U.S. PATENT AND 

TRADEMARK OFFICE 

USPTO’s Other Backlog: 

Past Problems and Risks 

Ahead for the Board 

of Patent Appeals 

and Interferences 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 

AUGUST 10, 2012 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Office of Inspector General 

Office of Audit and Evaluation 

For Public Release 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Office of Inspector General 

Washington, D.C. 20230 

August I 0, 20 12 

MEMORANDUM FOR: David Kappes 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property 

and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

FROM: Ron Prevost ~~;;:z_ 

Assistant In ector General for Economic 

and Statistical Program Assessment 

SUBJECT: USPTO's Other Backlog: Past Problems and Risks Ahead 

for the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences 

Final Report Number OIG-12-032-A 

Attached is the final report on our audit of USPTO's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences 

(BPAI). This audit, part of OIG's fiscal year (FY) 2012 audit plan, determined whether BPAI 

staffing and resources have changed in relation to changes in its caseload and to what extent 

BPAI's operations and resources will be affected by the implementation of the America Invents 

Act (AlA). 

We found BPAI's staffing levels did not increase as the number of patent examiners grew; its 

actual ex parte appeal backlog prior to FY 20 I 0 was higher than reported to external 

stakeholders; and BPAI had not established a performance target for ex parte appeals. In 

addition, BPAI lacked a comprehensive AlA implementation plan before May 20 12; its current 


AlA implementation plan lacked requirements for measuring progress and performance; and 


BPAI had not determined its future management and administrative staffing structure. 


Our draft report proposed six recommendations to address these issues. In its response to our 


draft report, USPTO agreed with all recommendations and outlined steps it has taken or plans 


to take to address them. We are pleased to learn USPTO took prompt corrective action to 


address the recommendation about annotating current information on its public Web site 


regarding the backlog data prior to 20 I 0. USPTO has provided information to external 


stakeholders explaining the discrepancy surrounding the ex parte appeal backlog. 


In accordance with Department Administrative Order 213-5, please provide us with an action 


plan within 60 calendar days of the date of this memorandum that responds to the 


recommendations. We thank USPTO personnel for the assistance and courtesies extended to 


my staff during the review. If you have any further questions or comments about the report, 


please feel free to contact me at (202) 482-3052 or Carol Rice, Division Director, 


at (202) 482-6020. 

Attachment 

cc: 	 James D. Smith, Chief Judge, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, USPTO 

James T. Moore, Vice Chief Judge, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, USPTO 

Margaret Focarino, Commissioner for Patents, USPTO 

Bo Bounkong, Associate Commissioner for Patent Resources and Planning, USPTO 

Anthony P. Scardino, Chief Financial Officer, USPTO 

Welton Lloyd, Audit Liaison, USPTO 

Katrina Pritchett, Office of Planning and Budget, USPTO 
Report In Brief 

AUGUST 10, 2012 

 

 

 

 

Background 

As the sole authority for issuing U.S. patents, USPTO’s 

responsibilities include reviewing and deciding on patent 

applications, as well as providing the means for parties to 

appeal patent examiners’ 

decisions. Although the backlog of patent applications remains at more than 600,000, 

USPTO has also accumulated 

another substantial, growing 

backlog and pendency of patent appeals. 

Responsibility for patent appeals rests with the Board of 

Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), USPTO’s administrative law body. Most of 

BPAI’s cases are ex parte appeals, for which judges hear 

from one side only. As the 

number of decisions have 

increased (almost doubling 

from FYs 2005 to 2011), so 

have the number of ex parte 

appeals—and the average time 

to decide an appeal has almost 

doubled since FY 2010. 

Why We Did 

This Review 

The growing number and 

pendency of ex parte appeals 

is not the only challenge BPAI 

faces. The America Invents 

Act of 2011 gives BPAI operations additional responsibilities—including planning, implementing, and institutionalizing 

new proceedings for reviews 

and expanding the size of BPAI 

to meet these responsibilities. 

Because of these challenges, 

our review sought to determine (1) whether BPAI’s staffing and resources have 

changed in relation to changes 

in its caseload and (2) to what 

extent BPAI operations and 

resources will be affected by 

the implementation of AIA. 

U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 

USPTO’s Other Backlog: Past Problems and Risks Ahead 

for the Board of Patent Appeals 

OIG-12-032-A 

WHAT WE FOUND 

Between FYs 2005 and 2011, as the number of appeals BPAI received for review rose substantially (as 

have the appeal backlog and pendency time), BPAI’s staffing levels have remained essentially flat. Furthermore, 

until 2008, inaccurate data delayed efforts to address the growing backlog and increase in appeal pendency. Our 

concerns include: 

BPAI Staffing Levels Did Not Increase as the Number of Patent Examiners Grew. While the number of BPAI’s 

administrative patent judges has increased, their growth has not been as steady as the growth of patent 

examiners or their decisions. 

Prior to FY 2010, the Actual Ex Parte Appeal Backlog Was Higher Than Reported to External Stakeholders. 

Between FYs 2005 and 2009, BPAI did not accurately account for the true number of ex parte appeal 

cases awaiting its review, because thousands of unassigned cases that should have been added to BPAI’s 

case management docket remained in a holding status. 

BPAI Has Not Established a Performance Metric For Ex Parte Appeals. Unlike both Patents and Trademarks, 

BPAI does not have official performance targets to serve as public benchmarks for directing its efforts 

and measuring the success of its ex parte activities. 

Further, AIA significantly increases BPAI’s responsibilities—yet BPAI lacks a strategic plan for expanding 

its operations and an implementation plan to guide it through the many uncertainties associated with 

organizational growth. Specifically, we found: 

BPAI Lacked a Comprehensive AIA Implementation Plan Before May 2012. To address the law’s passage, BPAI 

prepared key individual documents but did not initially prepare a comprehensive implementation plan. 

