Posts Tagged: "bpai"

You may have heard, but the USPTO is hiring. Not only is the USPTO searching for Administrative Patent Judges, but they are finding some extremely well qualified candidates to add to the ranks of those already serving. With the permission of each of the new APJs, and the cooperation of James Smith, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, it is with pleasure that share the bios the newest APJs, each pictured with Rebecca Blank, Deputy Secretary of Commerce.

Deputy Director Teresa Rea has now been at the USPTO for approximately 1 year, but seems as invigorated and full of energy as she did when I first met up with her.  She seems to love the job and relish the challenges that come with this moment in Patent Office history. We chatted for approximately 55 minutes, discussing USPTO hiring, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the America Invents Act, what a typical day looks like on her calendar and much more.

The data clearly suggests that that inquiry should be made into what is going on in Art Unit 3689. If there is nothing odd after evaluation then I will be the first to report that and say that after further evaluation the patent examiners in Art Unit 3689 are doing a fantastic job. In the meantime, however, one way that we can get a more complete glimpse of what is going on in Art Unit 3689 is to take a look at the patents granted only after a decision from the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. Currently, according to the data available in the PatentCore system, 13 of the 24 patents granted have been granted after a decision from the BPAI, and 3 others were granted only after the applicant filed an appeal brief. That rate seems extraordinarily high to me, as does the 76.5% reversal rate at the BPAI. A look at some of the appeals themselves is elucidating.

After Judge Moore’s remarks, James Donald Smith, Chief Administrative Patent Judge, then took the podium to deliver his remarks and to introduce all of the new APJs; an impressive bunch that averages 3 advanced degrees in either science or law, some of who come from the largest patent law firms in the country, including Arnold & Porter, Foley & Lardner, Jones Day, Hunton & Williams and Finnegan Henderson. Others of the new Judges come from within the USPTO or the Department of Justice. Several of the new APJs were formerly on the Board and are now returning after a period of time in private practice.

By eliminating certain briefing requirements the PTO hopes to reduce the number of non-compliant appeal briefs and the number of non-compliant examiner’s answers. Non-compliant briefs and non-compliant examiner’s answers needlessly delay consideration of an appeal by the Board, which contributes to the long delays applicants on the appeals track face. Delays due to non-compliant briefs and answers are particularly unconscionable given the average pendency for an application that must proceed to appeal, which as of October 2011 stands at 81.8 months! That is nearly 7 years from the filing of an application to resolution if action by the Board is required. When the non-compliance is minor or relates to information the Board could well obtain for itself right in the Office files it is downright nonsensical to interject delay by kicking non-compliant briefs and examiner answers. Hopefully these new rules will help at least a little bit for some applicants.

U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke has appointed James Donald Smith of Chicago, Ill. to serve as the next Chief Administrative Patent Judge of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). As BPAI Chief Judge, Smith will lead the board that hears and adjudicates patent appeals from decisions of patent examiners. Smith begins serving as Chief Judge on May 8, 2011.

Earlier this week Google received U.S. Patent No. 7,912,915, titled “Systems and methods for enticing users to access a web site.” The patent covers what is known as a “Google Doodle.” The patent application was originally filed back in 2001, and due to Patent Office delay Google was awarded a whopping 2,618 days of patent term extension.

The date of invention relates to your conception. This is true whether you are engaging in an interference proceeding seeking to obtain a claim instead of another who is also seeking the claim, or you are attempting to demonstrate that you can get behind a reference used by an examiner because you have an earlier date of invention. The hallmark of a first to invent system is that those who file second can obtain a patent under very strictly limited scenarios. A byproduct of a first to invent system is that if the examiner finds prior art you can “swear behind” the reference using a 131 affidavit to demonstrate that reference is not prior art for your invention. In both the interference context and the 131 affidavit context there needs to be proof of conception that will satisfy the patent laws.

The Board’s analysis might interest patent prosecutors who routinely face rejections based on “applicant’s admissions,” not to mention the applicants who feel obliged to submit hundreds of litigation documents to comply with the duty of disclosure. Similarly surprised will be the litigators who ask whether admissions in pleadings are binding or can be withdrawn, not whether they are admissible. The Board’s refusal, because of lack of resources, to compare Smucker’s accused commercial squeeze bottle with the disclosure of the Seaquist reference is also open to question, especially since there does not appear to be any dispute regarding the structure of Smucker’s commercial nozzle. Reexamination practitioners take note.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office today issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes changes to the rules governing ex parte patent appeals before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The notice requests public comment on the proposed changes, which include rescinding the highly unpopular 2008 Final Rule, implementation of which has been stayed.

In a peculiar oddity those who choose to challenge the final determinations on patentability of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) can elect to either proceed directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or they can elect to proceed to the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. The question presented and considered by the full Court at the Federal Circuit was whether new evidence (i.e., evidence not previously presented to the USPTO) can be presented to the District Court when challenging a decision of the BPAI. The short answer — YES. However, without new evidence at the District Court the Federal Circuit must continue to give deference to the USPTO on further appeal.

Funai appealed the examiner’s rejection to the PTO Board which conducted oral argument on August 18th. The CAFC’s earlier decision in favor of Funai was mentioned in passing, but the Judges seemed largely indifferent to it. Counsel for Funia remarked that “at this point the Examiner has adopted our claim construction, which was also adopted by the [ITC], which I know is not [binding] on this Board, and affirmed by the Federal Circuit.” One of the Judges spoke up “…did you say it was affirmed by the Federal Circuit?” Yes, replied counsel, “[i]t should be in the record….” The Judges and counsel then proceeded to discuss the merits of the appeal without further mention of the earlier appellate decision.

Last week the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in Goeddel v. Sugano, which might be one of a dying breed should patent reform actually pass. The case dealt with an appeal from an interference proceeding where the Board awarded priority based on a Japanese application. The Federal Circuit, per Judge Newman, explained that it was inappropriate to say that the Japanese application demonstrated a constructive reduction to practice because the application merely would allow the skilled reader to “envision” the invention covered in the interference count. If patent reform passes (and yes that could really happen) cases like Goeddel would become a thing of the past, although priority determinations like this one in Goeddel will certainly not go away.

In the opinion, the BPAI agreed with the reexamination Examiner that any one of four (out of five) prior art references that contained descriptions of oral administration of the herb Yin Yang Huo (also known, perhaps not too surprisingly, as horny goat weed) are anticipatory prior art for claim 24. There were other rejections (double patenting rejections) that the Examiner set forth and that BPAI upheld. The patent claims cover the first commercially (wildly) successful male impotence drug Viagra®.