U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–007 PDF 2017

TIME AND ATTENDANCE ABUSE AT THE U.S. 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 7, 2016 

Serial No. 114–128 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

MARK WALKER, North Carolina 

ROD BLUM, Iowa 

JODY B. HICE, Georgia 

STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

WILL HURD, Texas 

GARY J. PALMER, Alabama 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan 

TED LIEU, California 

BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

MARK DESAULNIER, California 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

JENNIFER HEMINGWAY, Staff Director 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

KEVIN ORTIZ, Professional Staff Member 

WILLIE MARX, Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on December 7, 2016 ........................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

The Hon. Russell Slifer, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Deputy Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 3 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 5 

Mr. David Smith, Acting Deputy Inspector General, U.S. Department of Commerce 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 8 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 10 

Ms. Pamela Schwartz, President, Patent Office Professional Association 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 17 

Mr. David Chu, Ph.D., Panel Chair, National Academy of Public Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 25 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 27 

APPENDIX 

Questions for the record, submitted by Mr. Meadows .......................................... 58 

Questions for the record, submitted by Mr. Connolly ........................................... 102 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

TIME AND ATTENDANCE ABUSE AT THE U.S. 

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

Wednesday, December 7, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:22 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Meadows, Jordan, Carter, Grothman, 

Connolly, Maloney, Norton, and Clay. 

Also Present: Representative Hice. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The Subcommittee on Government Operations 

will come to order. And, without objection, the chair is authorized 

to declare a recess at any time. 

I want to thank all of you for being here. It was in August of this 

year that the Commerce Department’s Office of Inspector General 

released what I would say is an alarming report detailing the potential time and attendance abuses at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The OIG compared hours certified as worked by nearly 8,400 patent examiners with data such as records from either 

virtual private networks or computer workstation records or the 

like. This comparison actually allowed the OIG to assess whether 

or not the hours claimed by examiners were backed up by quantifiable data. 

The results are shocking. The OIG identified some 288,479 unsupported hours by patent examiners over a 15-month period. Now, 

these hours equate to $18.3 million in potential waste. 415 of the 

examiners covered in the analysis had 10 percent or more of unsupported hours. And, indeed, 310 of these examiners received 

above-average annual performance ratings and accounted for nearly 98,000 of the unsupported hours. The unsupported hours could 

have been helped to reduce patent application backlog, which currently stands at 540,000 or by some 15,990 cases. 

What is most troubling is the numbers provided by the OIG are 

a conservative estimate. The OIG wanted to make sure that everything was done in an appropriate manner, and actually received 

the benefit of the doubt when making their analysis. By some less 

conservative assumptions, we could push the amount of unsupported hours to be nearly twice as high as the OIG reported. And 

this, indeed, is unacceptable. 

The report comes on the heels of a previous OIG investigation 

into examiner A. This examiner would often leave work early to 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

play golf, and overall, examiner A committed to at least 730 hours 

of time and attendance abuses. This resulted in nearly $25,500 for 

time not worked. And I want to add is, when we have this, it has 

a chilling effect on other people in the workforce. So, conveniently 

for examiner A, he or she resigned on the advice from the union 

before action could be taken against him or her. Now, when the 

OIG retroactively tested it’s methodology for the new report on examiner A’s unsupported hours, it received a similar unsupported 

hour total. This shows that the OIG’s methodology accurately 

measures the unsupported hours. 

Now, while not necessarily widespread, the OIG’s findings do 

show that, at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, internal controls for fighting time and attendance abuse are lacking. The OIG 

has six recommendations that would help safeguard taxpayers from 

fraud at that agency. They include a requirement that examiners 

provide their supervisors with work schedules; examiners use their 

ID badges to exit the agency in turnstile facilities; and all examiners log into the USPTO network during their working hours 

while teleworking. Now, these commonsense recommendations 

should be adopted now. 

Now, while some may argue that the total amount of unsupported hours is less than 2 percent of the total work hours logged 

in by patent examiners, even 1 unsupported hour is too many. The 

American people deserve better. And I look forward to hearing your 

testimony on how we can not only address this issue but make sure 

that we have an accountable workforce going forward. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’m going to wait and recognize the gentleman 

from Virginia for his opening statements here in a few minutes. 

And I will hold the record open for 5 legislative days for any member who would like to submit a written statement. 

The chair notes that the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, will 

be attending today. He was here earlier. We appreciate his interest 

in this particular issue. He is here now. I ask unanimous consent 

that Representative Hice be allowed to fully participate in today’s 

hearing. 

And, without objection, so ordered. 

In addition to that, I make a unanimous request that we enter 

into the record the investigative report of the U.S. Patent and 

Trademark Office which would actually be the IG’s report, the investigative report. 

And, without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows]: 

[This report can be found on The Department of Commerce 

website at: https://www.oig.doc.gov/oigpublications/14-0990.pdf] 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’m pleased to actually welcome here the Honorable Russell Slifer, Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Welcome. 

Mr. David Smith, acting deputy inspector general at the U.S. Department of Commerce. Welcome, Mr. Smith. 

Ms. Pamela Schwartz, president of the Patent Office Professional 

Association. Welcome, Ms. Schwartz. 

And Dr. David Chu, panel chair of the National Academy of Public Administration. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

Welcome to you all. 

And pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in 

before they testify. So if you would please rise and raise your right 

hand. 

Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you’re 

about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth? 

Thank you. You may be seated. Please let the record reflect that 

all witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes. However, your entire written statement will be 

made part of the record. 

And so, Mr. Slifer, we’ll come to you for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RUSSELL SLIFER 

Mr. SLIFER. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to 

discuss the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s management of employees’ time and attendance. 

I am proud of the work that our nearly 13,000 employees, including more than 8,300 patent examiners, to help our Nation’s 

innovators secure intellectual property rights. The overwhelming 

majority of these employees are hard-working, highly educated, 

and highly skilled professionals who perform their jobs with the utmost integrity and dedication. We take seriously any allegation of 

abuse in our workplace. Any abuse of time and attendance by an 

employee is unfair to our stakeholders who rely on our agency and 

to the employees who abide by the rules. It is unacceptable and 

will not be tolerated within the USPTO. 

In recent years, we have made workforce management a critical 

focus and have invested a significant time and effort in improving 

our overall management for all employees, including teleworking 

employees and those stationed at our physical facilities. We have 

taken a number of concrete steps, including requiring new training 

for employees and supervisors, updating policies, adding controls, 

and building tools for supervisors to enable our supervisors to engage and manage their employees more effectively. 

Today, at the USPTO, supervisors receive extensive training, and 

they have a variety of tools in place to help monitor employees’ attendance and work levels, regardless of where the employees are 

working. We have addressed our workforce management issues by 

providing new tools, policies, and guidance. My written testimony 

provides more detail on our extensive efforts to date. In the interest of time, I’ll highlight just a few of those now. 

We created an IT dashboard tool to review employee-specific data 

to monitor examiners’ production and timeliness, which can show 

early signs of changes in performance and potential time and 

abuse—time and attendance issues. We implemented a policy requiring all USPTO employees, supervisors, and full-time teleworkers to remain logged into the USPTO’s IT system during working hours. We updated the overtime policy for patent examiners, 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

emphasizing that exceeding production goals does not excuse employees from actually working claimed hours. 

We appreciate the work of the office of inspector general in preparing the August 2016 analysis of patent examiners’ time and attendance. The findings and recommendations in the report serve as 

a valuable resource as we further enhance the extensive measures 

we have already taken to focus on time and attendance compliance 

among USPTO employees. 

We also appreciate the work of the National Academy of Public 

Administration for their study of our telework programs and controls. 

The USPTO is committed to implementing additional improvements as necessary in response to the IG’s report. Because the report identified overall trends and didn’t examine individual employee’s cases, our team has worked to rigorously analyze the data 

in detail to better identify the nature of the unsupported hours. 

This refined analysis is helping us make tailored improvements to 

our overall workforce management. While the USPTO is certainly 

unique among Federal agencies in our ability to quantify the productivity of a majority of our employees, striking the right balance 

between management tools and employee productivity is a challenge faced by all employers, both public and private sector, and 

something that we strive to achieve in an effort to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of our agency in order to better promote 

American innovation. We have and will continue to work toward 

ensuring proper and accurate accounting of all time and attendance. Any hour of time claimed and not worked is unacceptable. 

In closing, I want to underscore our continuing commitment to 

detect and address all cases of abuse and hold any employee who 

commits that abuse accountable while also strengthening our overall management and operations. As we continue to support our Nation’s innovators, we know that we owe nothing less to our hard 

working and dedicated employees, to the stakeholders, and to the 

public we serve. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Slifer follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 25007.001
6 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 25007.002
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 25007.003
8 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. 

Mr. Smith, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID SMITH 

Mr. SMITH. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and 

members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today. First, it is important to mention that our investigation 

found the vast majority of patent examiners’ claimed hours were 

supported by evidence contained in the various records of computer 

activity that we examined. Our findings do not indicate this is a 

widespread problem, which echoes the NAPA report. 