Current AIA Implementation Plan Lacks Requirements for Measuring Progress and Performance. BPAI’s 

strategic AIA implementation plan lacks the milestones, tasks, delivery dates, and task leads to guide 

AIA implementation, measure progress and results of new proceedings, and manage and mitigate risks 

before they occur. 

BPAI Has Not Determined Its Future Management and Administrative Staffing Structure. Even though it will 

increase in size to address a growing appeal backlog and new AIA trial proceedings, BPAI has not completed a 

comprehensive workforce analysis or prepared a workforce plan for its future management and administrative 

staffing needs. 

WHAT WE RECOMMEND 

We recommend that the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of USPTO: 

 Align BPAI’s resource planning with the hiring actions and expected production levels of patent 

examiners; 

 Require BPAI to annotate current information on public websites to indicate that backlog data prior 

to FY 2010 is underreported and therefore should be used with caution; 

 Direct BPAI to develop and publish performance measures and targets for ex parte appeals and 

other proceedings;
 

 Develop comprehensive management plans (including how to measure progress, gauge performance, 

and identify risk) to address the implementation and operational oversight of the new BPAI 

proceedings under the AIA; 

 Ensure that data processing systems meet the needs of all four AIA proceedings; and 

 Explore the feasibility of BPAI’s current management and administrative structure and staffing, given 

the increase in the number of proceedings and staff at BPAI. 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Contents 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................

Findings and Recommendations ....................................................................................................................5

. 1
 

I.	 BPAI’s Staffing Levels, Data on Backlogs, and Lack of Performance Targets 

Compromise the Timely Review of Ex Parte Appeals .................................................................5
 

A.	 BPAI Staffing Levels Did Not Increase as the Number of Patent Examiners Grew .........5
 

B.	 Prior to FY 2010, the Actual Ex Parte Appeal Backlog Was Higher Than Reported 

 to External Stakeholders................................................................................................................ 7

C.	 BPAI Has Not Established a Performance Metric For Ex Parte Appeals ............................9
 

II.	 BPAI, with Increased AIA Responsibilities, Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Guide

Implementation and Ongoing Management ................................................................................. 11
 

A.	 BPAI Lacked a Comprehensive AIA Implementation Plan Before May 2012 ................. 11
 

B.	 Current AIA Implementation Plan Lacks Requirements for Measuring Progress 

and Performance. .......................................................................................................................... 12
 

C. BPAI Has Not Determined Its Future Management and Administrative Staffing 

Structure ................................................................................................................................................. 13
 

Summary of Agency Comments and OIG Response............................................................................. 15
 

Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ................................................................................ 16
 

Appendix B: Ex Parte Appeals Process ..................................................................................................... 21
 

Appendix C: Agency Response................................................................................................................... 22
 

COVER: Detail of fisheries pediment,

U.S. Department of Commerce headquarters,
 

by sculptor James Earle Fraser, 1934
 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 
                                                           

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Introduction 

As the sole authority for issuing U.S. patents, the 

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) 

responsibilities include reviewing and deciding on 

patent applications, as well as providing the means 

for parties to appeal patent examiners’ decisions. 

Much attention over the past decade has focused 

on the backlog of patent applications, which 

remains above 600,000. During that time, however, 

USPTO has also accumulated another substantial, 

growing backlog and pendency of patent appeals. 

Responsibility for patent appeals rests with the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences 

(BPAI), USPTO’s administrative law body. Figure 1 below, shows the BPAI administrative appeal 

process which an applicant must generally follow (see appendix B for more details on the appeal 

process). 

Figure 1. Overview of BPAI Patent Appeals Process 

BPAI plays a critical role in 

ensuring that inventors have the 

opportunity to protest the decision of 

the patent examiner who rejected

their claims. Patent applicants may 

submit an ex parte appeal to BPAI 

after any of their claims have been

rejected twice by patent examiners. 

Source: OIG, based on USPTO documentation 

Although BPAI decides on various types of cases, the majority of its cases are ex parte appeals.1 

Around 1–3 percent of the applications that examiners decide each year are appealed by the 

applicant. While the percent has remained in this range over time, the actual number of patent 

decisions has increased dramatically, from almost 300,000 decisions in fiscal year (FY) 2005 to 

over 530,000 in FY 2011. As expected, as the number of patent examiners grows, the number 

of new ex parte appeals also grows significantly, reaching 13,500 in FY 2011. The time it takes 

to decide an ex parte appeal has also grown, almost doubling in the time between FY 2010 and 

the midpoint of FY 2012 (see figure 2 below). Just in the 6 months between the end of FY 2011 

and the midpoint of FY 2012, the average amount of time between an appeal arriving at BPAI 

and receiving a decision increased from 17 months to 23 months. 

1 Ex parte is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as “done or made at the instance and for the benefit of one party only, 

without notice to, or argument by, any person adversely interested.” Ex parte proceeding is defined as “a 

proceeding in which not all parties are present or given the opportunity to be heard.” (9th ed., 2009). In addition 

to ex parte appeals, BPAI receives requests for inter partes and ex parte reexaminations from patent owners or 

third parties to evaluate the patentability of a claim or claims of an existing patent. BPAI also has jurisdiction for 

interferences, which are appeals from applicants who claim the same proposed invention as one already claimed by 

another applicant or patent owner. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 1 
                         

 

                                                           

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Figure 2. Average Appeal Pendency (in Months), 

Compared with the Patent Production 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

0

5

10

15

20

25

2005* 2006* 2007* 2008* 2009* 2010 2011 2012**

Patent Decisions

Months

Average Time, from Appeal Arrival at BPAI to BPAI Decision (in Months) Patent Examiner Decisions***

Source: OIG, based on USPTO data 

* Pendency estimates (in months) are likely understated during these years due to procedural issues (see 

finding I.B of this report); ** the 2012 pendency estimate is for the first half of the fiscal year; *** data are 

not available on the number of patent decisions issued for the first half of FY 2012. 

