Source: https://allthingspros.blogspot.com/2016/04/ptab-double-patent-ignore-prior-art.html
Timestamp: 2018-07-18 22:06:53
Document Index: 54992820

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 41', '§ 553', '§ 804', '§ 1207', '§ 555', '§ 3506', '§ 1320']

All Things Pros: Busy Board bounces appeal of statutory rejections when provisional rejection matures during appeal
AAA JJ April 1, 2016 at 10:11 AM
Fred McKelvey - the PTAB's laziest lifer APJ. Heckuva job, Fred!!!! Keep up the outstanding record breaking quality work!!!!
Thomas Pain April 4, 2016 at 7:09 PM
Services will be this Sunday at 3 PM, Calvary Chapel, Manassas, Virginia.
David Boundy April 5, 2016 at 9:11 AM
Judge McKelvey died on Sunday April 3. For much of his career, he really was one of the good guys -- look at his opinions in Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110 (BPAI Dec. 21, 1999) and several related cases were very insightful.
AAA JJ April 5, 2016 at 9:12 AM
Robert K S April 12, 2016 at 1:54 PM
Here's the obit. http://www.moserfuneralhome.com/obituary/Frederick-Earl-McKelvey/Manassas-VA/1606378
Would love to hear David Boundy's thoughts on this.
I've seen this BS before. There was an APJ who used to affirm rejections under 35 USC 101 (sometimes enter new 35 USC 101 rejections) and refuse to address the art rejections. After dealing with this BS a couple of times, we filed a Petition to the Director. Coincidentally or not, this APJ retired and this particular practice was abandoned altogether (some other APJs also practiced this but not to the extent of this one APJ but they stopped as well).
they attempted to "hold in abeyance" the provisional rejections, rather than addressing them immediately. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b).
You cannot hold a non-rejection in abeyance. A provisional rejection is not a rejection. It is something that COULD be a rejection that is not a rejection.
The applicants failed or declined to address the provisional rejection-made nonprovisional in the October 11, 2013 Examiner's Answer-in either the appeal brief or a reply brief.
You don't have to appeal every rejection. However, you need to note that in the Appeal Brief.
In managing the ex parte appeal docket, we are not only concerned with this appeal, but other appeals on the Board's ex parte appeal docket. Affirmance of the double patenting rejection disposes of the appeal
David Boundy would have a field day with this. The Board's job is not to minimize its work -- the Board's job is to render decisions on the issues presented to it.
Although not on point, but the precedential opinion of Ex parte Moncla (Appeal No. 2009-006448) involves a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection. After an appeal to the Federal Circuit, a new decision was issued in which the Board stated "The only remaining rejection is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection. We conclude that in this circumstance it was premature for the original Board panel to address the Examiner's provisional rejection of the claims."
If the rejection is not ripe for review by the PTAB, then Appellants should not have to address it in their appeal. If it becomes ripe after the appeal was filed, then the Board should have designated it a new grounds of rejection or requested that the Applicants address the issue under 41.50(d).
This action, by the Board, was just them being lazy -- plain and simple. The concept of "compact prosecution" should also apply to the Board -- not just Examiners. Perhaps the Board (or this particular APJ) should read MPEP 2103 and rethink the whole purpose of the Board and the USPTO as a whole. They are not an Article III court, to which the concept of judicial efficiency applies. Actions like this is why so many people dislike the Federal Government -- it epitomizes a useless bureaucracy that cares more about itself than doing the job it was tasked to do.
Robert April 1, 2016 at 8:19 PM
With respect to the point in your penultimate paragraph, I agree wholeheartedly, but as noted in the blog post, the PTO may have a procedural "out" in 37 C.F.R. § 41.40(a), since the examiner raised this "new ground" without so designating, and appellants' counsel failed to petition as required by the rule.
Thomas Pain April 4, 2016 at 7:11 PM
"There was an APJ who used to affirm rejections under 35 USC 101 (sometimes enter new 35 USC 101 rejections) and refuse to address the art rejections."
Not to worry. That retired APJ passed away earlier this year.