Second, I would like to thank the employees at USPTO who reviewed our analysis and findings and helped us achieve the more 

accurate results contained in our report. It’s rare that such a collaborative effort on such an investigation occurs, which is testimony to the professionalism of those employees. 

Even though it may not be widespread, the data establishes that 

claiming hours not actually worked is a problem at USPTO. An 

earlier OIG investigation uncovered paralegals at the Patent Trial 

and Appeal Board being directed by management to falsify hours 

over several years, and totaled more than $5 million in waste. 

Next, OIG reported on patent examiner A, who falsely claimed 

to work at least 730 hours in 2014 alone, which amounted to more 

than $25,000 of waste. 

Lastly, in August 2016, my office issued a report that identified 

over a 15-month period approximately 288,000 hours not supported 

by the data, which equates to over $18 million in potential waste. 

The analysis compared the time examiners asserted as computerrelated work on their time sheets against four sets of data that evidenced computer work. For the hours examiners claimed but lacked 

any supporting data, we considered those hours to be unsupported. 

Our analysis included a separate 9-month period when a policy 

change required full-time teleworkers to be logged into the USPTO 

network for all the hours claimed as teleworking. Evidence of substantial abuse by some patent examiners is particularly troubling, 

especially considering my office analyzed the data in a light most 

favorable to the patent examiners. OIG assumed for examiners 

working on campus that all computer-related worktime claimed 

supported from the time of arrival until the time they left or 10 

p.m., whichever occurred first, regardless of when they actually left 

the office. 

I want to emphasize again that the vast majority of patent examiners had few, if any, unsupported hours, and appeared to be working the hours certified on their time sheets. However, our approach 

identified 415 examiners who accounted for approximately 124,000 

unsupported hours over a 15-month period. That amounted to almost 45 percent of the total unsupported hours we found. 

Of additional concern, approximately three-quarters of those 415 

examiners received above-average performance ratings, and 30 percent of the unsupported hours for these high performers was 

claimed as overtime. Fifty-six of the 415 examiners averaged 24 or 

more unsupported hours per 80 hours of analyzed time, which 

equates to 3 or more days of work for every 2 weeks of analyzed 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
9 

time. Seventy other examiners averaged between 16 and 24 unsupported hours per 80 hours of analyzed time. 

Our methodology may have been actually overly generous. When 

we analyzed the data for examiners, we switched to a router that 

provided more precise indication of online activity, the OIG found 

that the total number of unsupported hours actually doubled. In 

addition, the use of a less conservative methodology for on-campus 

examiners, using computer logoffs and other activity to determine 

work stoppage, increased the total unsupported hours by an additional 327,000. 

The OIG recognizes that examiners could conceivably perform examiner-related work offline. However, that would mean that those 

examiners are working offline for the entire day without logging 

into the USPTO network, without logging any activity in the patent examining application, and without checking their email. However, during the initial 6-month period where there was no requirement for them to be logged on, we found almost 1,300 days in 

which full-time teleworking examiners had zero computer activity, 

not even checking their email once for 2 or more days in a row. 

Therefore, we recognize that it’s possible on an individual basis; we 

believe it’s just not a plausible explanation for the volume of unsupported hours. 

While we acknowledge the changes USPTO management has implemented in response to the previous OIG reports, there’s still a 

lot of work yet to be done to improve internal controls over time 

and attendance reporting. Some of those improvements include empowering supervisors with the tools needed to enable them to properly monitor work performed by employees, a recommendation also 

contained in the NAPA report. 

In closing, we note that the OIG interpreted the exceptions to the 

Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 to prohibit 

pursuing criminal prosecution or civil remedies in recommending 

that the agency take administrative action against those examiners 

engaged in misconduct. In a September 13, 2016, hearing, the 

question was asked if the OIG report would be more accurate if the 

OIG had interviewed individuals. And the correct answer was yes. 

Therefore, if POPA and the other unions would encourage their 

members to voluntarily be interviewed by the OIG, we would be 

happy to interview the examiners to determine if any evidence exists to support their claims of hours worked. This would be done 

with the understanding that those results of the interviews would 

be made available to the USPTO to take appropriate action against 

any examiners found to have claimed hours where there was no actual work performed. 

I want to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify 

today. And I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 25007.004
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 25007.005
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 25007.006
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 25007.007
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 25007.008
15 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Ms. Schwartz, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF PAMELA SCHWARTZ 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Chairman Meadows Ranking Member Connolly, 

and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to 

present the views of the Patent Office Professional Association, 

POPA, on the inspector general’s report on patent examiners’ time 

and attendance. 

The OIG’s conclusions contradict those of the National Academy 

of Public Administration, which reported in 2015 that it is, quote, 

‘‘unlikely that time and attendance abuse is widespread or unique 

to teleworkers, and it does not appear to reflect the activity of the 

workforce as a whole. The USPTO has requisite procedures in 

place to monitor time and attendance,’’ closed quote. 

The OIG’s analysis is based on flawed methodology and faulty assumptions. Reliance on turnstile, VPN, and workstation records 

does not reliably capture all the work performed by the examiners. 

The OIG did not account for unrecorded, uncompensated overtime 

regularly worked by examiners to meet their production goals, 

which far exceeds the 2 percent unsupported time. The GAO recently issued a report on patent quality in which it concluded that 

70 percent of examiners must work extra uncompensated hours to 

meet their required production quota. A companion GAO report 

found that examiners worked between 5 to 10 hours of uncompensated overtime each pay period on average. Even the OIG’s report 

acknowledges that there were, quote, ‘‘many days where the evidence of computer-related work activity appeared to exceed the 

time claimed for the day,’’ closed quote. 

Even if a teleworker was not connected to the agency’s computer 

system, this doesn’t mean that she wasn’t working. Many aspects 

of an examiner’s job can and are routinely done offline, like working from printed application documents and studying printed copies 

of prior art patent and nonpatent literature. Furthermore, there 

was no policy requiring teleworkers to be logged into the agency’s 

servers during all their working hours for a substantial portion of 

the 15 months studied. 

The OIG acknowledges that there was a statistically significant 

reduction in the number of unsupported hours following the 

issuance of the agency’s full-time teleworker policy in February 

2015. To the extent that some teleworkers did not consistently log 

into the agency’s servers in the 9 months immediately following the 

issuance of the policy, it only means that they were not yet conscientious about complying with the new policy. 

Buried in the OIG’s report on page 17, footnote 39, is this important concession that undermines the report’s conclusions, quote: 

‘‘Since the OIG methodology uses VPN and workstation records to 

support worktime for teleworkers, this approach could incorrectly 

determine that certain hours were unsupported if the examiners 

were working but did not connect to the USPTO network,’’ closed 

quote. 

Even assuming that the OIG’s methodology was accurate, the ostensibly unsupported hours equal only 1.6 percent of overall time, 

less than 8 minutes a day on average. A 98.4-percent time accountVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:39 May 08, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25007.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
16 

ing efficiency rate demonstrates an extraordinarily high level of 

productivity for any employer. As a result of this extraordinary productivity, the examining corps has reduced both the backlog of 

unexamined patent applications as well as the average time for 

completing examination by 25 percent in the last 5 years. 

While potential amount of loss estimated by the OIG was $18 

million over 15 months, the USPTO saves over $100 million a year 

due to its extensive telework program, including over $38 million 

in real estate savings. According to the USPTO, in fiscal year 2015, 

the 2,000 full-time teleworkers who participate in the Telework Enhancement Act pilot program were actually 6 percent more productive than other examiners in terms of annual production units, resulting in a revenue gain of over $35 million, far more than the alleged potential loss estimated by the OIG. 

Nonetheless, POPA is in full accord with the agency’s efforts to 

ensure that all employees work their full 80 hours each pay period. 

POPA has worked with our management regularly to achieve full 

compliance with time and attendance requirements, and we will 

continue to do so. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Schwartz follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
17 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 25007.009
18 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 25007.010
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 25007.011
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 25007.012
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 25007.013
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 25007.014
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 25007.015
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 25007.016
25 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Ms. Schwartz. 

Dr. Chu, you’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID CHU, PH.D. 

Mr. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the subcommittee, it is indeed a privilege to appear before you to summarize the report by the National Academy of Public Administration 

on the telework program of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 

I should emphasize the report was undertaken in response to the 

issues you identified earlier in this time period, really work in the 

fall of 2014, the spring of 2015. I should also emphasize that I’m 

appearing today as a fellow of the academy and not in my position 

with the Institute for Defense Analyses. 

The National Academy effort comprised two parts, an internal 

controls review undertaken in partnership with Grant Thornton, 

an accounting firm, and a program review on the efficacy of the 

telework program. The conclusions of the internal controls review 

were generally positive in character. Several essentially small deficiencies were identified that could easily be corrected. Much of the 

report is focused on the program review: How well does this program actually perform? And it’s our conclusion that it is a valuable 

program from the perspective of managing the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Indeed, it’s a foundational element of its 

business model as we’re all aware. We conclude there’s no difference in productivity between those who telework and those who 

do not. And our further conclusion was the telework program at 

USPTO ought to continue. 