However, a patent applicant has already invested time in the patent process prior to the time 

spent waiting for a decision on appeal. On average, a patent applicant must wait about 3 years 

for a final decision on a patent application. Those years, combined with the appeals period as 

well as an interim period when additional procedural steps may accompany an appeal, can add 

more than 5 years2 to the time when the inventor first filed the patent application (see figure 3 

below). These long delays in receiving a patent can negatively affect economic growth, including 

job creation and the production of new goods or services. 

2

 After a patent examiner rejects a claim for a patent twice, an applicant’s options include requesting an examiner 

re-review the application through a request for continued examination (RCE), filing a notice of appeal, or filing an 

appeal after submitting an RCE. This estimate of 5 years does not include the additional time an application may 

spend in the RCE process. Pendency for applications that went through the RCE and then the appeals process 

averaged about 81 months, or close to 7 years, for those appeals decided in FYs 2010–2011. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 2 
 

                                                           

                     

   

                

   

           

           

           

   

‐        

         

         

             

         

         

           

       

       

         

           

         

       

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Figure 3. Average Overall Appeal Processing Time by Stage (in Months) 

34

35

35

32

32

31

29

14

15

18

18

15

16

16

17

12

8

7

6

6

6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

Patent Pendency Notice of Appeal Filed to Docketed at BPAI Arrive at BPAI to Decision

*

*

*

*

*

Examiner rejects application

Appeal arrives at the BPAI for review by

an administrative patent judge

Applicants can pursue several opportunities to

reargue their case to the patent corps

Months

Fiscal Years

Source: OIG, based on USPTO data 

Yet the growing number and pendency of ex parte 

appeals is not the only challenge BPAI faces. The 

America Invents Act (AIA, P.L. 112-29), signed in 

September 2011, places additional responsibilities 

on BPAI operations. These new responsibilities 

include planning, implementing, and institutionalizing 

new proceedings for post-grant reviews, inter 

partes reviews, and derivations, and include 

expanding the size of BPAI to meet these 

responsibilities.3 

Because of the growing pendency and the additional 

requirements to implement AIA, the objectives of 

this audit were to determine (1) whether BPAI’s 

staffing and resources have changed in relation to 

changes in its caseload and (2) to what extent BPAI 

operations and resources will be affected by the 

implementation of AIA. In examining BPAI’s 

resources, we reviewed relevant documents and 

interviewed appropriate agency officials. Using 

USPTO data, we analyzed changes in BPAI’s ex 

parte appeals caseload, including backlogs and 

pendency, and its staffing and resources. We also reviewed and tested policies and internal 

controls relevant to BPAI’s caseload. In examining the impact of AIA on BPAI operations, we 

Under AIA, BPAI will also be

responsible for:

Post grant reviews, where someone

other than the patent holder

petitions USPTO to cancel claim(s)

within 9 months of a patent being

issued.

Inter partes reviews, where someone

other than the patent holder

petitions USPTO to cancel claim(s) 9

months after a patent is issued.

Derivations, where patent holders

and other parties challenge a

claimed invention on the basis that

one applicant derived his application

from another applicant without

authorization.

3

 In addition, the AIA also changes BPAI’s name to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board effective September 16, 2012. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 3 
 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

reviewed relevant legislation, proposed rules, and related documents and interviewed 

appropriate officials. For more details on the scope and methodology of our audit work, see 

appendix A. Appendix B contains an overview of the ex parte appeals process. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 4 
                                                           

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Findings and Recommendations 

I.	 BPAI’s Staffing Levels, Data on Backlogs, and Lack of Performance Targets 

Compromise the Timely Review of Ex Parte Appeals 

Between FYs 2005 and 2011 the number of appeals BPAI received for review each year 

rose substantially. However, during this same time, BPAI’s staffing levels have remained 

essentially flat. The mismatch between BPAI’s workload and workforce led to (a) a rapid 

rise in the appeal backlog and (b) a near doubling of the time it takes to receive a decision 

on an appeal in the past 2 years. Furthermore, until FY 2008, inaccurate data delayed efforts 

to address the growing backlog and increase in appeal pendency. BPAI’s expected hiring 

surge in FYs 2012 and 2013 should begin to alleviate the backlog, but it will need to make 

significant changes to address the legacy of inadequate staffing and prevent another rapid 

rise in the ex parte appeal backlog. 

A. BPAI Staffing Levels Did Not Increase as the Number of Patent Examiners Grew 

Historical data indicates correlations among the number of patent examiners, the 

number of patent examiner decisions, and the number of appeals filed by patent 

applicants: as the number of patent examiners increases, so do the number of decisions 

and, subsequently, the number of appeals.4 From FY 2005 to FY 2011, the number of 

patent examiners increased from 4,258 to 6,785 and the number of patent examiner 

decisions increased from 298,838 to 533,943. During this same time period, the number 

of BPAI’s administrative patent judges (APJs) also increased, from 54 to 100, although 

their growth was not as steady as the growth of patent examiners or their resultant 

decisions. APJ levels remained at about the same level from FY 2005 to FY 2008, and 

again in FYs 2009 and 2010 (see figure 4 below). 

