Source: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/patent_prosecution/
Timestamp: 2013-05-19 12:05:45
Document Index: 572611810

Matched Legal Cases: ['§102', '§102', '§102', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 112']

Patent Law Blog (Patently-O): Patent Prosecution
Alleged Copyright Infringement by Patent Prosecutors By Dennis Crouch American Institute of Physics and John Wiley & Sons v. Schwegman Ludberg (D.Minn) Publishers John Wiley & Sons and American Institute of Physics have asked the Minnesota District Court for leave to amend and narrow their complaint against the Schwegman law firm. The amendment would drop any allegation that submitting copies of copyright works to the USPTO constitute copyright infringement. The plaintiffs write that the amended complaint does not allege that this unauthorized copying includes (i) making such copies of a copyrighted work for submission to the PTO as may be required by the rules and regulations of the PTO, (ii) transmitting such copies to the PTO, or (iii) making an archival copy of that work transmitted to the PTO for Defendants' internal file to document what has been transmitted. To be clear, however, the plaintiffs have not dropped their case, but continue to allege that other copies and transmission do constitute copyright infringement. Further, because Wiley does not have any proof of those other activities, it argues that the now unchallenged submission to the PTO serves as "evidence of broader use and circulation" sufficient to permit the complaint to move forward. The newly amended complaint thus recites no factual basis other than the fact that Schwegman is a law firm that prosecutes patents and that, because Schwegman submitted copies of certain articles to the USPTO that it must have also made unauthorized copies. The complaint: 14. Upon information and belief, Defendants have engaged in Unauthorized Copying with respect to the copyrighted articles from Plaintiffs' journals, including but limited to the articles identified on Schedule A. 15. Plaintiffs cannot know the full extent of Defendants' Unauthorized Copying without discovery. The amended complaint also adds a further list of obscure scientific articles that were submitted to the PTO by Schwegman and were allegedly copied internally in an unauthorized manner. The plaintiffs have not yet filed any proposed amendments in the MBHB case. The USPTO intervened in these cases supporting the law firms. It appears that this amendment is meant to appease the USPTO so that it will fall out of the case – making the defendants look much less sympathetic. Notes: Despite its high-sounding name, the American Institute of Physics (AIP) is basically a publishing house struggling to survive. Open Access: Depending upon pricing structure, access to a journal such as the Journal of Applied Physics costs as much as $15k per year. Academic authors generally receive no compensation for publication and there is a growing movement amongst academia toward open access journals. Almost all law reviews make their works freely available online. This enforcement project may push the sciences in that direction as well.
Posted on Sep 18, 2012 at 09:46 AM in Copyright, Patent Cases 2012, Patent Prosecution | Permalink
A Modest Proposal?: Identifying the Invention within the Patent Application
Well known patent attorney Hal Milton recently published a new article in John Marshall’s Review of Intellectual Property Law (RIPL) that argues for the presentation of a “new result” within every patent application. The majority of newly drafted patent applications do not follow Milton’s approach and instead seem to obscure the innovative elements of the claimed invention and fail to identify the problem being solved by the invention. Milton writes: Fifty years of examining, drafting, and prosecuting patents, including the patent at issue in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., coupled with the KSR opinion and the lessons therefrom, led the author herein to the objective standard of a new result. Inventors should be counseled that a new result should be sought out to justify the exclusive right of a patent.
Milton’s approach builds upon Paul Cole’s 2008 post-KSR article also published in RIPL. In that article, Cole reiterated that that evidence showing a new result is “necessary” under the European Patent Convention (EPC). Milton’s approach also complements Ron Slusky’s approach to claim drafting that focuses a claim drafter’s attention first on the problem being solved by the invention. A major difference, however, is that Slusky does not explicitly advocate identifying the new result as part of the application itself. Milton again: In addition to identifying the new result or function to justify the exclusive right of a patent, … that new result [should be] systematically recited throughout all sections of a patent application. Because a court may interpret a patent based upon the intrinsic patent alone, without regard to extrinsic evidence presented in advocacy outside the patent document, extreme care should be exercised in preparing the original patent application with consistency throughout. It is important to realize that patent offices, for the most part, grant patents based upon claims whereas the courts enforce patents based upon the entire patent.