We did have a series of recommendations to strengthen the ability of the program to perform effectively. And I’d like to touch very 

briefly on four of those recommendations. First, we felt there 

should be stronger tools in the hands of supervisors with regard to 

their ability to manage the examiners for whom they are responsible. We did a survey of supervisors. An important minority reported that they thought they needed more instruments in order to 

be effective as managers. It’s a very simple step and which I’m 

pleased to understand that the office has taken—at least up to a 

certain point—is requiring a presence indicator be used. And the 

office now requires that of full-time teleworkers. We recommend it 

be done for all PTO employees. It’s valuable, not only for the purpose of time and attendance, but also from the perspective of encouraging a more collaborative approach to the patent process. 

Second, the one difference we found between the Patent and 

Trademark Office telework program and telework programs elsewhere, both in governmental units and the private sector, is, in 

most other programs, telework is emphasized as a privilege, not a 

right. And we thought it would be useful for the office to signal 

that important distinction by requiring employees to re-sign their 

agreements every 2 years. It’s my understanding that the agency 

has undertaken that step. 

Third, we believed it was timely to begin reviewing what standards for productivity we expect by art unit. These art units differ 

significantly in terms of their complexity and nature of the applications. Many of these standards date back to the 1970s and have not 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
26 

been substantially reviewed since that time. And, again, I’m 

pleased to understand that that series of reviews has just started. 

That is not a short-term fix. It will take time to understand what 

kind of productivity standards should Patent and Trademark Office 

employees sustain. 

And, finally, we felt there should be more attention not just to 

the volume of output but the quality of the patents that are granted. Ultimately, as we all understand, the ability to protect intellectual property correctly is a foundational element for the success of 

the American economy. That turns on the quality of the patents 

that are granted. 

Much of our discussion is today about inputs and outputs in the 

terminology of the government performance community. What really counts here are, what are the outcomes? And that importantly 

does turn on the quality of the patents that are granted. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Chu follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 25007.017
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 25007.018
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 25007.019
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 25007.020
31 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 25007.021
32 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 25007.022
33 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 25007.023
34 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 25007.024
35 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you so much. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, 

for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for holding this hearing on the penultimate day of the 114th Congress. 

There is no human problem that cannot be improved with another 

hearing. 

Looking at the findings in the recent Department of Commerce 

IG report on time and attendance issues of patent examiners at the 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—and I want to thank the IG for 

his report—who found that 1.6 percent of the total hours that PTO 

examiners claimed they worked during a 9-month period in 2015 

lacked supporting computer evidence of actual work activity. The 

IG concluded that this could have resulted in potential waste of 

$8.8 million. The IG also looked at an overlapping 15-month period 

and concluded that the unsupported hours could have resulted in 

potential waste of $18 million. However, the IG has found no proof 

of actual misconduct in this latest report. Let me be clear about my 

views on time and attendance abuse. It’s unacceptable. Any 

amount of fraud, whether it’s 1.6 percent of total claimed hours 

cited in the IG report or twice that amount, is unacceptable if 

proved true. The IG found that, for about 10 percent of the hours 

worked by a small fraction of patent examiners, apparently no evidence of work activity from an evaluation of their computer use 

could be found. The IG notes that this problem was not widespread. The National Academy of Public Administration conducted 

a review of PTO’s internal controls and came to that same conclusion. The IG’s audit is valuable but incomplete. The IG’s approach 

does not reflect any offline work done by patent examiners. The 

Patent Office Professional Association has already testified that 

many examiners routinely spend a portion of their work hours 

working offline, and even work overtime without claiming it. 

I understand that the IG has provided its data and algorithms 

to PTO to allow the agency to determine whether there in fact were 

cases of actual abuse of the agency’s time and attendance policy. 

Another question raised by the IG’s findings was whether there 

is a reasonable explanation for why the most unsupported time is 

associated with PTO’s highest performing examiners. Do the findings suggest an indication of a complex managerial problem? A conflict between an examiner’s production goals and time and attendance requirements? How can we resolve these conflicts to 

incentivize the agency’s most efficient examiners to take work beyond their production goals? 

Lastly, I’d like to know, Mr. Chairman, as an original cosponsor 

of the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010, I take a special interest 

in PTO’s telework program, which many agencies have viewed as 

a model. I understand some of my colleagues may suggest that the 

IG’s report indicates a problem with PTO’s telework program. But 

the IG’s analysis does not make a comparison between teleworkers 

and on-campus workers. However, NAPA’s 2015 study of PTO’s 

telework program found no difference in the performance or conduct between these two groups of employees. 

The benefits of telework are significant. PTO’s telework program 

has saved the agency more than $7 million during government cloVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:39 May 08, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25007.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

sures, and the agency avoided more than $38 million in rent in this 

last fiscal year alone. 

In addition, there’s potential for traffic congestion relief—and as 

somebody who represents this area, we need it—and widespread 

adoption of telework policies governmentwide. 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today, and thank 

you for your indulgence in my being here a little bit late. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for 

a series of questions. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Chu, what does NAPA stand for again? 

Mr. CHU. The NAPA report was—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Hit your red button there. Or make it red. 

Mr. CHU. My apologies. That report was based on work—— 

Mr. JORDAN. What’s the organization? What’s the acronym stand 

for? 

Mr. CHU. I’m sorry? 

Mr. JORDAN. What’s the acronym stand for, NAPA? What’s it—— 

Mr. CHU. Oh, National Academy of Public Administration. 

Mr. JORDAN. National Academy of—okay. And you guys did a 

study that reaches a different conclusion than the IG’s report. Is 

that right? 

Mr. CHU. Well, our study is for a period prior to the most recent 

IG report. 

Mr. JORDAN. You reached a different conclusion, different—different—your report—— 

Mr. CHU. I believe the IG testified that he did not think it was 

widespread, time and attendance abuse. That is also—was also our 

conclusion. We did not see it as a widespread issue. 

Mr. JORDAN. Well, the USPTO cites it as showing that different 

conclusion than the IG’s report. Is that fair? 

Mr. CHU. I think we’re all agreed that the fraction of time that 

is believed to be abusive is small. A goal, as I think the chairman 

emphasized—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Is your report different—is your report different 

than the IG’s report? 

Mr. CHU. Excuse me? 

Mr. JORDAN. Is your report different than the IG’s report? 

Mr. CHU. Our report is different from the IG report in the following sense: we did not do the kind of analysis the IG undertook. 

What we sought to do was two things: First, look at the internal 

controls structure. That seemed basically sound. There were some 

small tune ups that came out of that process. Second, look at, how 

well does the program as a whole work? Yes, there have been 

abuses. Those were the product of earlier controversy that led to 

the NAPA report. There are anecdotes that we recommended. I’m 

delighted that the IG found that one of those anecdotes, the use of 

the presence indicator, has had some helpful effect. 

Mr. JORDAN. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. CHU. You could go further in that direction, and we did so 

recommend. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. Let me change the direction. What’s the Elliot Richardson Prize? 

Mr. CHU. I’m sorry? 

Mr. JORDAN. What’s the Elliot Richardson Prize? 

Mr. CHU. It’s a prize given by the academy for extraordinary 

public service to the United States. 

Mr. JORDAN. Your academy. Right? NAPA? The one you just told 

me about. Right? 

Mr. CHU. Right. 

Mr. JORDAN.Okay. And who was the recipient of last year’s Elliot 

Richardson Prize. 

Mr. CHU. I don’t remember who last year’s recipient was. But I 

do remember it was Bob Gates a couple years before that. 

Mr. JORDAN. What about the 2016? Who won the 2016 prize? 

Mr. CHU. I apologize. I don’t recall. 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you know what the criteria is that is used in selecting who’s going to win this Elliot Richardson Prize? 

Mr. CHU. It is sustained excellence to the service of the United 

States, essentially. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. And you don’t know who won last this current year, 2016. 

Mr. CHU. I should remember, but I don’t remember. 

Mr. JORDAN. Are you on the board who selects that person? 

Mr. CHU. No. I do not select. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. But you’re here representing today NAPA. 

Right? 

Mr. CHU. I’m here as chair of the panel that did the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office review of the telework program. 

Mr. JORDAN. Are you of—and you’re part of NAPA, correct? 

Mr. CHU. I’m a fellow of NAPA. Right. 

Mr. JORDAN. You’re a fellow at NAPA, and they have this award, 

the Elliot Richardson Prize, and last year’s winner—and you don’t 

know who this year’s winner of that prize was. 

Mr. CHU. I don’t, sir. I’m terribly sorry. 

Mr. JORDAN. Would it surprise you if it’s the IRS Commissioner, 

John Koskinen? Would you be surprised that that’s the guy who 

was selected for outstanding public achievement? 

Mr. CHU. I think that was—I think you’re right, sir. I think they 

did select Mr. Koskinen. 

Mr. JORDAN. Oh, you can remember now, right? So it was Mr. 

Koskinen. 

Mr. CHU. You refreshed my memory. 

Mr. JORDAN. I refreshed your memory. Good. And I look at the 

criteria for that award and it says ‘‘significantly advancing the public good.’’ You all felt that John Koskinen significantly advanced 

the public good last year? 