4

 In general, after an applicant files a notice of appeal and appeal brief and pays the relevant fees, a patent examiner 

must write an “examiner’s answer” in response to the appeal. In FY 2010 and 2011, 96 percent of the appeals that 

received examiner’s answers were eventually docketed with BPAI. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 5 
                                                           

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Figure 4. Patent Examiners and Administrative Patent Judges 

Staffing Statistics (FY 2005–2011)
 

Source: OIG, based on USPTO data 

During this same period, the backlog grew as BPAI did not process the growing number 

of decisions, reaching almost 24,000 appeals at the end of FY 2011. Based on our 

analysis (see figure 5 below), the estimated workload of the number of appeals per judge 

has far exceeded the required workload level of APJs as set out in their performance 

plans.5 

5

 BPAI’s performance plans layout the minimum number of appeals that must be issued per judge based on the 

technical specialty. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 6 
                                                           

       

             

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Figure 5. Estimated Workloada per APJ Compared with Required Workload 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Appeals per Judge

Fiscal Years

Estimated appeal workload per judge

Required Workload per judge established in BPAI's performance Evaluations

Source: OIG, based on USPTO data a Workload represents decided appeals plus backlog of appeals.
 

B.	 Prior to FY 2010, the Actual Ex Parte Appeal Backlog Was Higher Than Reported to External 

Stakeholders 

Between FYs 2005 and 2009, BPAI did not accurately account for the true number of ex 

parte appeal cases awaiting its review, because thousands of cases that should have been 

added to BPAI’s case management docket were not assigned to anyone at either Patents 

or BPAI. These appeals had mistakenly been kept in a holding status, when they had 

actually been ready for BPAI’s review and should have been transferred accordingly. As 

a result, several thousand additional cases previously unaccounted for were added to 

BPAI’s docket of ex parte appeals once USPTO staff identified this problem in 2008. 

Before FY 2008, the process for transferring appeals to BPAI was unreliable. If the 

appellant had not filed a reply brief to an examiner’s answer, which is an optional step in 

the appeals process, there was no automatic notification that Patents should transfer an 

appeal to BPAI. When USPTO staff identified this problem, the agency took corrective 

actions and implemented new controls to ensure appeals’ automatically transfer to 

BPAI, regardless of whether an appellant filed a reply brief. In addition to this problem, 

BPAI experienced significant delays in completing the intake procedures for the newlydiscovered appeals, as well as new appeals, generated in FYs 2008 and 2009. Due to 

these delays, many appeals were not reflected in BPAI’s FYs 2008 and 2009 backlog 

statistics. Thus, the statistics for describing the number of new appeals and the size of 

the backlog are inaccurate until FY 2010. 

Using historical statistics,6 we estimated that the gap between the reported and likely 

size of the backlog worsened each year until USPTO discovered the error in 2008 (see 

6

 These data are based on the number of patent applications, rejected by patent examiners, which become appeals. 

See appendix A for more information on this methodology. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 7 
           

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

figure 6 below). At the high point of this problem in 2008, we estimate that BPAI may 

have understated the size of the backlog by as much as 9,443 appeals (see appendix A 

for our methodology for estimating the likely size of the backlog). Since that time, our 

testing indicates that USPTO has corrected the problem to ensure that appeals are 

accounted for in BPAI’s case management system. 

Figure 6. Reported Ex Parte Appeal Backlog 

Versus OIG-Estimated Backlog 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Likely Size of Backlog Reported Size of Backlog

Source: OIG, based on USPTO data 

The legacy of this problem continues to negatively affect both internal and external 

users of BPAI’s data, as BPAI has not publicly acknowledged this problem. As a result, 

both internal and external users may base decisions on inaccurate data. For example, 

internally BPAI continues to use the inaccurate figures for the size of new appeals in FYs 

2005–2009 to test how well their current backlog forecasting model predicted previous 

years. The use of the inaccurate data compromises the results of the forecasting model. 

This, in turn, can compromise management’s ability to make informed decisions as to 

how to prioritize work and how to allocate finite resources. 

Externally, BPAI continues to report these incorrect data on public websites without 

acknowledging the shortcomings of the older data. Without BPAI’s transparency about 

the problems with these data, external stakeholders, such as Congress, may incorrectly 

conclude that the spike in the backlog in 2009 and 2010 were a statistical anomaly 

rather than part of a larger trend associated with examiner hiring. This inaccuracy could 

also affect potential appellants’ decisions as to whether to file an appeal, given the 

amount of time the appeal could take. Had appellants understood that the increase in 

pendency was part of a larger trend, they may have chosen to pursue other options, 

such as submitting to USPTO an RCE, rather than appealing their case to BPAI. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 8 
                                                           

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

C. BPAI Has Not Established a Performance Metric For Ex Parte Appeals 

BPAI faces major challenges in addressing its growing number of appeals and increasing 

pendency—yet, unlike both Patents and Trademarks, it does not have official public 

program performance targets to serve as public benchmarks for directing its efforts and 

measuring the success of its ex parte activities.7 Official performance measures and 

indicators, such as those employed at Patents and Trademarks and published in 

USPTO’s annual and strategic plans, play an important role in managing the overall 

programs and operations. Such data help program managers determine whether they 

are meeting strategic and annual performance plans and hold managers accountable for 

progress toward meeting these goals. In addition, such measures also hold managers 

accountable for the effective and efficient use of resources. Without such public 

performance measures, BPAI risks diverting resources from ex parte appeals to other 

areas of work if there is no consensus as to what is an acceptable backlog size or length 

of appeal pendency. Further, without managing to targets, BPAI risks the ex parte appeal 

backlog returning to the historic highs of recent years if it directs attention and 

resources elsewhere. Publicly available pendency performance measures could also 

inform external stakeholders about how BPAI is progressing toward its targeted goals 

and also the expected amount of time to reach a decision. For example, as of the 

midpoint of FY 2012, the pendency of appeals on BPAI’s docket had increased to 23 

months. This is 6 months longer than the end-of- FY 2011 statistics last reported by 

BPAI. Further (as seen in figure 7 below), we forecast that, through FY 2015, the 

average pendency for an ex parte appeal decision will remain longer than 16 months (for 

assumptions informing these projections, see appendix A). With a reasonable 

expectation of how long it will likely take to receive a decision on an appeal, a potential 

appellant could weigh the appeal option against other choices, such as filing an RCE or 

reducing the number of claims for its patent application. 