Posted on Jun 15, 2011 at 05:27 PM in Patent Prosecution | Permalink
As part of its appeal rules package, the USPTO has released further information on the role of pre-appeal brief conferences in the prosecution process. As its name suggests, the pre-appeal brief conference program involves a meeting that occurs before an applicant files the formal appeal brief. The "conference" is an internal meeting between examiners and does not actually include the patent applicant or its representative. Rather, the applicant submits a short (5-page) memo that is reviewed at the conference. The program was introduced in FY2005 as a mechanism for helping to avoid unnecessary appeals.
Posted on Nov 16, 2010 at 12:08 PM in Patent Prosecution | Permalink
Discussion: Patent Prosecution Rates A Patently-O Reader e-mailed with the hope of starting a discussion on the topic of patent attorney and agent fees for patent prosecution. He writes “large clients have … pushed down their rates, some in 2009 and some in 2010. In at least two cases, these are clients flush with incredible amounts of cash. Thus, this is not a problem of client-liquidity.” His clients have created rules that would block both a partner and an associate from billing on the same response. “To some clients, this appears to be two attorneys doing work that can be finished by a single attorney.” In addition, his clients are “unwilling to allow their prosecution to be used as a type of training exercise. They want the work done quickly, at the lowest cost. Being part of a training exercise does not achieve this purpose.” In the background is the reality that there are “many unemployed or underemployed patent attorneys willing to do this work and do it effectively, at [under 2007] rates.”
Posted on Nov 15, 2010 at 09:55 AM in Patent Prosecution | Permalink
USPTO Guidelines for Determining Obviousness The USPTO has released a set of updated examination guidelines on the core patentability issue of obviousness. The 18–page guidelines do not have the force of law, but will impact how examiners judge obviousness in practice. The updates primarily focus on Federal Circuit opinions that interpret and implement the holdings of KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S 398 (2007). I have copied the following tables from the Federal Register. [http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-21646.pdf].
Posted on Sep 02, 2010 at 12:51 PM in Obviousness, Patent Prosecution, USPTO News | Permalink
Ron Slusky: Five Prescriptions for Broader Claims
Ron Slusky is back with more insight from his 2007 book Invention Analysis and Claiming: A Patent Lawyer's Guide (ABA). This fall, Slusky will be hosting a series of two-day claim drafting seminars. See www.sluskyseminars.com. The following are five of Slusky's "Prescriptions for Drafting Broader Claims." 1. Define, Don't Explain Patent attorneys love to explain things. This is a valuable trait when writing the specification. But it can get in the way when drafting claims. It is hard to resist the urge to liven up a claim's dull litany of elements by explaining that the claimed subject matter is an automobile floor mat; or an optical system with improved output efficiency...That urge to explain must be resisted nonetheless. A claim's function is to define the boundaries of the parcel of intellectual property being sought—not to explain or to help readers to understand something. An explanatory-type limitation may seem harmless enough, but every extra word in a claim is a potential loophole for infringers to exploit. Limitations should be suspected of explaining rather than defining if they recite: The advantage of the invention or what it is "good for;" How the recited combination can integrate with the external environment; Motivations (e.g., for doing a particular step or including a particular element); How to carry out a recited function where the recitation of the function itself imbues the claim with patentability; How inputs get generated; The source of something that the claimed method or apparatus works on. A limitation that meets any of these criteria should be scrutinized as a candidate for deletion. If the claim distinguishes over the prior art without the limitation, the claim is probably well rid of it. 2. Scrutinize Every Modifier Beware the insidious modifier, particularly adjectives. Most of them are unnecessary in a broad claim, serving to explain rather than to define. Each modifier in a claim should be scrutinized to see if the claim will support patentability without it. Here are some examples: automobile floor mat; very-large-scale integration; high-resolution filter; decoding a transmitted video signal by…; rapidly removable label; block copolymer. (As to the latter, see Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Huntsman Polymers Corp., 157 F.3d 866 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement).) Another potential problem with certain modifiers is their potential for being declared indefinite. The terms "very-large-scale," "high-resolution" and "rapidly" in the above examples are problematic in this sense. 3. Assume That Input Signals and Data/Parameter Values Are Already In Hand—Don't Generate Them in the Claim A method or apparatus often operates on input signals and/or may use data values, parameters or counts of things. When claiming the broad invention, it is usually desirable to treat such things as already existing rather than explicitly generating them within the claim. For example, suppose the invention is the idea of adjusting the output rate of a widget-manufacturing process once the number of widgets produced within the previous hour reaches a certain limit. The invention could be defined in two steps—a counting step and an adjusting step: 1. A method for use in a machine that manufactures widgets, the method comprising counting the number of widgets manufactured in an hour's time, and adjusting the output rate of said machine when the count reaches a predefined limit.