Mr. CHU. That was the conclusion of the selection panel. I’m not 

part of that process. 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you know who else might have been considered 

for last year—for this year’s 2016 award? Who else may have been 

in the running for that? 

Mr. CHU. I don’t, sir. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

Mr. JORDAN. I’d be curious to see who was turned down, who was 

not given that award and Mr. Koskinen was selected over them. 

Do you understand, Dr. Chu, that Mr. Koskinen gave false statements to this very committee? Do you understand that happened? 

Mr. CHU. I know there’s been considerable exchange between 

this committee and Mr. Koskinen, yes, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you understand, when Mr. Koskinen was 

brought in as Commissioner of the IRS, that 422 backup tapes containing 24,000 emails were destroyed under his watch? Do you understand that fact? Or did the folks at NAPA understand that fact? 

I’d be curious to know. 

Mr. CHU. I know the public discussion between this committee—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you know that he withheld information from 

Congress? After he learned in February, he waited 4 months before 

he told Congress about missing Lois Lerner emails. And you come 

in here and tell us your organization, which reaches different conclusions or slightly different conclusions than the inspector general, 

and last year, you gave the outstanding public achievement by— 

the achievement says significantly advancing the public good. You 

gave that award to John Koskinen? 

Mr. CHU. I didn’t, sir. The—— 

Mr. JORDAN. No, the organization. But you’re representing 

NAPA, right? 

Mr. CHU. I’m a fellow of the organization. That’s correct. I’m not 

part of the award process. I would point out—— 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you know if John Koskinen was a contributor to 

NAPA? Do you know if he’s given money to that organization? 

Mr. CHU. I don’t know, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Okay. Okay. All right. And you don’t know who was 

passed over so that Mr. Koskinen could receive this outstanding 

public servant award last year. 

Mr. CHU. I’m sorry. What’s this? 

Mr. JORDAN. And you don’t know who was passed over, who was 

not given the award, who was under consideration and not given 

the award so that Mr. Koskinen could—— 

Mr. CHU. Sir, no, I have no insight into the process. 

Mr. JORDAN. All right. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, Mr. Chu, for a different point of view, congratulations on naming an honorable public servant, Mr. Koskinen, 

as your outstanding awardee last year. And no amount of innuendo 

or smear is going to tarnish his reputation. I’ve known him for a 

long time. And I consider him one of the most honorable public 

servants I’ve known in a long time. So I guess we’re all entitled to 

our point of view. But I wanted you to know right away there is 

a different point of view. And congratulations. He deserves it. And 

I thank you for doing it. 

Mr. Smith, I’m looking at your report. And I want to be real 

clear. You found potential waste in roughly 1.6 percent of the time 

and attendance records you looked at. Is that correct? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. That is correct. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You did not in fact document actual waste. And 

I’m not—I mean, it’s out there potentially, but there’s no dollars or 

cents to actual documented waste. Is that correct? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, Mr. Connolly, as I was mentioning in my opening statement—you might have missed it—that we would be more 

than happy to interview these employees with POPA encouraging 

their employees to come be interviewed. The problem is we ran 

against the Computer Matching Act, which does not allow the combination of information from various computer databases to then 

proceed and contain any kind of disciplinary reaction. However, I 

would like to read for you a quote that was in one of the IP Watchdog newspapers or articles. It says: Some patent examiners have 

contended on IP Watchdog and attempted to explain their actions 

are innocent but have actually admitted to committing fraud. 

These patent examiners have explained that, because of their superior talents, they’re capable of doing their work in a fraction of the 

time the office thinks it should take them to do the work. Multiple 

examiners have said here on IP Watchdog that if they are, for example, allocated 3 hours to do a task and can do it in 2 hours, then 

there’s absolutely nothing wrong with them claiming all 3 hours on 

their timesheet. One examiner actually said that he or she is capable of doing work twice as fast, using an example where the office 

allocates 20 hours to complete a task, presumably an entire application, but the examiner’s able to get it done in 10 hours. Of 

course, that examiner explained he’s completely justified in claiming all 20 hours worked on his timesheet. 

So I have a confession here by at least one that they did fraudulently fill out their timesheet. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, are you contending, Mr. Smith, that that 

one so-called confession somehow characterizes widespread fraud 

within PTO? 

Mr. SMITH. Sir, there is nowhere in our report that we use word 

‘‘widespread.’’ And as I said in my opening—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I’m asking you, sir, a question on what you just 

said. What conclusion are you drawing from one person, one interview? 

Mr. SMITH. That was not one person. The author cited multiple 

people—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Who admitted to fraud? Excuse me. Who admitted to fraud? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Multiple people? 

Mr. SMITH. Multiple people. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. What did you do with that? Did you refer it to 

legal authorities? 

Mr. SMITH. As I mentioned, the Computer Matching Act does not 

allow us to go after these individuals. Now that the IP—Empowerment Act has been passed that exempts us from the Computer 

Matching Act, we can now go forward under this. But for right 

now, our hands are tied unless the individuals want to come in voluntarily for an interview. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, I think one needs to be a little bit careful 

about drawing broad conclusions from particular incidents. None of 

us want to see timecard fraud. And in fact, if you uncover it, we 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

want to see it pursued. But I am concerned that it comes to characterize an agency where it may or may not in fact be at all characteristic of normal practice. 

Mr. SMITH. And, sir, I stated that twice in my opening statement. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Good. But you know how this works, Mr. Smith. 

That’s not what the story will be. 

Mr. SMITH. Sir, I can’t control what people do with the facts 

we’ve reported. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No. No, I know. You have no responsibility for 

that. I’ve seen a lot of IGs take the same position as they do damage to the reputations of individuals and agencies. 

Mr. Slifer, do you want to comment on that, that people apparently in your organization admitted to fraud, according to Mr. 

Smith? 

Mr. SLIFER. Well, thank you. I certainly can’t comment on the 

anecdotal article in a blog that was just quoted as being evidence 

or admission of a particular examiner. 

Our examiners have a very difficult job. Our examiners have got 

scientific, engineering, advanced degrees and have a very difficult 

job to examine patent applications and understand prior art, legal 

arguments, and synthesize all of that data into an examination 

for—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right. All right. I got it. But you’re sitting 

next to the acting deputy inspector general, who, through his 

words, is clearly making a statement about a practice, not widespread, but it’s occurring, and it’s fraud. That’s the word he uses. 

I want you to respond to that. Is it in fact a big problem or a contained problem, but nonetheless a problem, from your point of 

view? 

Mr. SLIFER. No. It’s not a widespread problem. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I didn’t say ‘‘widespread.’’ Mr. Smith corrected 

me properly. Their report doesn’t say ‘‘widespread,’’ nor do I. I’m 

asking you, is it a contained problem? Is it something you’re worried about? Is it something you recognize as in fact a practice that 

has to be addressed by these examiners who are specialized and 

doing difficult work? 

Mr. SLIFER. The Patent Office takes—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I can’t hear you. 

Mr. SLIFER. I’m sorry. The Patent Office takes any—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I know. Yes, yes. I know; we all take it seriously. 

But I’m asking you to comment on what Mr. Smith said in his findings. Is that consistent with what you know about your agency? 

Mr. SLIFER. It is not consistent—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. It is not consistent. 

Mr. SLIFER. Yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Why is that? 

Mr. SLIFER. Because I know that our examiners are working. I 

know, looking at their production requirements. I know, talking to 

our—— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would you take issue with Mr. Smith that people, according to him, self-admitted fraud, timecard fraud? 

Mr. SLIFER. If we had an examiner who self-admitted—that admitted to fraud, we’re certainly going to—— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, he gave one example, but he claims there 

were more than one. 

Mr. SLIFER. I’m not aware of any. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. 

The chair recognizes himself for a series of questions. 

Mr. Slifer, let me come to you, because I find this fascinating. 

You’re saying that you do not have a problem, in spite of what the 

inspector general’s report suggests, that you do not have a problem. 

That’s your sworn testimony here today? 

Mr. SLIFER. It is. 

Mr. MEADOWS. With 400—in at least 400 different cases, you 

don’t have a problem? 

Mr. SLIFER. The data that the inspector general looked at—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. That’s not my question. You just testified that 

you do not have a problem. Is that your sworn testimony here 

today? Because I’m going to drill down on it if that’s your sworn 

testimony. 

Mr. SLIFER. It is. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what you’re suggesting, there is no time and 

abuse problems with regards to reporting? 

Mr. SLIFER. I did not say there’s no time and abuse problems. We 

have disciplined 30 people. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how many people have you let go? 

Mr. SLIFER. We have either—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Because of this. 

Mr. SLIFER. We’re not—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I know the answer. You go ahead. I mean, how 

many people have you let go because of this? 

Mr. SLIFER. Because of the inspector general report? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes. 

Mr. SLIFER. Zero. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes. That’s the answer. 

Mr. SLIFER. We’re not allowed—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So how are you taking it seriously? So what other 

kind of punishment have—here’s my problem, is I go to Federal 

agencies, and I find that we have some of the greatest Federal 

workers, truly, in not only just in the public sector but in the private sector. And so you’ve got over 8,000 great employees, and 

you’ve got 400 or so who are taking advantage of the system and 

perhaps giving a bad report because—and actually giving a bad 

taste to teleworking, which I don’t know that that is a hypothesis 

that I would support, because of the 400 that don’t log in. Are you 

suggesting that it’s okay to not log into their computer for 2 days 

and actually they’re doing work? Because according to Mr. Smith, 

he said, even if they checked their email in a 2-day period, he’d 

give them the benefit of the doubt. So do you think that you can 

actually do your work without checking an email or actually 

going—do you think you can actually do that for 48 hours and actually be working, Mr. Slifer? 

Mr. SLIFER. The nature of the examination process, yes, there 

can be. 

Mr. MEADOWS. For 2 days? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

Mr. SLIFER. Yes. Is that the best practice? No. And we instituted 

a change—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So have you implemented all the recommendations there that the IG—— 

Mr. SLIFER. In the current report? 

Mr. MEADOWS. —recommended? Have you implemented all of 

those? 

Mr. SLIFER. I’d be happy to walk through them with you, each 

one. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Just yes or no. Have you implemented all of 

them? 

Mr. SLIFER. We have addressed each one, and we are close to implementing all of them. 

Mr. MEADOWS. When will you be done with implementing all of 

the recommendations? 

Mr. SLIFER. There is a significant capital investment in some of 

the requirements. Our budget is not at this—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you’re saying this is a cashflow problem. 

Mr. SLIFER. I’m not saying it’s a cashflow, but some are multimillion dollar investments. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Because I’m going to allow you a little bit 

of flexibility here. But let me tell you the trouble that I have with 

some of your testimony. I read the report. And what I find in the 

report is, is there is no logical conclusion that you could come to, 

other than someone is gaming the system. There is no explanation 

for it. And what I’m going to do is, in support of the 8,000 good 

employees that you have, I’m not going to let the 300 or 400 get 

by with it. Do you follow me? And neither should you. Are you 

going to hold everybody accountable to the same standard? Because 

what I saw was that you gave bonuses, significant bonuses, to some 

of the people that actually were perhaps the most troublesome in 

this report. Would you agree with that, that you gave them aboveaverage performance review and bonuses? 

Mr. SLIFER. Some of the individuals identified in the top by the 

inspector general did both receive bonuses and have—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what kind of message of giving a bonus and 

good reviews to someone who does not act the way that the other 

8,000 would act, what kind of message does that send to the good 

employees? 

Mr. SLIFER. Well, I would prefer to dig into the data and find out 

exactly why there’s a difference between the digital—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I would prefer that you dig into the data too, Mr. 

Slifer, but it doesn’t look like you’re digging into it. 

Mr. SLIFER. Well, we have been for several months working on 

this. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But you’ve fired no one. And what other disciplinary actions have you had? 

Mr. SLIFER. I’m not allowed to fire anybody as a result of this. 

Mr. MEADOWS. What other—we have already established that 

you fired no one. What other disciplinary actions have you had? 

Mr. SLIFER. We have actually disciplined and terminated 30 of 

the individuals listed in the top 300. But that was done independent of the inspector general’s report. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you fired them for another reason. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

Mr. SLIFER. No. We had fired them independent of the report. 

Our internal controls had already identified those individuals before the report was published. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So now you can’t have it both ways, Mr. Slifer. 

Your testimony was that you didn’t have a problem. And now 

you’re saying that you do have a problem, that you got rid of 30 

people. So which is it? Do you have a problem, or you don’t have 

a problem? 

Mr. SLIFER. Sir, 30 out of—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Because 30 people may have a grievance that you 

fired them for no problem. Do you follow me? 

Mr. SLIFER. I understand that any agency of our size will have 

individuals that need to be disciplined. And we have policies and 

procedures to address that. I don’t believe that it is systemic, as 

identified by NAPA and agreed to—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’m saying it’s systemic within 400-plus employees that the inspector general’s report pointed out. I’m not saying 

the other 8,000. In fact, I give them great rewards for what they’re 

doing. And if they’re watching right now, let me just tell you, I’m 

telling them that I’ve got their back. I’m looking forward to whistleblowers telling me about other issues. And if they’ll call, I promise 

you I will personally follow up on it because it’s apparent that 

you’re not willing to do that. 

Mr. SLIFER. I disagree. The agency has taken substantial steps 

and continues. We don’t take this lightly ourselves. But I will—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. You don’t take it lightly. So help me reconcile the two parts of testimony. You don’t take it lightly, but you 

don’t have a problem. So which is it? Because you just in the last 

6 minutes you said you don’t have a problem and now you’re saying 

you don’t take it lightly. So which is it? 

Mr. SLIFER. I believe my testimony is that we don’t take it lightly, while we recognize that there’s always going to be individuals 

in an agency of 13,000 who don’t follow our rules, don’t follow our 

procedures, that are going to require discipline. We take it seriously, and we discipline those individuals. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you do have a problem. All right. 

I’ll recognize the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. 

Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This is an important hearing because, of course, abuse of time 

and attendance is always unacceptable, whatever the amount. The 

amount here seems low, but it’s worthy of some oversight. 

I do have to say something about what the chairman indicated. 

He wondered whether or not anyone had been let go because of the 

IG report. Of course, you cannot be let go because of a report, even 

of an IG. Under civil service law, it’s an accusation, and you’d have 

to go through the process for independent substantiation. That is 

the law so that, of course, we do have to understand when you can 

take action and when you cannot, and of course, you couldn’t take 

it, whatever the outcome of this report. 

And I also have to say, Mr. Chairman, that I was amazed in the 

wake of the recent report not to impeach Mr. Koskinen, that that 

issue would be raised in an effort to relitigate it at this hearing. 

There has just been an overwhelming vote. There was a privilege 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

resolution on the floor to impeach Mr. Koskinen based on the findings, I might add, of this committee and overwhelmingly voted to 

send it back to committee, to the Judiciary Committee, which, of 

course, kills it. You can’t kill some things. They just refuse to die. 

And if I may say, for the record, if Mr. Koskinen was given a reward, it probably had to do with the fact that he has been called 

in time and again by Democratic and Republican Presidents to 

straighten out troubled agencies, just as he was summoned to 

straighten out the IRS. And I’m sorry I had to take some of my 

time for that. It seemed to me that those two issues deserved a response. 

What intrigued me about Mr. Smith’s report was the number of 

those with the best annual ratings who had these time and attendance issues. I think 81 percent of the unsupported hours, if I have 

the record correct—— 

Mr. SMITH. Forty-three percent of the hours, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Forty-three percent? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. Now, Mr. Smith, your testimony, your 

report says: The existence of highly rated examiners with large unsupported regular and overtime hours indicates that these examiners are likely exceeding their performance goals in less than the 

time allotted. 

I had staff get me your testimony, and they brought me your 

printed testimony. I appreciate it. And on page 3, because my first 

question was, when was the last time these performance goals were 

looked at? How timely is the data on which we are relying? And 

here I am quoting from your report on perhaps the most important 

recommendation: We recommended that the USPTO reevaluate its 

examiner production goals for each group of examiners and revise 

them to the extent necessary. 

And here’s the operative sentence: Production goals were last set 

by art unit, as it is called, in 1976, and much has changed since 

then. 

I’m astonished. We’re working off of goals that—when I wasn’t 

even thinking of coming to Congress. Could this account for why 

so many of the highest performers—in fact, I must ask, what 

makes you a high performer? How are you even judged—who are 

high performers if 43 percent of the hours were from these high 

performers, how are they evaluated? 

Mr. SMITH. I’d have to defer that to PTO, ma’am. It’s a management issue. 

Mr. SLIFER. I’d be happy to address that. While the time that is 

allocated for an examiner to spend examining an application based 

on either the technology or their seniority and experience hasn’t 

been fully reviewed since the 1970s, we are undertaking that massive project right now. 

But the performance goals for each individual have been adjusted, and we have looked at it over the course of even the last 

couple of years to set those standards. And the GAO recently came 

out with a study that indicated that 70 percent of our employees 

don’t have enough time to reach the production goals that they 

have. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

We understand that, on a bell curve of individuals, we’ll have 

some that have the ability to understand the data, synthesize it, 

produce their work product faster than others. We still expect them 

to finish their full 80 hours. We expect them to put in all of their 

time, whether they’ve completed that or not. We even have an incentive program to incentivize them to produce additional work 

product for the agency to help us reduce our backlog in pendency, 

which I’m happy to say, over the course of the last 6 years, has 

dropped from over 700,000 cases to the 500,000 we have now. 

Ms. NORTON. So are these performers moving on to take on additional work? 

Mr. SLIFER. That is what—— 

Ms. NORTON. These best annual performers—— 

Mr. SLIFER. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. Who apparently have some of the poor ratings time 

and attendance ratings. 

Mr. SLIFER. I want to be careful and I believe—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. The gentlewoman’s time is expired, but please do 

answer the question. 