7

 USPTO’s 2010–2015 Strategic Plan includes specific targets for both Trademarks and Patents. In the plan, 

Trademarks established a first-action pendency target of 2.5–3.5-months and a final action pendency target of 13 

months, with analysis to illustrate how it would achieve and measure those targets. Among other goals stated in 

the plan, the Patents indicated that it would strive to achieve a 10-month pendency for first actions and a 20-

month overall pendency. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 9 
         

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Figure 7. Projected Pendency at BPAI (in Months) 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Months

Fiscal Years

Forecasted Time to Reach a Decision

Source: OIG, based on USPTO data 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director 

of the United States Patent and Trademark Office: 

1.	 Align BPAI’s resource planning with the hiring actions and expected production levels of 

patent examiners; 

2.	 Require BPAI to annotate current information on public websites to indicate that 

backlog data prior to FY 2010 is underreported and therefore should be used with 

caution; and 

3.	 Direct BPAI to develop and publish performance measures and targets for ex parte 

appeals and other proceedings. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 10 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                                                            

8 See appendix A for specific GAO reports. 

II.	 BPAI, with Increased AIA Responsibilities, Lacks a Comprehensive Plan 

to Guide Implementation and Ongoing Management 

AIA significantly increases BPAI’s responsibilities, yet BPAI lacks a strategic plan for 

expanding its operations and an implementation plan to guide it through the many 

uncertainties associated with organizational growth. BPAI operations will be significantly 

affected as it implements four new proceedings—three starting on September 16, 2012, and 

the fourth on March 16, 2013. In undertaking this large endeavor, and when combined with 

its existing operations, BPAI may more than 

double the number of APJs during FYs 2011– 

2013. However, BPAI has developed neither a 

comprehensive strategic plan for its expanding 

operations nor a plan to help guide it through the 

preparation and implementation of the new 

proceedings. Instead, BPAI has taken a piecemeal 

approach and planned only for some aspects of 

individual activities. In doing this, BPAI is missing
 

an opportunity to smooth the transition to these
 

new programs and mitigate risks for the many 

acknowledged uncertainties ahead.
 

With the implementation of AIA, 

BPAI will begin managing three

new procedures in September 2012,

and BPAI has requested a total of 146 

new staff over the next 5 years to

specifically work on AIA proceedings. 

Given the new AIA responsibilities and the corresponding growth of BPAI, it needs a 

comprehensive strategic planning effort to guide BPAI through the process of implementing 

the new provisions and then overseeing the operational phases. The Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) has recommended8 that, as part of the strategic planning 

efforts for new or existing programs, federal agencies should include implementation plans 

to assist them in making the transition. According to GAO, the plans should document a 

project’s or program’s (1) responsibility for the overall and individual tasks, (2) schedules, 

(3) tasks and milestones, (4) delivery dates and status, (5) performance measures, (6) cost 

estimates, (7) resource estimates, (8) identified risks, (9) prioritized initiatives, and (10) 

revised goals, if revisions become necessary. 

A. BPAI Lacked a Comprehensive AIA Implementation Plan Before May 2012 

To address the passage of the law, BPAI prepared key individual documents (see table 1 

below) but did not initially prepare a comprehensive implementation plan with 

milestones, delivery dates, and performance measures to ensure timely implementation 

or help identify and manage potential risks. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 11 
 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Table 1. Various BPAI Planning Documents for AIA Implementation 

BPAI Planning 

Document Purpose 

Business Case 

Template 

Documents general goals, resources needed to implement new AIA 

proceedings; includes estimates, forecasts for number of each type 

of new proceeding, number of APJs required for FYs 2012–2017, 

and financial resources needed to fund these positions 

Proposed 

Rulesa 

Describes processes and paperwork for post grant reviews, inter 

partes reviews, covered business method patent reviews, and 

derivation proceedings; estimates the expected number of 

proceedings, number of APJs needed to do this work, and funding 

necessary for additional personnel expenses 

USPTO’s FY 2013 

Proposed President’s 

Budget 

Contains resource requests to hire an additional 146 staff members 

between FYs 2013 and 2017 for new proceedings 

Source: OIG, based on USPTO documents a

 BPAI issued proposed rules for post grant reviews, inter partes reviews, covered business method patent 

reviews, and derivation proceedings in the Federal Register in February 2012. 

However, even with these documents, we found that initially BPAI lacked an overall 

implementation plan to guide its AIA transition and individual implementation plans for 

its new AIA proceedings scheduled to begin in September 2012. The business case 

template, the proposed rules, and the President’s budget proposal lack comprehensive 

and individual plans to implement the tasks including the hiring of additional staff 

members necessary for AIA transition. 

Further, none of these three documents articulate the needs for additional space to 

house the additional APJs, nor do they communicate needs related to information 

technology, such as whether the current case management system can handle the 

additional proceedings. For example, while the strategy was not documented anywhere, 

BPAI officials explained that, as soon as AIA was enacted, they met with USPTO’s chief 

information officer to discuss updating the current case management data system to 

accommodate the additional proceedings under AIA. Efforts began to identify 

requirements and BPAI initiated a contract for an information management system to be 

in place by the legislative deadline of September 16, 2012. On April 20, 2012—5 months 

before the legislative deadline—USPTO signed a contract to design and implement a 

new system for its AIA proceedings. This short time frame leaves little time for 

addressing issues that may arise in making this system operational. 

