing its initiatives to make the patent organization 

more capable by improving the quality of examiners’ skills and work 

processes than it has in implementing its productivity and agility initiatives 

aimed at decreasing the length of time to process a patent application and 

improving electronic processing. Specifically, of the activities planned for 

completion by December 2004, the agency has fully or partially 

implemented all 23 of the initiatives related to its capability theme to 

improve the skills of employees, enhance quality assurance, and alter the 

patent process through legislative and rule changes. In contrast, it has 

partially implemented only 1 of the 4 initiatives related to the productivity 

theme to restructure fees and expand examination options for patent 

applicants and has fully or partially implemented 7 of the 11 initiatives 

related to the agility theme to increase electronic processing of patent 

applications and to reduce examiners’ responsibilities for literature 

searches. Table 1 provides our assessment of each of the strategic plan 

initiatives. 

USPTO Has Made 

Greater Progress on 

Strategic Plan 

Initiatives that 

Enhance the Agency’s 

Capability Rather 

than Productivity and 

Agility 
Page 20 GAO-05-1008T 

Table 1: Status of Strategic Plan Initiatives to Improve Workforce Skills 

Capability initiatives to improve workforce skills Implemented

Partially 

implemented 

Not 

implemented 

Increase the pool of qualified management candidates by adding awards 

to total compensation • 

Explore alternate organizational structures for the workplace • 

Develop interim pre-employment measures to assess English language 

skills • 

Recertify the skills of examiners with authority to issue patents (primary 

examiners) through examinations and expanded work product reviews • 

Certify that examiners possess the requisite knowledge, skills, and 

abilities prior to promotion to a position with authority to negotiate on 

behalf of USPTO • 

Improve the selection and training of supervisory patent examiners • 

Use examinations and other means to ensure that new patent examiners 

possess the requisite skills prior to promotion • 

Implement a pre-employment test to assess English language skills • 

Create an Enterprise Training Division • 

Capability initiatives to enhance quality assurance 

Expand current quality assurance program to include works in progress 

(in-process reviews) • 

Establish “second pair of eyes” reviews in each technology center • 

Survey customer regarding transactions with USPTO on specific 

applications to supplement comprehensive customer surveys • 

Evaluate the quality of examiners’ literature searches • 

Enhance the reviewable record for each patent application with additional 

information from the applicant and examiner • 

Capability initiatives to change legislation and rules 

Delete the requirement for physical surrender of the original patent papers • 

Certify the legal knowledge of patent attorneys and agents who wish to 

practice before USPTO and periodically recertify the skills of practicing 

attorneys and agents • 

Evaluate whether to adopt a unity of invention standard • 

Simplify adjustments to the patent term • 

Permit individuals who have been assigned patent rights to sign an oath 

declaring that the inventor is the original and first inventor • 

Permit individuals who have been assigned patent rights to broaden the 

claims in an application • 

Correct an inconsistency regarding unintentionally delayed submission of 

certain claims • 

Eliminate certain exemptions from the requirement to publish most patent 

applications within 18 months of when they were first filed • 
Page 21 GAO-05-1008T 

Amend current legislation regarding certain limitations on an inventor’s 

right to obtain a patent • 

Productivity initiatives 

Restructure fees and provide for refunds • 

Offer patent applicants a choice of up to 5 examination options based in 

part on the ability to rely on searches conducted by others • 

Offer patent applicants the option of an accelerated examination • 

Revise postgrant review procedures to allow greater public input • 

Agility initiatives 

Establish an information security program • 

Transition to electronic patent processing • 

Transition to electronic processing for postgrant reviews • 

Ensure availability of critical data in the event of a catastrophic systems 

failure • 

Promote international harmonization and pursue goals to strengthen 

international intellectual property rights of U.S. inventors • 

Pursue international agreements to share patent search results • 

Accelerate Patent Cooperation Treaty reforms • 

Rely on other sources to classify patent documents • 

Rely on other sources to support domestic and international literature 

searches • 

Rely on other sources to transition to a new global patent classification 

system • 

Develop stringent conflict of interest clauses for search firms • 

Source: GAO analysis of USPTO data. 