David Boundy April 4, 2016 at 2:26 PM
A couple of basic principles, and how they apply
1. No agency may create “law” against the public except through rulemaking, 5 U.S.C. § 553, which almost always means a “regulation” (in the formal sense of the word) in the Code of Federal Regulations. Appalachian Power Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 208 F.3d 1015, 1027, 1020 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (any rule that “impose[s] duties and obligations on those who are regulated” must be promulgated through legislative rulemaking procedure; “Only ‘legislative rules’ have the force and effect of law. A ‘legislative rule’ is one the agency has duly promulgated in compliance with the procedures laid down in the statute or in the Administrative Procedure Act.”) The Board simply, does not have “discretion” to make up a rule like this. If the Board wants to use this kind of technique to reduce its workload, it must promulgate it as a regulation, not as an off-the-cuff rule.
2. The MPEP does not have force of law against applicants, because it’s not a “regulation.” Thus the PTO’s attempt to change the rules for terminal disclaimers on the fly (MPEP § 804(I)(B)(1)) is simply an illegal act on the part of the PTO, not a reason for the Board to act. Likewise, the “reopening” provision of MPEP § 1207.04 is simply illegal, and unenforceable by the PTO.
3. The Executive Office of the President reminded all agencies of principle 1 (and thus principle 2) a decade ago in the Bulletin on Agency Good Guidance Practices, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/fy2007/m07-07.pdf If you Google the uspto.gov site for “Bulletin Good Guidance” the only hits you’ll get are the PTO telling me that they don’t have to implement it, and if I don’t like it I should go complain somewhere else. Scofflaws.
4. Under 5 U.S.C. § 555(b), “… within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it.” The Board does not have the “discretion” to duck issues presented to it. Especially where the cure for double patenting is a simple terminal disclaimer that doesn’t touch on the other issues. “Compact prosecution” is not just a good idea, the PTO’s half of the deal is the law.
5. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, an agency must demonstrate that “it has taken every reasonable step to ensure that [all papers to be submitted to the agency] is the least burdensome necessary.” 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(2)(A)(iv) and 5 C.F.R. § 1320.5(d)(1)(i). Requiring the applicant to start over with essentially identically the same appeal is not just a nonsensical waste, it’s illegal. Agencies are allowed to save themselves a dollar of cost, but only if the agency does not "[shfit] disproportionate costs or burdens onto the public.” The one-sided cost analysis in this opinion is not just foolish, it's illegal.
6. The PTO has no authority to promulgate retroactive rules. As Karen points out, at the time of the appeal brief, what the applicant did was entirely within the rules. Not very smart, but within the rules.
This applicant is entitled to invoke several provisions of law, to send the appeal back to the Board, and demand that they do their jobs. And if they don’t, you probably have an inexpensive way to get this in front of the Federal Circuit under the All Writs Act. If you will contact me, I’ll help you with it. The PTO in general, including the Board, needs a 2x4 upside the head for this kind of nonsense.
On the other hand, I agree with Karen, this was not handled well by the attorney. In fact, it was pretty dumb. If the patent issued when it did, then surely the applicant had a Notice of Allowance at the time of writing the Appeal Brief?
Karen G. Hazzah April 5, 2016 at 3:12 PM
David, good to see you again. Not my post, credit goes to my guest poster, Robert K S.
From Robert's post,
>co-pending applications that was basis for a provisional
>103 double-patenting rejection matured into a patent
>while the applicants were busy writing their appeal brief.
So Applicant could have known -- by monitoring the co-pending application -- that the DP provisional rejection had matured into an actual DP rejection. And probably "should have" known, in the sense that monitoring co-pending applications is a good idea and is common practice some places.
David Boundy April 6, 2016 at 9:48 AM
David Boundy April 6, 2016 at 9:56 AM
Thanks for the pointer to Robert KS (you may correct the text of my comment!) And on second read, I see that indeed the other patent issued before the appeal brief was filed.
The regs permit an applicant to appeal fewer than all rejections -- if the brief here was clear that fewer than all rejections were appealed, the Board had no authority whatsoever to second guess that.
Here, I am rethinking my earlier statment that the choice was dumb -- now the choice to go forward with the appeal was dumb only in hindsight. Prosecution was closed -- had the applicant filed the terminal disclaimer around the time of filing the appeal brief, the PTO could well have aborted the appeal. We all have grown extremely cynical of the PTO's commitment to "efficiency" in situations like this, and their totally one-sided definition of "efficiency" -- the likelihood is very high that the PTO would in fact have aborted the appeal had the TD been filed.