B. Current AIA Implementation Plan Lacks Requirements for Measuring Progress and Performance 

Late in our review, BPAI prepared a strategic implementation plan for AIA that outlined 

the broad-term transition to the new proceedings. The document, provided to OIG 

staff on May 2, 2012, includes general descriptions of BPAI needs for executive, regional, 

and administrative management; human capital; information technology; training; rule 

making; and space planning. However, this plan still lacks the milestones, tasks, delivery 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 12 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

dates, and task leads to guide AIA implementation, measure progress and results of the 

four new proceedings, and manage and mitigate risks before they occur. Without these 

details, BPAI lacks the fundamental project management tools used to manage 

uncertainty and deliver results. Further, although the plan notes there will be challenges 

in implementing a new IT system to process the new proceedings, hiring adequate staff, 

finalizing the new administrative rules, and locating adequate space for the new 

personnel, it does not provide insight on mitigating the risks and ensuring success. Given 

BPAI’s previous problems accurately accounting for all appeals in its current IT 

infrastructure, any lapses in mitigating AIA implementation-related risks could prove to 

have significant impact. 

While BPAI has begun hiring judges, obtained additional office space at USPTO 

headquarters and its satellite office in Detroit, and contracted for a new case 

management system, the new proceedings will coincide with BPAI addressing its current 

backlog of ex parte cases. Implementing operational changes and addressing existing 

backlogs are never easy endeavors; while BPAI notes that there will be challenges, its 

planning efforts have been piecemeal when a more comprehensive approach would 

more likely result in success. 

C. BPAI Has Not Determined Its Future Management and Administrative Staffing Structure 

BPAI will undergo historical changes as it increases in size to address its growing ex 

parte appeal backlog and its four new AIA trial proceedings. Nevertheless, BPAI has not 

completed a comprehensive workforce analysis or prepared a workforce plan for its 

future management and administrative staffing needs. As a result, BPAI risks not having 

an appropriate organizational structure and personnel in place to adequately manage all 

of its work. 

In its initial planning documents, such as its business case template and the FY 2013 

proposed President’s budget, BPAI outlined the hiring needs for APJs to handle ex parte 

appeals and the new AIA proceedings. In addition to hiring APJs, BPAI has also begun 

hiring additional support personnel for administrative roles and is considering creating a 

new director of IT position to oversee its growing information technology requirements 

of the board. Further, BPAI officials noted they have begun discussing organizational 

changes with USPTO’s Office of Human Resources in order to effectively operate in a 

post-AIA environment. 

However, without an evaluation of its future staffing needs, and a workforce plan to 

manage the transition, BPAI’s management and administrative personnel may not be in a 

position to adequately oversee personnel, process proceedings, and ultimately meet its 

mission. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 13 
   

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director 

of the United States Patent and Trademark Office: 

1.	 Develop comprehensive management plans (including how to measure progress, gauge 

performance, and identify risk) to address the implementation and operational oversight 

of the new BPAI proceedings under the AIA; 

2.	 Ensure that data processing systems meet the needs of all four AIA proceedings; and 

3.	 Explore the feasibility of BPAI’s current management and administrative structure and 

staffing, given the increase in the number of proceedings and staff at BPAI. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 14 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Summary of Agency Comments and OIG 

Response 

In response to our draft report, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property 

and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office agreed with all of our recommendations. 

The response below summarizes the steps USPTO has taken or is taking that address the 

recommendations in the report. 

Recommendation 1: USPTO noted that it must consider additional factors, such the handling 

of interferences and reexamination appeals, when determining hiring levels. We acknowledge 

other factors affect resource planning but reiterate our recommendation for USPTO to take 

corrective action. 

Recommendation 2: USPTO has already described the problems with the appeal data on its 

Web site to external stakeholders. This should provide applicants with the information they 

need to assess whether to pursue options other than an ex parte appeal. 

Recommendation 3: USPTO reported having established internal performance targets for its 

senior management. Our finding referred to publicly-reported performance measures. We have 

modified this section of our report slightly to clarify this point and reiterate our 

recommendation. 

Recommendation 4: USPTO stated it has developed initial management plans that establish 

initial timelines and resource allocations for the AIA proceedings. 

Recommendation 5: USPTO is working with its Chief Information Officer to ensure that its 

new data processing for AIA proceedings will be available on or before September 16, 2012. 

Recommendation 6: USPTO has implemented initial management structural changes and, in 

conjunction with the Chief Administrative Officer, has begun an organizational study of BPAI 

which will result in a proposed new management structure by the first quarter of FY 2013. 

We encourage USPTO to continue taking corrective actions in response to our 

recommendations and look forward to receiving its action plan following the issuance of this 

final report. We have included USPTO’s formal response as appendix C. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 15 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

The objectives of this review were to determine (1) whether BPAI staffing and resources have 

changed in relation to changes in its caseload; and (2) to what extent BPAI operations and 

resources will be affected by the implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA). For the first 

objective, we focused our work on BPAI staffing levels for FYs 2005–2012 and changes to its 

caseload during that same time period. For the second objective, we focused our work on BPAI 

plans to implement AIA requirements and what resources BPAI had requested and budgeted to 

implement AIA requirements during FY 2012 and future years. 

Data, Methodology, and Control Testing for Objective 1 

Data. In order to analyze BPAI’s staffing and caseload levels, we obtained data from a 

variety of sources, as outlined below. 

Table A-1. Personnel, Caseload, and Internal Control Data Sources 

Data Source Type of Data and Description 

National Finance Center 

(NFC) 

Payroll data. Provide number of BPAI employees onboard at the 

end of the fiscal year by position title. 

Patent Application 

Locating and Monitoring 

(PALM) system 

Employee production data. Help determine the number of patent 

examiners on board and reviewing patents at the end of the 

fiscal year. 

Adjudicated Case 

Tracking System 

(ACTS) 

 Decided appeals. Enumerate all appeal decisions issued FYs 

2005–2011, as well as the first 6 months of FY 2012. 

 Docketed appeals. Enumerate all appeals on BPAI’s docket 

for FYs 2005–2011 and select months of FY 2012. 

PALM 

 Filing date. Provides all appeals decided in FYs 2010 and 

2011. 

 Status code dates for appeals. Supply date that any appeal 

achieved specific statuses (e.g., examiner answer mailed, 

reply brief filed) for all appeals during FYs 2005–2011. 

 Pull reports. Identify whether a case is ready for BPAI review 

(OIG obtained 7 weeks of reports). 

Source: USPTO 

Data Reliability Testing. We assessed the reliability of data obtained from the NFC, PALM, 

and ACTS data systems in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing 

Standards (GAGAS). We reviewed whether there were any information control 

problems or data quality issues known to the system owners. In addition, we identified 

no known issues with NFC, and found the NFC data to be sufficiently reliable for 

describing the number of BPAI staff on board during this period. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 16 
 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

However, the system owners for ACTS and PALM communicated problems with the 

internal controls that could increase the risk of unreliable data from these systems. 

Because of these limitations, we performed more extensive electronic testing data from 

both of these systems. We also performed reasonableness tests to determine whether 

there were any illogical relationships, historical anomalies, or missing data. Although we 

identified some anomalies, we determined that the issues were a result of the specific 

reports generated by the data system rather than the actual data. 

We found that the ACTS and PALM data were sufficiently reliable for describing 

historical trends for the number of staff on board at the Patent Corps, as well as 

describing the number of decisions that BPAI issued. However, we also determined that 

the ACTS data were not sufficiently reliable for describing the number of new appeals 

reaching BPAI dockets between 2005 and 2009. Therefore, we established estimates for 

these figures. 

Data Limitations. We faced some limitations with the data we received from the ACTS 

system because the reports generated inaccurate information for the notice of appeal 

for a small subset of cases. We excluded these appeals from our analysis and, thus, from 

our historical backlog and pendency estimates. Additionally, we identified a few 

instances in which a single appeal appeared to have received multiple decisions because 

of how ACTS generates the report. 

Our ability to conduct certain types of forecasting was also limited by the data that 

ACTS does not collect. For instance, ACTS does not record how many decisions each 

judge issues in a year, therefore limiting our ability to determine how many appeals a 

new judge would typically issue in a year. We needed this information to forecast the 

future productivity of new judges hired in FYs 2012– 2013. Instead, we assumed that all 

new judges would meet the minimum number of decisions required to achieve a fully 

satisfactory rating identified in BPAI’s annual performance plans. For FY 2011, first year 

judges were required to issue 60 decisions if they were in the chemical and mechanical 

divisions and 49 decisions for all other technical specialties. 

Methodology to Analyze Actual and Estimated BPAI APJ Levels. From our analysis of the 

payroll data we were able to determine the number of administrative patent judges 

(APJs) on board at the end of the each fiscal year. It was determined that BPAI's APJ 

staffing levels remained relatively constant with a net gain of 46 judges from 2005 to 

2011. However, during the same time period, patent examiners staffing levels continued 

to grow at a rapid rate with 4,258 patent examiners onboard at the end of FY 2005 and 

6,785 onboard at the end of FY 2011. 

Methodology to Estimate the Number of Ex Parte Appeals Docketed, FYs 2005–2009. We 

built upon BPAI’s current forecasting methodology to estimate the likely size of the 

backlog between FYs 2005 and 2009. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 17 
                                                           

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

To estimate the likely size of the FY 2005–2009 backlog, we obtained data on the 

number of disposals not allowed and examiner’s answers written during this period.9 

Using a file containing all of the examiner’s answers and a file containing all of the 

applications reaching BPAI’s docket between FYs 2005 and 2011, we tested (1) how 

many of the appeals that received an examiner answer during FYs 2010 and 201110 were 

eventually on BPAI’s docket and (2) the amount of time that passed between receiving 

an examiner’s answer and a case reaching BPAI’s docket. 

We concluded that 96 percent of the appeals that had received an examiner’s answer 

were eventually on docket. We also found that 75 percent of the appeals arrived at 

BPAI within 4 months of receiving an examiner’s answer. We then used these two 

statistics to estimate the likely size of the backlog for FYs 2005–2009. 

Methodology to Forecast the Ex Parte Appeals Backlog. To forecast the likely size of the 

backlog for FYs 2012–2016, we first built upon our methodology to estimate the actual 

backload of cases and the likely number of examiner’s answers. Using estimates of the 

number of disposals and allowance rate for FYs 2012–201611 from USPTO’s patent 

production model, we estimated the initial size of the pool of applications that could be 

appealed. 

We also found a correlation between the percentage of non-allowed decisions that are 

appealed and the allowance rate of the prior year (r=.6). Essentially, as the allowance 

rate increases, the number of rejected applications that are appealed decreases. Using a 

simple regression model, we found that for every 1 percent increase in the allowance 

rates, the percent of non-allowed decisions that are appealed decreases by 0.1 percent. 

We then used this relationship to estimate the number of examiner’s answers that 

would be generated in FYs 2012– 2016. 

Next, we combined our finding that 96 percent of examiners’ answers would eventually 

become appeals with a similar finding that, in FYs 2010 and 2011, BPAI’s docket received 

8 percent more appeals than the initial pool of examiners’ answers. We then estimated 

the number of examiners answer based on the projected number of disposals and 

allowance rates, multiplied this by 96 percent, and multiplied the result by 10 percent to 

generate the likely intake of new appeals each year for FYs 2012–2016. 

After calculating how many new appeals could occur in future years, we then estimated 

how many decisions BPAI could issue during FYs 2012–2016, based on previous 

performance and the number of new APJs that BPAI has been approved to hire to 

review ex parte appeals. We used the production levels of FY 2011 as the productivity 

level of the current corps of judges and estimated when the 105 new judges would be 

9

 Generally, an examiner’s answer is written if the appellant correctly files a notice of appeal and appeal brief and 

pays the relevant fees. 