Agency officials primarily cited the need for additional funding as the main 

reason that some initiatives have not been implemented. With passage of 

the legislation in December 2004 to restructure and increase the fees 

available to USPTO, the agency is reevaluating the feasibility of many 

initiatives that it had deferred or suspended. 

In summary, through its attempts to implement an integrated, paperless 

patent process over the past two decades, USPTO has delivered a number 

of important automated capabilities. Nonetheless, after spending over a 

billion dollars on its efforts, the agency is still not yet effectively 

positioned to process patent applications in a fully automated 

environment. Moreover, when and how it will actually achieve this 

capability is uncertain. Largely as a result of ineffective planning and 

management of its automated capabilities, system performance and 

usability problems have limited the effectiveness of key systems that the 

agency has implemented to support critical patent processes. Although 
Page 22 GAO-05-1008T 

USPTO’s director and its chief information officer have recognized the 

need to improve the agency’s planning and management of its automation 

initiatives, weaknesses in key information technology management 

processes needed to guide the agency’s investments in patent automation, 

such as incomplete capital planning and investment controls, could 

preclude their ability to successfully accomplish this. Thus, the agency 

risks further implementing information technology that does not support 

its needs and that threatens its overall goal of achieving a fully electronic 

capability to process its growing patent application workload. 

Further, to improve its ability to attract and retain the highly educated and 

qualified patent examiners it needs, USPTO has taken steps recognized by 

experts as characteristic of highly effective organizations. However, 

without an effective communication strategy and a collaborative culture 

that includes all layers of the organization, the agency’s efforts could be 

undermined. The absence of effective communication and collaboration 

has created distrust and a significant divide between management and 

examiners on important issues such as the appropriateness of the 

production model and the need for technical training. Unless the agency 

begins to develop an open, transparent, and collaborative work 

environment, its efforts to hire and retain examiners may be adversely 

affected in the long run. Overall, while USPTO has progressed in 

implementing strategic plan initiatives aimed at improving its 

organizational capability, the agency attributes its limited implementation 

of other initiatives intended to reduce pendency and improve electronic 

patent application processing primarily to the need for additional funding. 

Given the weaknesses in USPTO’s information technology investment 

management processes, we recommended that the agency, before 

proceeding with any new patent automation initiatives, (1) reassess and, 

where necessary, revise its approach for implementing and achieving 

effective use of information systems supporting a fully automated patent 

process; (2) establish disciplined processes for planning and managing the 

development of patent systems based on well-established business cases; 

and (3) fully institute and enforce information technology investment 

management processes and practices to ensure that its automation 

initiatives support the agency’s mission and are aligned with its enterprise 

architecture. Further, in light of its need for a more transparent and 

collaborative work environment, we recommended that the agency 

develop formal strategies to (1) improve communication between 

management and patent examiners and between management and union 

officials and (2) foster greater collaboration among all levels of the 
Page 23 GAO-05-1008T 

organization to resolve key issues, such as the assumptions underlying the 

quota system and the need for required technical training. 

USPTO generally agreed with our findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations regarding its patent automation initiatives and 

acknowledged the need for improvements in its management processes 

by, for example, developing architectural linkages to the planning process 

and implementing a capital planning and investment control guide. 

Nonetheless, the agency stated that it only partially agreed with several 

material aspects of our assessment, including our recommendation that it 

reassess its approach to automating its patent process. Further, the agency 

generally agreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations 

regarding its workforce collaboration and suggested that it would develop 

a communication plan and labor management strategy, and educate and 

inform employees about progress on initiatives, successes, and lessons 

learned. In addition, USPTO indicated that it would develop a more 

formalized technical program for patent examiners to ensure that their 

skills are fresh and ready to address state-of-the-art technology. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement. We would be pleased to 

respond to any questions that you or other Members of the Committee 

may have at this time. 

For further information, please contact Anu K. Mittal at (202) 512-3841or 

Linda D. Koontz at (202) 512-6240. They can also be reached by e-mail at 

mittala@gao.gov and koontzl@gao.gov, respectively. Other individuals 

making significant contributions to this testimony were Valerie C. Melvin, 

Assistant Director; Cheryl Williams, Assistant Director; Mary J. Dorsey, 

Vijay D’Souza, Nancy Glover, Vondalee R. Hunt, and Alison D. O’Neill. 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 

(360612) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER