While I appreciate the Chairman for including the Title 5 protections for the employees of the office, I remain concerned. As a result of this provision in Title 5, patent examiners, who act as judges in cases of intellectual property, could be subject to undue influence. Given the importance and sensitivity of the task these examiners are required to accomplish, refusing them these key protections places our entire patent system at risk. Of course not. We should use that same guiding principle when examining reform of the PTO office.
Patent examiners grant personal property rights.
They perform a function similar to that of a judge and, as a result, should receive the same protections. If this is not done, our patent system will be placed at great risk. Other provisions of H.R. 400 concern me as well. Specifically, the allowance of third party participation in re-examination challenges, publication of patent applications prior to their official grant and the impact this has on small inventors. I believe, however, that we can address this problem without dismantling a patent system which has served us so well for nearly two hundred years.