The PTO isn't permitted to put an applicant to this kind of Hobson's choice, when there's no support in the regs for it. Had the PTO attempted to promulgate this by regulation, the comment letters would have pointed out this kind of situation, why the proposed reg would be unworkable. That's why the PTO's rulemaking statute displaces the normal default rule, and requires the PTO to use notice and comment for its procedural regs.
The appellant met their legal obligations to get this appeal decided. The Board didn't. The Board's obligation to decide is not contingent on perfect presentation of an appeal.
Thomas Pain April 6, 2016 at 5:01 PM
"The appellant met their legal obligations to get this appeal decided. The Board didn't."
I disagree that the Board failed to decide the appeal.
Of the claims on appeal, the examiner's decision is "AFFIRMED." 37 cfr 41.50(a) provides that the "affirmance of the rejection of a claim on any of the grounds specified constitutes a general affirmance of the decision of the examiner on that claim, except as to any ground specifically reversed."
Anonymous April 6, 2016 at 6:33 PM
Of the claims on appeal, the examiner's decision is "AFFIRMED."
That only goes to how the disposition was labeled -- not to whether the Board addressed all the issues being presented in the appeal.
Thomas Pain April 6, 2016 at 7:43 PM
"That only goes to how the disposition was labeled"
No. "AFFIRMED" is not a label. It is the disposition. -- 37 cfr 41.50(a) - "The Board, in its decision, may affirm or reverse the decision of the examiner in whole or in part on the grounds and on the claims specified by the examiner... . . The Board may also remand an application to the examiner." -- "AFFIRMED" is the final agency decision, ripe for appeal to the Federal Circuit.
" . . . not to whether the Board addressed all the issues being presented in the appeal."
That's a separate issue. I've seen arguments, but I haven't seen any authority cited that requires the Board to consider every ground of rejection when one (or more) other ground(s) decides the outcome of the appeal.
I haven't seen any authority cited that requires the Board to consider every ground of rejection when one (or more) other ground(s) decides the outcome of the appeal.
Read Ex parte Frye and the cases they cite. E.g., Oetiker ("[i]n reviewing the examiner's decision on appeal, the Board must necessarily weigh all of the evidence and argument"). Also refer to David Boundy's discussion. The Board not cannot duck issues presented to it. Doing so makes a mockery of the whole concept of compact prosecution at the USPTO.
Thomas Pain April 7, 2016 at 4:17 PM
"Read Ex parte Frye and the cases they cite."
I have. You'll need to be more specific (as a page cite) where they say the Board must rule on every ground of rejection on appeal.
But you may be right. When all else fails, read the statute. 35 usc 6 says "The Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall -- (1) on written appeal of an applicant, review each and every ground of rejection entered by the examiner upon applications for patents pursuant to section 134(a)."
Oops, sorry, I misread. It says "(1) on written appeal of an applicant, review adverse decisions of examiners upon applications for patents pursuant to section 134(a)."
As made clear in the Palmer case, the examiner's adverse decision as to the patentability of the claims is "AFFIRMED."
Karen G. Hazzah April 7, 2016 at 6:09 PM
Anonymous April 7, 2016 3:51 PM
>Oetiker ("[i]n reviewing the examiner's decision on appeal,
>the Board must necessarily weigh all
>evidence and argument").
Anon, I haven't read Oetiker in a while, but I don't think it supports your position. I think the Fed Cir said the Board must consider all evidence/argument for a *particular rejection*. Too much of a stretch to say this means the Board must decide all appealed rejections on the merits.
Anonymous April 8, 2016 at 12:25 AM
Compact prosecution?
Is there unanswered echo here? BTW -- the job of the PTAB is to review the Examiner's rejections -- not just issue dispositions. "Oh wait, I found a minor error in your independent claim ... this first instance of this claim limitation wasn't preceded with 'a' ... I'll just institute a new grounds of rejection and cite the Federal Circuit case that says it cannot review prior art rejection because claim is indefinite."