10 Because of known inaccuracies in the data prior to FY 2009, we used FYs 2010 and 2011 to obtain these 

estimates. 

11 As of February 2012. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 18 
                                                           

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

on board.12 We also assumed that all new judges would issue the minimum number of 

decisions required to achieve a fully satisfactory rating. These targets are laid out in 

BPAI’s annual performance plans. 

Table A-2. Assumptions Regarding Number APJs Hired and Timing of Hires 

FY OIG Assumption 

2012  20 judges start at midpoint of the fiscal year 

 55 judges start at beginning of the last quarter of the year 

2013 30 judges start at midpoint of the fiscal year 

2014 and 

beyond 

All (105 in total) full-time administrative patent judges hired in 

FYs 2012 and 2013 would perform at a fully satisfactory level 

and any attrition would be backfilled immediately.a 

Source: OIG, based on USPTO data a

 BPAI requested to hire APJs for FY 2014, but this request has not yet been approved.
 

Methodology to Forecast the Ex Parte Appeals Pendency. We then determined the likely 

pendency of appeals using inputs from the analysis above and information on the current 

backlog. By comparing the number of docketed appeals that had not been decided, we 

calculated the age of oldest cases in the ACTS system. We assumed that BPAI would 

review the oldest appeals first. We then calculated the pendency of appeals by 

employing BPAI’s historical decision rate, the estimated intake of new appeals, and 

estimate productive capacity of APJs for FYs 2012–2016. From this analysis, we could 

thus estimate the likely number of months it will take BPAI to reach a decision on an 

appeal after it is docketed at BPAI in future years. 

Methodology to Estimate the Difference Between the Estimated Workload and Required 

Workload. To estimate the difference between the estimated workload and required 

workload, we based our analysis upon the methodologies used to estimate the size of 

the backlog and the performance expectations laid out in the APJs performance plans. 

Required workload describes the minimum number of appeals a judge must issue in a 

year, based on that judge’s discipline, to achieve a fully satisfactory rating. To calculate 

the estimated workload, we divided the total workload for the year by the estimated 

number of APJs reviewing ex parte appeals. We estimated how many APJs spent the 

majority of their time reviewing ex parte appeals by reviewing BPAI organizational 

charts. To calculate the total workload, we added the number of decided appeals in a 

year (the completed work) with the estimated size of the ex parte appeal backlog (the 

incomplete work) for the year. 

12 BPAI indicated that it was on track to have 75 full-time APJs on board by the end of FY 2012 to review ex parte 

appeals. BPAI also received approval to hire an additional 34 judges to review ex parte cases in FY 2012. We 

assume that BPAI will meet their FY 2012 target and 95 percent of the approved hires for FY13 and some of these 

positions will also include part-time judges. For fiscal year 2012, we assumed that 20 judges would start at the midpoint of the fiscal year and another 55 judges would be on board for the last quarter of the year based on BPAI’s 

projected hiring. We also assumed that the judges hired to review the new AIA proceedings, and not included in 

the figures mentioned in our report, would review AIA proceedings rather than ex parte appeals. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 19 
 

                                                           

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Internal Control Testing. Because of the significant problems in the past of transferring 

appeals from the patent corps to BPAI, along with continued manual input of some data, 

we focused our internal control testing on whether appeals were being transferred in a 

timely basis since the implementation of new controls. This included testing whether 

cases identified as ready for BPAI review were correctly entered into ACTS and in a 

timely manner, as well as whether the controls put in place to correct the previous 

problems were working. Overall, we did not identify concerns with USPTO’s internal 

controls that ensure appeals are transferred to BPAI in timely manner. 

Data, Methodology, and Control Testing for Objective 2 

For objective 2, we obtained and reviewed relevant agency documents including the May 

2011 business case template for AIA Implementation; the February 2012 proposed new 

rules for AIA inter partes reviews, post grant reviews, combined business method 

patent reviews, and derivation proceedings; and the February 2012 USPTO FY 2013 

President’s budget. We also interviewed appropriate BPAI officials. To determine what 

documentation federal agencies should prepare when undertaking a program such as 

AIA, we reviewed relevant GAO reports, which indicated that federal agencies should 

prepare implementation plans to undertake new programs and guide operational 

initiatives.13 

The audit was conducted under the authority of the Inspector Act of 1978, as amended and 

Department Organization Order 10-13, dated August 31, 2006. We conducted the audit in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards between November 2011 

and May 2012 at USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. We conducted this performance 

audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based 

on our audit objectives. 

13 The GAO reports included Increased Federal Planning and Risk Management Could Further Facilitate the DTV 

Transition (GAO-08-43, November 19, 2007); Army Needs to Finalize an Implementation Plan and Funding Strategy for 

Sustaining an Operational Reserve Force (GAO-09-898, September 17, 2009); and Content and Coordination of Space 

Science and Technology Strategy Need to Be More Robust (GAO-11-722, July 19, 2011). 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 20 
                                                           

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appendix B: Ex Parte Appeals Process 

BPAI’s ex parte caseload flows directly from decisions made by patent examiners. In order for a 

patent application to become a docketed appeal, a patent examiner must reject patent claims 

twice. Subsequently, if the applicant files a notice of appeal and an appeal brief, and pays the 

relevant fees, then the patent examiner must issue an examiner’s answer. After the examiner’s 

answer is issued, the appeal goes through several more steps before it is docketed with BPAI.14 

Figure B-1. Required and Optional Steps in the Appeal Process 

Source: OIG, based on USPTO documents 

14 This chart reflects the appeals process in place at the start of our audit. BPAI amended the rules of procedure 

effective January 23, 2012, but the process generally remains the same. 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 21 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appendix C: Agency Response 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 22 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 23 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 24 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

10USPTO00132 

FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-12-032-A 25