However, it is irrelevant to the inventive concept how the number of widgets manufactured in an hour is determined. Indeed, the potential infringer might use the cumulative weight of an hour's output to determine how many widgets were produced and, in so doing, avoid a literal infringement of this claim By assuming that the widget count is already known—handed to us by a genie, perhaps—and available to the adjusting step, the entire counting step can be eliminated: 2. A method for use in a machine that manufactures widgets, the method comprising adjusting the output rate of said machine when the number of widgets manufactured within an hour's time reaches a predefined limit.
4. Write the Claim Out of Your Head, Not Off the Drawing Looking at the drawings is useful when intermediate- or narrow-scope claims are being drafted since such claims intentionally incorporate certain embodiment details. However, the drawings may interfere with the conceptual thinking that is so desirable when reaching for breadth. It is all too easy for the drawings to draw our attention away from the abstract, exposing us to the siren song of the embodiment and its tangible details—details that can unduly narrow a claim. It is much harder to be attracted to embodiment details when they are not staring up at us from the drawing. Thus the broadest claims should be written directly out of the claim drafter's head. The mind's eye should be able to so clearly see those few functionalities and interrelationships that define the broad invention as to make it unnecessary to look at the drawings. If we find ourselves unable to write the claim with the drawings put away, it may be time to stop and re-engage the invention conceptually, returning to the claim drafting only when a crystal-clear answer to the question What is the Invention? is fully in hand. 5. Strive for Simplicity Simplicity is a key to clarity. Convoluted interrelationships or claim language that is difficult to read through can signal that the invention has not been captured at its essence. Often buried in such a claim are ambiguities or unduly limiting recitations that aren't necessary to the invention. The architectural philosophy of form follows function applies here. A claim whose form is clean and simple is more likely to serve the function of defining the invention cleanly and simply (read "broadly"). The hallmark of a well written claim is one that an inventor can understand without a lot of attorney explanation. Once it becomes apparent that a claim-in-progress is evolving into an awkward mess, it is best to stop and rethink the approach. Often the culprit is that the limitations are introduced in a less-than-optimal order. Indeed, limitations that had seemed so necessary may fall away completely once the claim elements are rearranged. Or certain limitations in the preamble might be better put into the body of the claim or vice versa. There is little point in fighting a recalcitrant claim. Better to look for some underlying assumption about the claim structure that is getting in the way and to start over. It can be hard to put on the brakes and abandon a claim in which a lot of time has already been invested. It's good, then, to stay alert to the possibility that things are beginning to deteriorate and to regroup sooner rather than later. Copyright © 2007-2008 American Bar Association. All rights reserved. Adapted with permission. Posted on Sep 15, 2008 at 07:13 AM in Articles and Publications, Patent Prosecution | Permalink
I am looking generally at how the contents of a patent application may impact the prosecution process. In this study, I looked at a sample of 50,000 original patent applications (excluding continuations) that have issued as patents in the past few years. This first graph shows the average time in prosecution (filing to issue) as a function of the total number of claims in the original patent application. The result is that the claim count positively correlates with time in prosecution. This correlation is strongest when the claim count is less than 30. As an example, patent applications with 30 claims took about 33% longer to issue than those with only 2 claims. The correlation makes sense: more claims would generally mean more work for the PTO to reject each claim, and more work for the applicant to respond in kind. The second graph shows a similar pattern for independent claims. Posted on Sep 14, 2008 at 09:03 PM in Academic Studies, Articles and Publications, Patent Prosecution | Permalink