Mr. SLIFER. The inspector general is looking at digital data, security data, security entering our building, security entering our IT, 

and looking at that to see if it provides a verification of an examiner’s timecards that they filled out. Where there’s a mismatch, 

there’s a question because there’s no way at that point to verify 

whether an examiner was or wasn’t working. We have looked at 

that data and looked at other data in the agency, and I can say 

that, of some of those individuals that are highlighted, I can show 

that they worked Monday through Thursday, 10 hours a day but 

entered 8 hours a day on their timesheet, showing that they did 

not work on Friday, when, in fact, they worked the full 40 hours 

that week. 

So I know that the data is not 100 percent accurate as a 

verification of the veracity of the timesheet, and that’s something 

that the agency is digging into so that we can make changes, not 

only reminding our employees of their requirements to abide by filling out the timesheet properly, putting in their full 80 hours, but 

narrowing up the gap between that data and their timesheet so 

that we can more accurately identify any areas in the agency 

where we do have time fraud, instead of losing it in a large analysis like this. Thank you. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentlewoman. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Grothman. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Sure. A couple questions for Mr. Smith. First of 

all, the information here says we have 415 patent examiners responsible for 93—or 43 percent of the unsupported hours. But I 

want you to talk a little bit about the methodology as to whether 

you think that’s a hard number or what it takes to be considered, 

I guess, not showing up. 

If I come in and I stand there for 5 minutes and document that 

I’m there for 5 minutes a day and then I go out golfing for the day, 

how do you record that? 

Mr. SMITH. We did not take an overly harsh look at the time 

records that were or the time periods that the employees actually 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

claimed. If an employee swiped in and said they were there for 8 

hours, then we gave them credit for 8 hours. If we were to take 

a more harsher view and go back and look at actual computer time 

spent, some type of activity on their computer, it would increase 

the number of unsupported hours for the on-campus employees by 

327,000 unsupported hours. 

The PTO requires their employees to only swipe out between 10 

p.m. And 5:30 a.m., so the employee could go in, swipe his badge, 

claim 8 hours, not even turn on his computer at all, not even do 

any work. He could be another examiner A. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. So this just means that you were basically in the 

building, not working? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, that is correct. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. And only in the building for 5 or 10 minutes. 

Mr. SMITH. But yet I affirmatively charged 8 hours, saying I was 

working on my computer. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. And even then, if you checked that, could they 

be hardworking at their computer playing video games or something? 

Mr. SMITH. Potentially. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. Wow, it’s shocking, shocking, shocking, 

shocking. Well, I don’t know. I guess it confirms what a lot of people think about the Washington, D.C., work ethic for some people. 

We’ll give you a question here. Now, how many of these people 

have been prosecuted, even under your relatively low standards? I 

realize you have time constraints yourself. Under the relatively low 

standards that you’re laying out here, how many have been prosecuted? 

Mr. SMITH. We have presented these time and attendance cases 

to U.S. Attorney’s Office in the past, and they have declined because they say they have to actually go hour by hour and prove 

that the employee was not physically working, and that’s a bit of 

a burden for them, so they deadline all the T&A cases we present 

to them. So the answer to your question: none. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. If I had to just put a dollar amount, say on when 

some of the guys or gals don’t show up, you know, you’d have to 

know how many hours they’re not showing up, assuming they’re 

working when they’re in, but how many hours they’re not showing 

up and what their salary is. Can you guess on some of the most 

egregious cases over the last few years how much they’re taking 

the government for? 

Mr. SMITH. We found that examiner A was taking the government, on a conservative estimate, for $25,000 just in 2014 alone. 

And the total of these 415 individuals we figured was about $18 

million just in pay and benefits. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Wow, I remember back home sometimes people 

would be caught stealing, some public officials, and they wound up 

going to prison for years. So how many of these that you mention 

of the golden 415 we have here, how many have been subject to administrative action? 

Mr. SMITH. I would have to defer that to PTO, sir. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. But nobody prosecuted. Why not? Can you 

tell us, are there any proposals out there that you’re aware of floatVerDate Nov 24 2008 08:39 May 08, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\25007.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

ing through Congress that may do something to improve the environment a little bit? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir. As I mentioned earlier, we got word that 

both the House and the Senate have approved the IG Empowerment Act, which exempts the IGs from the Computer Matching Act 

so that if we were to do this exercise again, we would be able to 

turn that information over to the agency to take administrative discipline. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Do you have any reason why we wouldn’t pass 

that bill? 

Mr. SMITH. I don’t currently see any reason. CIGI is in full support of that bill. However, I do understand there is a hold on that 

right now. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay—do we know who’s putting the hold on it? 

Mr. SMITH. I don’t recall the person’s name, sir. 

Mr. GROTHMAN. Okay. We should talk about that a little bit and 

see who that is. Well, I have a little bit of time left, only a few seconds, and I know how much Chairman Meadows covets these seconds. 

So I yield them back to him. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Schwartz, how long have you worked at the USPTO? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Thirty-four years. 

Mr. HICE. Thirty-four years. That’s a long time. Your current pay grade, you’re GS–14, ballpark $150,000? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Yes. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. It’s my understanding that your particular area 

of expertise is as a patent examiner for chemical engineering patents. Is that correct? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Yes. But for full disclosure, as president of the 

union, I have worked for the union for several years without patent 

examining. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. So how long have you been doing that? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. This is not going to be accurate. I’m going to say 

approximately 8 years. 

Mr. HICE. Approximately 8 years. So, as an individual to be looking after chemical engineering patents, you’ve not been doing that 

for 8 years? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. For approximately 8 years, yes. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. So you’re on official time. Is that correct? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Yes. 

Mr. HICE. So official time means you were hired to work with 

patents and chemical engineering patents, but instead of doing the 

job for which you were hired, you’re doing union work. Is that correct? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I’m doing union work. That’s correct. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. But that’s not what you were hired to do. You 

were hired as a chemical engineer patent examiner? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Yes. 

Mr. HICE. Okay. So the American people are paying you to do 

something that you were not hired to do. Was anyone hired in your 

place to do the work that you’re not doing? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
48 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I can’t tell—— 

Mr. HICE. Mr. Slifer, was anyone hired? Do you know? 

Mr. SLIFER. I left private industry 2 years ago, so I can’t speak 

to what happened 8 years ago. 

Mr. HICE. What’s happening now? Has anyone been hired to do 

the job that Ms. Schwartz was hired to do that she’s not doing? 

Mr. SLIFER. I don’t believe I can speak directly to that, but—— 

Mr. HICE. Do you know how many people are doing official time 

who were hired to work at the Patent Office but they’re doing 

union work? 

Mr. SLIFER. I do not, but I would be happy to—— 

Mr. HICE. Would it surprise you that there’s 154 such individuals? 

Mr. SLIFER. Again, I wasn’t aware of how many. 

Mr. HICE. It would seem to me that being entrusted with the 

good faith of the American taxpayer, that you would have an understanding of how many people have been hired to do work that 

they’re not doing. This just absolutely is astounding to me, Ms. 

Schwartz, that you are hired to work with folks seeking a patent, 

but you’re not doing that. So the American people are subsidizing 

union work and paying you $150,000 to do union activity rather 

than to do the work you are hired to do. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Congressman, a lot of the work I do is assisting 

the agency in implementing its—— 

Mr. HICE. But that is not what you were hired to do. You were 

not hired to do union work. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I am assisting the agency in meeting its mission 

by assisting them in developing and implementing programs. For 

example, last year—— 

Mr. HICE. How many clients have you worked with in the last 

8 years? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I’m sorry? 

Mr. HICE. How many people who are seeking a chemical engineering patent have you worked with? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. None in the last 8 years. 

Mr. HICE. But that’s what you were hired to do. So I’m really curious about your daily schedule. What do you do on a daily basis? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. On a daily basis, I deal with a number of different issues. Many of them are assisting the agency in developing 

and implementing programs to meet the mission of reducing pendency and increasing quality. Over the last year, my organization 

has reached many agreements to help the agency with its—— 

Mr. HICE. That’s fine, Ms. Schwartz, and I’m glad your agency 

is doing it. I’m not attacking your union, nor am I attacking your 

union work. The problem I have is that you are using the time that 

the American taxpayer paid you to do as a patent examiner, and 

you’re doing zero of that. You’ve done none of that in 8 years, and 

instead, you’ve been doing union work on the time that the taxpayers have asked you to be a patent examiner. You can do your 

union work, just not during this. I would like, I’m really curious 

about your daily schedule. I would like for you to provide this committee with a copy of your daily schedule, just your work hours— 

not interested in your personal time—but what you do from your 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
49 

clock-in official time for the last 6 months. Will you provide that 

for us? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I will try to provide that. 

Mr. HICE. When can we expect to have that calendar? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I can probably provide this—I’m going to have 

to—I can probably provide this in a reasonable time, but I can’t assure that everything on this—I have a calendar that I keep. I can’t 

assure that everything on it is accurate, and it won’t have hour by 

hour because there are hours that are open that I have not written 

down every activity during those—— 

Mr. HICE. But everything that you have written down, I would 

like to have submitted to this committee for the last 6 months. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I will do that. 

Mr. HICE. Thank you very much. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. 

And we are going to go into our second round of questioning at 

this point, and so we will recognize the gentleman from Ohio for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It seems to me if you could summarize, Mr. Smith does his investigation and finds there are folks cheating the timecard, 415 of 

them to be exact, accounting for 43 percent of total unsupported 

hours. Mr. Slifer says that is not a problem because it wasn’t everyone. And Ms. Schwartz agrees with him and cites the report 

done by Dr. Chu, a report that he co-authored and a report produced by an organization that this year gave its top public servant 

prize to a guy who was censured by this committee. Now if that’s 

not a story line, I don’t know what is. I mean, think about that. 

Think about that. Top public servant, they’re citing as evidence 

that it’s not a problem; cheating the timecard is not a problem. 

They’re citing the NAPA report as evidence to support their claim 

it’s not a problem, even though it was 43 percent of all unsupported 

hours, even though it was 415 individuals. They said an organization that gave an award to a guy who was censured by this very 

committee as support for their position. I just find this—if you wonder why people have had it with Washington, D.C., just look at 

that. Look at the fact pattern in front of us, Mr. Chairman. So I 

appreciate you having this hearing. 

One other question if I could for you, Dr. Chu. Are you a fellow 

at the organization at NAPA? 

Mr. CHU. Yes, I’m a fellow. 

Mr. JORDAN. And who nominates people for consideration for the 

Eliot L. Richardson Prize? 

Mr. CHU. I don’t know, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. It’s my understanding that fellows nominate them, 

nominate those individuals who are considered by the organization 

to receive this prestigious award. You didn’t nominate him? 

Mr. CHU. No, sir, I did not. 

Mr. JORDAN. Do you know who did? 

Mr. CHU. I don’t, sir. 

Mr. JORDAN. Again, Mr. Chairman, I just find this remarkable. 

People cheating the timecard, 415 of them, almost half of all unsupported hours that accounts for. Mr. Slifer tells you in your 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 

round of questioning ‘‘not a big deal because it wasn’t everybody.’’ 

And Ms. Schwartz says we’re going to rely on this NAPA report coauthored by Dr. Chu, this report by an organization that gives its 

most prestigious award to a guy who’s been censured by the very 

committee now looking at this issue. I think it’s important that we 

had this hearing. I appreciate the chairman’s indulgence. I yield 

back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the 

District of Columbia for 5 minutes. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And one more clarification. When it comes to the use of official 

time by union representatives, like Ms. Schwartz, it’s not a gift to 

the union. It’s not a gift to the worker. If, in fact, these matters, 

which, of course, are recognized in our country, once there has been 

an election and a union has been certified and grievances are filed, 

if, in fact, these matters were not processed during official time, 

then they would have to be done, sir, during overtime, which would 

mean overtime to the government for all of those involved. So this 

is a carefully worked-out matter. 

Once you recognize that, in our country, there still is a right and 

certainly in Federal agencies to elect a union and to process grievances. 

I want to get further into the bottom of this matter involving— 

what is it?—43 percent of the hours from the best performers because that doesn’t seem to belong together, that you found that the 

most unsupported work that the inspector general found was being 

claimed by what had otherwise been declared the most efficient 

workers. That just doesn’t jibe. They don’t fit together. And, of 

course, raises questions, I raised some of them about the way in 

which the Patent Office measures and rewards its workforce. 

Dr. Chu, do these highly efficient examiners have enough incentive, do you believe, to take on additional work beyond their productive goals? I’d ask that of Mr. Slifer as well? Are there enough 

incentives to take on additional work beyond their production 

goals? 

Mr. CHU. As Mr. Slifer has testified, the office does have a set 

of incentives to encourage staff members to produce more than is 

normal and uses those as a judgment for its award program. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Slifer, what needs to be done about production 

incentives to encourage more output by patent examiners? 

Mr. SLIFER. If I may, there’s an interesting question to be asked 

when you look at the high performers that are on the list, and the 

first assumption is that they’re not actually working. The other assumption can be that one reason those individuals are able to be 

such high producers is that they’re putting in the extra effort. 

They’re taking documents home. They’re working on their—just 

like I take home a briefing book every weekend, individuals have 

different work habits, and they’re putting in extra effort. 

Our incentive program that you’re asking about has actually 

saved the agency over 1.1 million examiner hours a year. It’s the 

equivalent of over 800 additional examiners that we would have to 

hire to meet the same production. So we do have incentives, and 

it is paying dividends for the agency without having to hire close 

to additional 1,500 additional examiners a year, and it provides us 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
51 

the flexibility when filing may drop, the revenue for the agency 

may, so that we can adjust our workforce without either having to 

hire more or fire more. So I am comfortable that our incentive program does incentivize those individuals who are capable of producing more work during their work hours to go ahead and produce 

more. 

Ms. NORTON. So do you believe that your production goals, your 

production targets rather, and time and attendance requirements 

get the most work effort out of the patent examiners? 

Mr. SLIFER. We work hard to optimize the balance between 

those, including the investment we are making over the last 2 

years and improving quality at the agency. The quality of the time 

the examiners are spending, the incentives that we put in place to 

get them to work harder, not only in quantity but the quality and 

the timeliness of their work, are working in harmony, and we are 

always tweaking it and trying to find ways to improve it. The inspector general’s report and recommendations are very informative 

for us in helping us focus on additional improvements in areas that 

he’s highlighted. 

Ms. NORTON. There seems to be some suggestion that the system 

in use discourages highly efficient and effective workers rather 

than incentivizes them. I’m trying to resolve this tension between 

time and attendance and production records so it doesn’t look like 

we’re punishing some of the most efficient members of our Federal 

workforce. 

Mr. SLIFER. It is a concern of mine to jump to the conclusion that 

unsupported hours looking at digital data equates to work that 

wasn’t done. That’s why we’re digging in as an agency and trying 

to answer the question of, why is there a mismatch between digital 

data and the certified time records? When we look at production 

records for these individuals, the quality and the quantity of what 

they’re producing doesn’t point to the same result, and we want to 

get to the bottom of this so that third parties that are looking at 

our certified time and questioning whether our employees are actually working when they say they are and producing what they say 

they are is accurate so that we can resolve the question of whether 

we have any systemic problems or whether we have individual 

issues that any agency would have with individuals. So we are 

digging deeper and continue to work on this and have taken the 

recommendations to heart and will work with that and the inspector general to make improvements going forward. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I do want to thank you, but I do 

want to indicate that the indication of a systemic problem comes 

from these figures showing the best performers have the worst 

data. That has to be explained. Contraindicated, not what you’d expect as you look at the Federal workforce, and I hope we can get 

to the bottom of that dilemma. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentlewoman. And so the best performers, according to what matrix? Their supervisor? 

Mr. SLIFER. It’s not just their supervisors. We have multiple levels of review for the work products that examiners provide. We do 

do audits. We do do quality checks, so it’s not simply—— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
52 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So here’s I guess my—I was in the business world for a long time. If you did not change your goals and 

perspective since the 1970s, as my good friend from the District of 

Columbia mentioned, you’ve got a problem. Do you realize, in the 

1970s, cutting-edge technology was a Texas Instrument little tiny 

computer that did nothing? Do you realize DOS was just being developed as an operating system? Do you realize that computers the 

way that we have it, we have got more computing power in my 

iPhone today than we had in a mainframe computer at that particular point, and yet you’re saying your goals and objectives 

haven’t changed since the 1970s? Do you not see a problem with 

that? 

Mr. SLIFER. As an electrical engineer who grew up through that 

time period, understand, I want to try to clarify if given a moment. 

Mr. MEADOWS. You’re an engineer? 

Mr. SLIFER. I am. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I love engineers because they’ve always got a matrix. What performance matrix would an engineer put forth in 

terms of helping the gentlewoman and I figure out this whole problem of productivity? Is there a rule matrix there, or is it just some 

guess on who the best performers are? Do you have a real matrix? 

Mr. SLIFER. There are matrix, and with regard to the production 

requirement that hasn’t been adjusted, shall we say, since the 

1970s, the question is, how much time does it take an examiner in 

a particular art, let’s say pacemakers, to read an application provided by the applicant, understand the invention, study the claims, 

do a prior art search for that particular invention, understand the 

art from their search, and apply it, and apply the laws to determine whether an application should be changed? A lot has changed 

over this time, including the accessibility using computers, the efficiencies of that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So we would assume that, because on those efficiencies, that we would have a greater output from the 1970s, 

wouldn’t we? 

Mr. SLIFER. The only flaw to that assumption would be that we 

also have billions of additional pieces of prior art that are now 

readily available, so the examiner now, while maybe more efficient 

in extracting that data, has much more data to—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. That is valid. I’ll give you that one. So let 

me come back to you, Ms. Schwartz, to quote the Washington Post. 

And by the way, I want to give them a shout out because they’ve 

done some good work on this. I don’t know that they’re watching 

today, but to quote them: ‘‘The Patent and Trademark Office has 

an unusually close relationship with its unions. Under its labor 

contracts, the agency does not require employees who work from 

home to log into their computers if they do telework full-time. It 

allows them to take up to 24 hours to respond to a call or email 

from their boss.’’ It really only requires poor performers to give a 

work schedule. 