Bilski is coming (OCTOBER LIKELY) Chief Judge Michel is quoted: "One of the most important cases pending with the [Federal Circuit] today is In re Bilski…. 'It's a very interesting case and I thought all the judges worked very hard on it,' says [Chief Judge] Michel. He adds: 'I think it will be a very significant decision. It probably will have broader scope than either In re Comiskey or In re Nuijten" FEES: I'm looking for the PTO fee schedule (filing fees, exra claim fees, extension fees, appeal fees, etc.) for the past decade. PTO Allowance Rate – depends on whether the PTO counts an RCE as an abandoned application. (which it should not…). The chart below is from a presentation by the PTO's General Counsel James Toupin. Greg A posted a link to the whole file: www.bustpatents.com/toupin.pdf. Posted on Sep 11, 2008 at 07:30 AM in Bits and Bytes, Patent Prosecution | Permalink
Lots of times, examiners look at cases in parallel – especially when two cases are filed around the same time by the same applicant and cover similar inventions. The two patents will often issue on the same date with consecutive patent numbers. Are there any special rules, procedures, or counts that apply to this type of parallel examination? Posted on Sep 10, 2008 at 11:00 AM in Patent Prosecution, USPTO News | Permalink
I have compiled some data on the timing of initial non-final office action and the ensuing response for 400,000+ patents with patent numbers ranging from 5,800,000 – 7,100,000. The graphs below show that office action responses are strongly deadline driven. About 60% of responses are filed by the initial three month deadline. However, 2/3 of those early responses are filed within only a couple days of the three month deadline. Similar "rushes" are seen to meet the four, five, and finally the six month date. PTO Fees are the explanation for the deadline push. Missing the initial three month deadline requires payment of a $120 fee – not a steep fine – but something that some clients are now refusing to pay. Subsequent monthly surcharges rise more dramatically: first $460 then $1050. For clients on more of a fixed prosecution budget, attorneys would rather money go toward their fees rather than to the PTO. Of course, the six month date has the significant legal ramification of abandonment. The immediacy of the deadlines hides an important fact in today's prosecution: Each day of by the practitioner results in one less day that the patent is in force. The fact that very few responses come quickly (apart from the deadline) indicates a latent demand for delayed prosecution — It seems that most clients do not care whether the patent issues now or six-months from now. Why not eliminate these deadlines or push them back considerably? Applicants with important or easily patentable inventions would continue to respond quickly. Those who could care less or who need time to build a patenability case could wait. Now, there are several reasons to strive for compact prosecution timing. Perhaps most importantly is the notion that both the applicant and examiner will work better and more efficiently if they have seen the case recently. The tradeoff, however, is that applications sit much longer awaiting initial consideration. A note about the data below: Responses that appear below to be just after a three, four, five, or six month deadline are typically 'on time.' My measurement is from the date the OA is entered in PAIR to the date the response is entered in PAIR (not the mailing dates). This typically adds an extra week or so. Notes: Jeff Steck, a patent attorney at MBHB LLP, examined the small 'ripple' in the histogram and explains that it can be explained by the fact that (most) OA's are sent out on weekdays and responses are received on weekdays. This 'weekend effect' causes the ripple overlay. My original postulation that the ripple is caused by the PTO's bi-weekly counts is not sufficient since the ripple clearly has a one-week wavelength. Posted on Sep 01, 2008 at 09:48 PM in Academic Studies, Patent Prosecution | Permalink
In a recent notice, the PTO has indicated that it may be illegal to outsource invention information to a foreign county for the purposes preparing a US patent application. A foreign filing license from the USPTO does not authorize the exporting of subject matter abroad for the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States.
Applicants who are considering exporting subject matter abroad for the preparation of patent applications to be filed in the United States should contact the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) at the Department of Commerce for the appropriate clearances. Continue reading "Outsourcing of Patent Preparation: PTO Says Beware" »
Posted on Jul 23, 2008 at 11:38 AM in Patent Prosecution, Transnational, USPTO News | Permalink
How long does a BPAI appeal take? In the first two weeks of September 2007, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences released over one hundred opinions. I looked at the file wrapper histories of thirty of these recent BPAI decisions to get some picture of the timing of BPAI appeals. On average it took just under 18 months (542 days) from the filing of the appeal brief until a decision was reached by the BPAI. The mean hides a wide range of delay: From a minimum of 9 1/2 months to a maximum of 44 months. (Standard Deviation 255). Most of the time delay is not attributable directly to the BPAI. Rather, most of the delay occurs between the date that the appeal is filed and the date that the case is submitted to the BPAI. On average, it took about 11 months (328 days) to ‘complete briefing.’ Typically, that time period involves the applicant’s brief; followed by an examiner’s answer; and finally a reply brief. Once the case is submitted to the BPAI, the average decision time was seven months (214 days). If you win an appeal, the Examiner may reopen prosecution with an additional rejection, although the more common approach is to issue a notice of allowance. Based on this information, you can advise clients that an appeal – pushed through to the end – takes an average of 18 months, but that there is a wide variance. As I noted earlier in 2007, only fewer than of appeals are pushed-through to the end. [Link]. In many cases, Examiners withdraw rejections or applicants file RCE’s with new claims. These calculations also do not include time delays associated with BPAI rejections for improper appeal brief form. Instead, I only began counting once a ‘proper’ brief was filed. In an earlier study, I showed that approximately 25% of appeal briefs are rejected on procedural grounds as either defective or incomplete. [Link]. The prosecution history of a patent application typically includes at least two substantive rejections prior to the appeal brief. In this sample, the average application had been in process for over three years (39 months) before the appeal brief was filed. As with essentially every other area of patent law, we can expect that BPAI timing and results will vary by technology area. Notes: Law Students: Work at the BPAI
Posted on Sep 17, 2007 at 03:09 PM in Academic Studies, BPAI, Patent Prosecution | Permalink
USPTO Guidelines for Examination Support Documents (ESD) New Rule 256 (37 CFR 1.256) allows patent applicants to submit more than five independent claims or twenty-five total claims in an application if supported by a proper examination support document (ESD) prior to the first Office Action. The USPTO has released a set of guidelines for ESD content. [LINK]
An ESD has five substantive sections: Preexam search statement;
Listing of closest references;
Identification of claim limitations found in references;
Showing where each limitation of each claim is supported in the specification.
The preexamination search statement must include searches directed to each limitation of each claim. Additionally, if the claims are amended to include further limitations, the search statement must then be updated. It is advisable to hire a professional searcher to conduct the search. (Before hiring ensure they understand that the search must be fully documented.)
The office only wants a listing of the most closely related references. The best closest reference is the one that discloses the most claimed limitations. Other closest references will disclose a claimed limitation not shown in any other listed reference. References that do not meet this criteria may not be cited i the ESD, but rather must be submitted in an IDS. If the applicant later discovers an even better reference, the ESD must be updated. Small entities will not be required to file the identification of claim limitations. Posted on Sep 13, 2007 at 01:42 AM in Patent Prosecution, USPTO News | Permalink
Examiner's Oral Promise Does Not Bind PTO
During a telephone conversation, the Patent Examiner stated that a replacement office action would be forthcoming. Relying on that statement, the applicant did not respond to the already pending office action. Unfortunately, the Examiner did not issue the new office action and the case went abandoned. 37 C.F.R. 1.2 makes clear that an applicant should not rely on any oral promise from a patent Examiner. Applying this rule, the director of petitions rejected Milton’s petition for revival. The oral promise could have immediately been memorialized in an interview summary — something that was not done in this case until after the abandonment. At the time of Petitioner's reliance, the understanding was a mere oral promise. This section of the C.F.R. expressly prohibits Petitioner's reliance on the oral understanding, and withdrawal of the holding of the abandonment based on an action which is in contravention to a regulation would be improper.