So you were mentioning how you spend 100 percent of your time 

helping the agency implement things to make it more efficient. Is 

that correct? Did I understand you correct? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Not 100 percent of my time, but—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. But a lot of your time? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
53 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. A big portion of my time, yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So would you be willing to work with the agency 

on this strengthening of time and attendance requirements for its 

examiners? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So would you be willing to require all people to 

give their schedule to their supervisors? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. We would have to look at it terms of what the 

agency is asking for. 

Mr. MEADOWS. What do you mean? You’re willing to give your 

schedule to us. Why would you not give a schedule—I can tell you 

that my scheduler knows almost every minute of where I am, and 

so do you not think that that would be a reasonable request, is to 

have the schedule given to their supervisors? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. It depends on what the requirements are for 

doing it. It’s something we’re willing to discuss and—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. It’s not the question. What is it—you say it depends. Depends on what, on how you feel on that given day, or 

what does it depend on? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. We would like to look at what it is they’re actually asking for with respect to their work. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Their work schedule. Is it a ridiculous request to 

ask a supervisor to have access to a work schedule for someone 

who works for them? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Are we talking about a minute-by-minute schedule? Because then we have a concern that employees are going to 

have to spend a lot of time—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’m not asking them for a ‘‘5-minute, I’m going to 

go get a cup of coffee.’’ What I am saying is a real work schedule 

that they’re accountable to that provides a good basis for where 

they are while they’re working. Is that a reasonable request? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. It sounds like a reasonable request, yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So, since it’s a reasonable request to you 

and me and since you’re committed to making sure that the agency 

works well, is that something as the head of POPA, that you’re 

willing to advocate on behalf, could that be an action item that we 

have coming out of this hearing that we’re going to get the work 

schedules given to supervisors of all those people who do work? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. We’re willing to work with the agency on what 

they ask. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes or no. Are you willing to do that or not? I 

mean, it’s a pretty simple question. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I would need to see the details of what we’re 

being asked to—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Well, let me give you some details. How 

about a work schedule, between 8 and 5, if that’s when they work, 

or between 10 and 7, if that’s when they work, and saying that 

they’re working on this case for this many hours and this case for 

this many hours or a full case for the full-time and that they took 

an hour off for lunch and whatever the appropriate breaks. I mean, 

is there any kind of a schedule that they keep? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Not the kind of schedule you’re talking about 

where they need to provide which applications they’re working on. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
54 

Mr. MEADOWS. So they could give us a schedule that says I was 

not golfing? Is that what you’re telling me? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. They could give a schedule of—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. The American people don’t understand this, Ms. 

Schwartz. What they’ve seen is they’ve seen 400-plus people that 

an IG says has not actually accounted for their time according to 

computer and other logouts. We have got Mr. Slifer who says he’s 

working on it, but he’s not really sure what it is, and we have got 

you who says there’s really not a problem, according to your written testimony and your oral testimony, and you’re basing that on 

what? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. The IG report—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I didn’t ask about the IG. You’re basing, your assumption based on what, that you don’t have a problem? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I didn’t represent that we don’t have a problem—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you do agree that we have some waste, fraud, 

and abuse with regards to time and attendance? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. There can always be improvements in time and 

attendance. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Do we have a problem with time and attendance 

reporting with some of your union employees? Yes or no? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Are you asking if there are any employees for 

which there is an issue? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Sure. Let me give you a softball. Are there any 

employees that have a problem? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I don’t have personal knowledge of any right 

now, but we received proposals with evidence that—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Ms. Schwartz, so let me be a little bit more direct. 

Is it true when we found examiner A with a problem, is it true that 

your organization encouraged them to retire so that they couldn’t 

have any kind of backlash or, quote, ‘‘mark’’ on their record? Did 

you recommend that to examiner A, you or anybody within your organization? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Examiner A came to us and after discussing the 

issue with examiner A, it seemed that there was going to be significant evidence, which there was in the OIG report, about examiner 

A. And according to the way government protocol works, we suggested if examiner A wanted to keep their OPF cleaner, that examiner A could resign. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So answer the question. Did you recommend to 

examiner A that they resign in order to make it look better on their 

record? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. On their OPF, yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Do you think the American people would have a 

problem with that? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I’m not sure. This employee should not have been 

working for the agency so having the employee resign was appropriate. There’s no doubt that there was wrongdoing and losing—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Having them resign and face the consequences— 

and not face the consequences is not appropriate, Ms. Schwartz. 

Because here’s the whole thing is, you had them resign so that the 

IG or anybody else investigating it couldn’t follow that because 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
55 

they had resigned. You know this. You know it well. Was that not 

the motivation? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. The motivation was—the decision was the employee’s decision. We were—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. But you advised the employee. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. We advised the employee that their OPF would 

have less information in it if they resigned. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Slifer, is that something that you would recommend to the 30 people that you’ve taken action against? 

Mr. SLIFER. From the agency’s perspective, Chairman, we seek 

out to find the individuals that are taking advantage of their fellow 

employees and the agency and seek to discipline those individuals. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And you’ve disciplined, you said either terminated 

or disciplined 30 people. Is that correct? 

Mr. SLIFER. That’s correct. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And you will send to this committee a breakdown 

of who those 30 people are and what kind of disciplinary actions? 

Mr. SLIFER. I’m not sure by law if I’m allowed to. If I am, I certainly will. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, we’ll keep it confidential. And I can tell you 

from an oversight standpoint, here’s what we need to see. So what 

you’re saying is not based on an IG report, but based on your own 

internal investigation, you let 30 people go? 

Mr. SLIFER. I’m not sure of the discipline for each of the 30. I 

know it ranges anywhere from the whole suite of discipline up to 

termination. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So how many other people are under investigation out of the 400? 

Mr. SLIFER. I’m not sure at this moment sitting here what the 

nature of—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. More than 10? 

Mr. SLIFER. I can’t speculate. I believe the inspector general and 

our internal investigation teams would have a better—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Will you get to this committee the number of people that are currently under investigation, internal investigation? 

Mr. SLIFER. We will. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So, Ms. Schwartz, do I have your sworn 

testimony here today that you will be supportive of efforts to discipline anyone who has taken advantage of the situation, because 

in my mind, it’s the other 8,000 good employees that we’re not 

being fair to. Are you willing to work in a way that actually promotes some kind of disciplinary action? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I’m not sure what POPA can do to support disciplinary action. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So it’s your sworn testimony here today that you 

think that anybody that is not performing properly or are falsifying 

records, that they shouldn’t be punished? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. We believe if people are falsifying records and 

the agency has the evidence of that and takes action against them, 

that that’s appropriate. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you would support their termination if they 

were falsifying records? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
56 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. If that’s what the agency proposed to do and it 

was the appropriate level of discipline. 

Mr. MEADOWS. You added the little caveat on the end of that, 

and that wasn’t the question. If they falsified records, are you willing to support their termination? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Are we talking about falsifying their time and attendance? I would need clarification on that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So it’s okay to falsify some records, just not time 

and attendance? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. It’s not necessarily okay, but it’s possible that 

you could falsify some records and the correct discipline level would 

not be termination. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Valid. So if they falsified time and attendance records, would you support their termination? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Once again, if it was the appropriate level of discipline—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. If they falsified more than 8 hours, would you 

support their termination? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I don’t—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Give me a number then, Ms. Schwartz. I’m not 

going to keep guessing. What is appropriate? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I don’t have information on the correct number 

here. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, you’re the expert witness. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Well, we would want to be following the factors 

that are normally considered in making a determination of the correct—— 

Mr. MEADOWS. I’m asking, from a union perspective, what would 

you support? Because I don’t want to get sideways with you. 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. I don’t have the information here. I would have 

to go back and look. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So, within 30 days, can you get the information 

back to this committee? 

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Seeing that there is no further business before 

the committee, I want to thank each of our witnesses for being here 

today, and this subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(57) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
58 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 25007.025
59 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 25007.026
60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 25007.027
61 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 25007.028
62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 25007.029
63 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 25007.030
64 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 25007.031
65 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 25007.032
66 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 25007.033
67 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 25007.034
68 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 25007.035
69 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 25007.036
70 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 25007.037
71 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 25007.038
72 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 25007.039
73 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 25007.040
74 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 25007.041
75 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 25007.042
76 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 25007.043
77 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 25007.044
78 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 25007.045
79 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 25007.046
80 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 25007.047
81 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 25007.048
82 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 25007.049
83 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 25007.050
84 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 25007.051
85 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 25007.052
86 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 25007.053
87 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 25007.054
88 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 25007.055
89 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 56 here 25007.056
90 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 57 here 25007.057
91 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 58 here 25007.058
92 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 59 here 25007.059
93 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 60 here 25007.060
94 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 61 here 25007.061
95 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 62 here 25007.062
96 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 63 here 25007.063
97 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 64 here 25007.064
98 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 65 here 25007.065
99 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 66 here 25007.066
100 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 67 here 25007.067
101 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 68 here 25007.068
102 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 69 here 25007.069
103 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 70 here 25007.070
104 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 71 here 25007.071