Notes: Thanks to Hal Wegner for providing information on this case. The real party here is HP. Posted on Sep 11, 2007 at 07:37 PM in Patent Cases 2007, Patent Prosecution | Permalink
A published US patent application has a §102(e) prior art date as of that application's filing date, and also a §102(a) or §102(b) prior art date as of its publication date. The office action rejection should discuss both dates if the publication date was prior to the rejected application. But, even if the examiner's rejection was legally incomplete, the applicant's attorney must still overcome both, correctly.
Posted on Jun 24, 2007 at 06:46 AM in Claim Drafting Tips, Patent Prosecution | Permalink
In the wake of KSR v. Teleflec, Deputy Commissioner Peggy Focarino has submitted a memorandum to the technology center directors with preliminary examination guidance. The memo includes marching orders requiring that examiners continue to provide "reasons" for combining prior art in an obviousness rejection.[I]n formulating a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) based upon a combination of prior art elements, it remains necessary to identify the reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art elements in the manner claimed.In submitting the memo, Deputy Commissioner Focarino noted that the Supreme Court's opinion requires explicit discussion: To facilitate review, [the apparent reasons for combining prior art] should be made explicit.In addition, the memo reminds us of the basics of Graham v. John Deere: determining the scope and contents of the prior art;
Download Focarino.pdf (Thanks to Hal Wegner and others for the memo). Posted on May 03, 2007 at 04:54 PM in Patent Prosecution | Permalink
With the release of EFS-Web 1.1 on <?xml:namespace prefix ="" st1 />October 14, 2006, the USPTO has streamlined the filing of sequence listings for practitioners and patentees. The prior version of EFS-Web was limited because it allowed submission of files in .pdf format only and was not enabled to handle sequence listings, which are typically written as text files (.txt). The latest version of EFS-Web overcomes this limitation and allows practitioners to submit electronically files such as sequence listings, computer program listings, and mega tables. This eliminates the need to submit these types of files on supplemental electronic media (e.g., CD-R, 3.5" disk, etc.), which avoided fees relating to application size (currently $250 for large entities and $125 for small entities per 50 pages after the first 100).<?XML:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /> According to sources at the USPTO Electronic Business Center, the requirements of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 C.F.R. §§ 1.52(e), 1.821-1.825) have been relaxed for sequence listings that are filed using EFS-Web 1.1. Specifically, filers need only submit a single .txt file containing the sequence listing and an amendment that incorporates the sequence listing into the specification. Practitioners no longer need to include the compliance statement under 37 C.F.R. § 1.821(f) or the paper copy of the sequence listing (or the duplicate copies of the sequence listing on CD-R in lieu of a paper copy) when filing sequence listings using EFS-Web. However, the USPTO recommends that filers include a statement that the content of the sequence listing does not extend beyond the original disclosure (i.e., does not contain new matter), either as a separate document, or as a part of the "Applicant arguments/remarks made in an Amendment" section of a response. For the time being, the USPTO will also accept sequence listings filed through EFS-Web 1.1 in a .pdf format; however the practice is strongly discouraged, since the USPTO must convert such .pdf files to .txt files to accommodate the sequence listing in its database. As a result, filing sequence listings in .pdf format creates the possibility that conversion could introduce errors in the sequence that could compromise its capacity to be accurately processed and searched, and could even affect sufficiency of disclosure under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Posted on Nov 15, 2006 at 01:58 AM in Patent Prosecution | Permalink