http://www.ipwatchdog.com Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications & Patent Law Fri, 24 May 2013 17:07:46 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/10/federal-circuit-nightmare-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40230/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/10/federal-circuit-nightmare-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40230/#comments Fri, 10 May 2013 17:26:50 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=40230 Related posts:

1. Did the Federal Circuit Ignore the Supreme Court in CLS Bank?While the Supreme Court has done away with the "useful, concrete and tangible result" test from State Street Bank v. Signature Financial, in Bilski v. Kappos, 8 out of 9 Justices (i.e., everyone except Justice Scalia) signed onto an opinion that recognized that the patent claims in State Street displayed patent eligible subject matter. Indeed, the dissenters in Bilski specifically acknowledged that the claims at issue in State Street did not deal with processes, but dealt with machines. See Footnote 40 of the Steven's dissent. The import of this is that machines are specifically patent eligible subject matter, so if...
2. 5 CAFC Judges Say Computers Patentable, Not SoftwarePerpetuating the myth that the computer is where the magic lies does nothing other than ignore reality. Software is what makes everything happen. or crying out loud, software drives a multitude of machines! Maybe the auto mechanic for Judges Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Reyna and Wallach should remove the software from their cars. Perhaps as they are stranded and forced to walk to work they might have time to contemplate the world they seem to want to force upon the rest of us; a world hat clings to mechanical machines completely non-reliant on software. That will be great for the...
3. Business Methods (and Software) are Still Patentable!For at least the past 15 years, the legal, technical and academic communities have been debating the patentability of business methods and software. Despite much negative press ink, talk, legislative activity and court opinions, the answer with respect to patent eligibility is still a resounding and categorical “yes.” That’s the easy part. What types of business methods and software exactly are patentable? That is the difficult question to answer....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/10/federal-circuit-nightmare-in-cls-bank-v-alice-corp/id=40230/feed/ 352 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/17/fixing-the-patent-system-to-improve-innovation/id=39273/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/17/fixing-the-patent-system-to-improve-innovation/id=39273/#comments Wed, 17 Apr 2013 22:34:27 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=39273 Related posts:

1. Why All Small Businesses Need Software PatentsThe reason giant companies hate patent trolls is because they are not capable of being counter-sued. There is no deterrent effect because patent trolls do not make, use or sell anything, they just sue. So giant companies are targets in the same way that smaller companies without patents are targets of big companies with patents. No one should aspire to be a target. A simple truth is that a small business without patents might as well dress themselves up as a buck during hunting season complete with a bulls-eye pre-drawn. So here is the case for every business to get...
2. US Supreme Court Grants Cert. in BilskiThe United States Supreme Court granted cert. in Bilski v. Doll. This means that the last chapter on business methods and software has not yet been written, which could be good news or bad news depending upon your particular take. I have wondered out loud about allowing software patents as patentable subject matter, which I think is the right thing to do myself....
3. Google Sued for Patent Infringement Over Chrome CourgetteOn Monday, October 26, 2009, Google, Inc. was sued for patent infringement relating to its new Chrome browser by Red Bend, Ltd., an Israeli corporation and Red Bend Software, a Delaware corporation located in Waltham, Massachusetts.  Red Bend, Ltd. is the owner of US Patent No. 6,546,552, and Red Bend Software is the exclusive licensee [...]...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/17/fixing-the-patent-system-to-improve-innovation/id=39273/feed/ 42 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/11/patent-eligibility-today-are-software-methods-patentable/id=38985/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/11/patent-eligibility-today-are-software-methods-patentable/id=38985/#comments Thu, 11 Apr 2013 10:05:27 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=38985 Related posts:

1. Patenting Business Methods and Software in the U.S.Any method claim that does not require machine implementation or does not cause a transformation will fail the test and will be rejected under § 101. The importance of this from a practical standpoint is that business methods not tied to a machine are going to be rejected under § 101 and the rejection will be difficult, if not impossible, to overcome....
2. Business Methods (and Software) are Still Patentable!For at least the past 15 years, the legal, technical and academic communities have been debating the patentability of business methods and software. Despite much negative press ink, talk, legislative activity and court opinions, the answer with respect to patent eligibility is still a resounding and categorical “yes.” That’s the easy part. What types of business methods and software exactly are patentable? That is the difficult question to answer....
3. CLS Bank v Alice – Federal Circuit Orders en banc RehearingIt is arguable that neither view is beyond criticism and that any emergent legal test as to patent-eligibility demands further development. There is much to commend the majority view that each of §§101, 102, 103 and 112 serves a different purpose and presents different questions and that under §101 only when it is apparent that the claimed subject-matter is a manifestly ineligible abstract idea should that subject-matter be excluded. Significant involvement of a computer in the working of the invention points towards invention....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/04/11/patent-eligibility-today-are-software-methods-patentable/id=38985/feed/ 0 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/06/art-units-in-misc-computer-applications-have-72-allowance/id=34910/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/06/art-units-in-misc-computer-applications-have-72-allowance/id=34910/#comments Wed, 06 Feb 2013 20:02:56 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=34910 Related posts:

1. Allowance Rates for Art Units Examining Business MethodsIf I were a patent examiner that hadn't issued patents for years I wouldn't want anyone to know that either. Similarly, if I were a Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) in an Art Unit that routinely only issued patents after a long drawn out appeal process that resulted in the Board overturning the rejections I wouldn't want the public to know about that either. Sadly, this type of gaming exists at the Patent Office. There are examiners who only rarely issue patents and Art Units that openly tell patent attorneys that they don't issue patents unless ordered to do so by the...
2. Business Methods by the Numbers: A Look Inside PTO Class 705What these numbers tell you is if your application is in Art Unit 3622 or 3689 you are in for a long wait to obtain a patent. The numbers also show that if you carry the case all the way through appeal there is quite a high success rate for applicants; 66.7% when in Art Unit 3622 and 71.4% when in Art Unit 3689. It is hard to know for sure what is going on in Art Units 3622 and 3689, but one number jumps out at me as particularly alarming. In Art Unit 3689 nearly 4 out of 5...
3. Patenting Business Methods and Software in the U.S.Any method claim that does not require machine implementation or does not cause a transformation will fail the test and will be rejected under § 101. The importance of this from a practical standpoint is that business methods not tied to a machine are going to be rejected under § 101 and the rejection will be difficult, if not impossible, to overcome....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/02/06/art-units-in-misc-computer-applications-have-72-allowance/id=34910/feed/ 0 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/08/allowance-rates-for-art-units-examining-business-methods/id=32853/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/08/allowance-rates-for-art-units-examining-business-methods/id=32853/#comments Tue, 08 Jan 2013 15:15:53 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=32853 Related posts:

1. Is there a Systematic Denial of Due Process at the USPTO?After my presentation, as you might expect, I was approached by a number of patent attorneys. Story after story it was the same thing I have heard from so many others — depressing tales of not being able to get a patent. One particularly egregious thing I heard was from a patent attorney who told me about a conversation he recently had with a SPE from one of the business method art units. I don't know which Art Unit, and frankly I didn't ask, although it is probably easy enough to narrow down the Art Unit. This patent attorney told...
2. Business Methods by the Numbers: A Look Inside PTO Class 705What these numbers tell you is if your application is in Art Unit 3622 or 3689 you are in for a long wait to obtain a patent. The numbers also show that if you carry the case all the way through appeal there is quite a high success rate for applicants; 66.7% when in Art Unit 3622 and 71.4% when in Art Unit 3689. It is hard to know for sure what is going on in Art Units 3622 and 3689, but one number jumps out at me as particularly alarming. In Art Unit 3689 nearly 4 out of 5...
3. PatentCore Joins Forces with LexisNexis® on Patent Advisor™Reed Technology and Information Services Inc., a part of the LexisNexis® family and a provider of content management services, announced earlier today that it has joined forces with PatentCore. You may recall that PatentCore is a publisher of online Patent Office analytics, which for the first time has given the patent bar and public a snapshot look at what goes on inside the Patent Office Art Unit by Art Unit and patent examiner by patent examiner....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/01/08/allowance-rates-for-art-units-examining-business-methods/id=32853/feed/ 33 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/10/10/cls-bank-v-alice-federal-circuit-orders-en-banc-rehearing/id=28777/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/10/10/cls-bank-v-alice-federal-circuit-orders-en-banc-rehearing/id=28777/#comments Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:24:42 +0000 Paul Cole http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=28777 Related posts:

1. UK Perspective: Bancorp Services v. Sun Life AssuranceThe EPO applies what might be referred to as a “subtraction” test for claims containing a mixture of patent-eligible and patent-ineligible features, those features that are patent-ineligible being disregarded and novelty and obviousness under aa. 54 and 56 EPC being evaluated on the basis of the remaining features. Judge Lourie suggested a somewhat similar “subtraction” test here....
2. USPTO: No Change to Software Patentability EvaluationIn a one-page memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps dated May 13, 2013, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy Drew Hirshfeld had a simple message to respond to the Federal Circuit's en banc non-decision in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. The message was this: "there is no change in examination procedure for evaluating subject matter eligibility."...
3. Business Methods (and Software) are Still Patentable!For at least the past 15 years, the legal, technical and academic communities have been debating the patentability of business methods and software. Despite much negative press ink, talk, legislative activity and court opinions, the answer with respect to patent eligibility is still a resounding and categorical “yes.” That’s the easy part. What types of business methods and software exactly are patentable? That is the difficult question to answer....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/10/10/cls-bank-v-alice-federal-circuit-orders-en-banc-rehearing/id=28777/feed/ 9 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/08/29/post-grant-review-inter-partes-review-and-transitional-program-for-covered-business-method-patents/id=27668/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/08/29/post-grant-review-inter-partes-review-and-transitional-program-for-covered-business-method-patents/id=27668/#comments Wed, 29 Aug 2012 11:25:13 +0000 Kenneth N. Nigon http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=27668 Related posts:

1. USPTO Publishes Final Rules for Administrative Trials Under AIAThe U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced today that it will publish final rules in the Federal Register on August 14, 2012, to implement three administrative trial provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA); inter partes review, post-grant review, and the transitional program for covered business method patents. The administrative trial final rules offer a third party a timely, cost-effective alternative to district court litigation for challenging the patentability of a claimed invention in an issued patent. These rules become effective on September 16, 2012. With this publication, all of the administrative trial...
2. AIA Rules: Citation of Prior Art and Estoppel in ReexaminationIn order for one to file a statement of the patent owner in Federal court the submissions must: (1) Identify the forum and proceeding in which patent owner filed each statement, and the specific papers and portions of the papers submitted that contain the statements; and (2) explain how each statement is a statement in which patent owner took a position on the scope of any claim in the patent. See Section 1.501(a)(3). The required explanation must include discussion of the pertinence and manner of applying any prior art submitted to at least one claim of the patent. See Section...
3. America Invents: A Simple Guide to Patent Reform, Part 2I have done quite a bit of writing about the America Invents Act, but I have been a bit derelict in providing the sequel to America Invents: A Simple Guide to Patent Reform, Part 1. Part of the reason, if not the entirety of the reason, is that the major parts of the American Invents Act that remain are anything but simple. On this note I embark upon Part 2, which will seek to make sense of prior user rights, post-grant review, preissuance submission and patentability changes. This will leave inter partes review, supplemental examination and derivation proceedings for the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/08/29/post-grant-review-inter-partes-review-and-transitional-program-for-covered-business-method-patents/id=27668/feed/ 22 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/08/28/business-methods-and-software-are-still-patentable/id=27658/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/08/28/business-methods-and-software-are-still-patentable/id=27658/#comments Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:25:43 +0000 Raymond Millien http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=27658 Related posts:

1. Federal Circuit Nightmare in CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.The only thing we know is this — the Federal Circuit issued an extraordinarily brief per curiam decision, which stated: "Upon consideration en banc, a majority of the court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted method and computer-readable media claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. An equally divided court affirms the district court’s holding that the asserted system claims are not directed to eligible subject matter under that statute." Thus, the asserted claims are not patent eligible....
2. Patenting Business Methods and Software in the U.S.Any method claim that does not require machine implementation or does not cause a transformation will fail the test and will be rejected under § 101. The importance of this from a practical standpoint is that business methods not tied to a machine are going to be rejected under § 101 and the rejection will be difficult, if not impossible, to overcome....
3. Did the Federal Circuit Ignore the Supreme Court in CLS Bank?While the Supreme Court has done away with the "useful, concrete and tangible result" test from State Street Bank v. Signature Financial, in Bilski v. Kappos, 8 out of 9 Justices (i.e., everyone except Justice Scalia) signed onto an opinion that recognized that the patent claims in State Street displayed patent eligible subject matter. Indeed, the dissenters in Bilski specifically acknowledged that the claims at issue in State Street did not deal with processes, but dealt with machines. See Footnote 40 of the Steven's dissent. The import of this is that machines are specifically patent eligible subject matter, so if...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/08/28/business-methods-and-software-are-still-patentable/id=27658/feed/ 4 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/08/13/uspto-publishes-final-rules-for-administrative-trials-under-aia/id=27418/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/08/13/uspto-publishes-final-rules-for-administrative-trials-under-aia/id=27418/#comments Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:38:27 +0000 U.S.P.T.O. http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=27418 Related posts:

1. PTO Proposes Rules of Practice for Patent Trials before BoardThe United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has proposed a consolidated set of rules related to trial practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The proposed rules implement the provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act relating to inter partes review, post-grant review, the transitional program for covered business method patents, and derivation proceedings....
2. Post Grant Review, Inter Partes Review and Transitional Program for Covered Business Method PatentsPost Grant Review, Inter Partes Review and the Transitional Program for Covered Business Method Patents were instituted with the goal of improving patent quality by giving third parties methods to challenge patents that are less expensive and less involved than litigation. Each of these procedures is a trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) composed of Administrative Patent Judges and subject to Part 42 of 37 C.F.R., Trial Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The trials allow for limited discovery, which has not been available in Ex Parte or Inter Partes Reexamination, the existing procedures for...
3. Historic Patent Reform Implemented by USPTOThe most significant reform to the U.S. patent system in more than a century took a major step forward at 12:01 am Sunday, as numerous provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 went into effect. The new rules will spur innovation and economic growth by streamlining the patent application process and introducing new procedures to ensure patent quality. Seven reforms to U.S. patent law went into effect one year after the signing of the bipartisan patent reform legislation by President Barack Obama on September 16, 2011....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/08/13/uspto-publishes-final-rules-for-administrative-trials-under-aia/id=27418/feed/ 0 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/27/uk-perspective-bancorp-services-v-sun-life-assurance/id=26895/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/27/uk-perspective-bancorp-services-v-sun-life-assurance/id=26895/#comments Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:28:35 +0000 Paul Cole http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=26895 Related posts:

1. Bancorp Services: Further Fracturing of the Patent Eligibility Landscape for Business Methods and Systems*In holding the method, system, and media claims of the ‘792 and ‘037 patents to “cover no more than abstract ideas and therefore do no recite patent-eligible subject matter,” Judge Lourie’s opinion trivializes the relevance of computer implementation in these claims. That’s brought out when he later says that the “interchangeability of certain mental processes and basic digital computation” makes the “use of a computer in an otherwise patent-ineligible process for no more than its most basic function” (i.e., making calculations or computations) inadequate “to circumvent the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas and mental processes.” In fact, Judge Lourie went...
2. Business Methods (and Software) are Still Patentable!For at least the past 15 years, the legal, technical and academic communities have been debating the patentability of business methods and software. Despite much negative press ink, talk, legislative activity and court opinions, the answer with respect to patent eligibility is still a resounding and categorical “yes.” That’s the easy part. What types of business methods and software exactly are patentable? That is the difficult question to answer....
3. CLS Bank v Alice – Federal Circuit Orders en banc RehearingIt is arguable that neither view is beyond criticism and that any emergent legal test as to patent-eligibility demands further development. There is much to commend the majority view that each of §§101, 102, 103 and 112 serves a different purpose and presents different questions and that under §101 only when it is apparent that the claimed subject-matter is a manifestly ineligible abstract idea should that subject-matter be excluded. Significant involvement of a computer in the working of the invention points towards invention....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/27/uk-perspective-bancorp-services-v-sun-life-assurance/id=26895/feed/ 2 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/27/bancorp-services-further-fracturing-of-the-patent-eligibility-landscape-for-business-methods-and-systems/id=26881/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/27/bancorp-services-further-fracturing-of-the-patent-eligibility-landscape-for-business-methods-and-systems/id=26881/#comments Fri, 27 Jul 2012 15:15:07 +0000 Eric Guttag http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=26881 Related posts:

1. UK Perspective: Bancorp Services v. Sun Life AssuranceThe EPO applies what might be referred to as a “subtraction” test for claims containing a mixture of patent-eligible and patent-ineligible features, those features that are patent-ineligible being disregarded and novelty and obviousness under aa. 54 and 56 EPC being evaluated on the basis of the remaining features. Judge Lourie suggested a somewhat similar “subtraction” test here....
2. CLS Bank International: A Fractured Landscape of Patent Eligibility for Business Methods and Systems*These polar opposite decisions in CyberSource and Ultramercial illustrate how fractured the Federal Circuit’s patent-eligibility landscape has now become for business methods and systems. The most recent split decision in CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. where a claimed trading platform for exchanging business obligations survived a validity challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 101 epitomizes this problem. As CLS Bank International unfortunately shows, an objective standard for judging the patent-eligibility of business methods and systems remains elusive, subject to an ever growing “tug-of-war” between the “inclusive” and “restrictive” patent-eligibility factions of the Federal Circuit. In particular, after CLS...
3. AMP v. USPTO Remand: Déjà Vu as Federal Circuit Majority Reaffirms Myriad’s Isolated DNA Sequences Are Patent-Eligible*The other point that also bears repeating (and quoting) from the majority opinion in the AMP remand is Judge Lourie’s response to the so-called “preemption” question: "Plaintiffs argue here that they are preempted from using the patented DNA molecules. The answer to that concern is that permitting patents on isolated genes does not preempt a law of nature. A composition of matter is not a law of nature. Moreover, as indicated earlier, a limited preemption is inherent in every patent: the right to exclude for a limited period of time."...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/27/bancorp-services-further-fracturing-of-the-patent-eligibility-landscape-for-business-methods-and-systems/id=26881/feed/ 4 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/12/cls-bank-international-a-fractured-landscape-of-patent-eligibility-for-business-methods-and-systems/id=26342/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/12/cls-bank-international-a-fractured-landscape-of-patent-eligibility-for-business-methods-and-systems/id=26342/#comments Thu, 12 Jul 2012 11:30:35 +0000 Eric Guttag http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=26342 Related posts:

1. Bancorp Services: Further Fracturing of the Patent Eligibility Landscape for Business Methods and Systems*In holding the method, system, and media claims of the ‘792 and ‘037 patents to “cover no more than abstract ideas and therefore do no recite patent-eligible subject matter,” Judge Lourie’s opinion trivializes the relevance of computer implementation in these claims. That’s brought out when he later says that the “interchangeability of certain mental processes and basic digital computation” makes the “use of a computer in an otherwise patent-ineligible process for no more than its most basic function” (i.e., making calculations or computations) inadequate “to circumvent the prohibition against patenting abstract ideas and mental processes.” In fact, Judge Lourie went...
2. UK Perspective: Bancorp Services v. Sun Life AssuranceThe EPO applies what might be referred to as a “subtraction” test for claims containing a mixture of patent-eligible and patent-ineligible features, those features that are patent-ineligible being disregarded and novelty and obviousness under aa. 54 and 56 EPC being evaluated on the basis of the remaining features. Judge Lourie suggested a somewhat similar “subtraction” test here....
3. CLS Bank v Alice – Federal Circuit Orders en banc RehearingIt is arguable that neither view is beyond criticism and that any emergent legal test as to patent-eligibility demands further development. There is much to commend the majority view that each of §§101, 102, 103 and 112 serves a different purpose and presents different questions and that under §101 only when it is apparent that the claimed subject-matter is a manifestly ineligible abstract idea should that subject-matter be excluded. Significant involvement of a computer in the working of the invention points towards invention....

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/07/12/cls-bank-international-a-fractured-landscape-of-patent-eligibility-for-business-methods-and-systems/id=26342/feed/ 28 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/02/26/is-there-a-systematic-denial-of-due-process-at-the-uspto/id=22403/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/02/26/is-there-a-systematic-denial-of-due-process-at-the-uspto/id=22403/#comments Sun, 26 Feb 2012 12:30:42 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=22403 Related posts:

1. Allowance Rates for Art Units Examining Business MethodsIf I were a patent examiner that hadn't issued patents for years I wouldn't want anyone to know that either. Similarly, if I were a Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) in an Art Unit that routinely only issued patents after a long drawn out appeal process that resulted in the Board overturning the rejections I wouldn't want the public to know about that either. Sadly, this type of gaming exists at the Patent Office. There are examiners who only rarely issue patents and Art Units that openly tell patent attorneys that they don't issue patents unless ordered to do so by the...
2. Business Methods by the Numbers: A Look Inside PTO Class 705What these numbers tell you is if your application is in Art Unit 3622 or 3689 you are in for a long wait to obtain a patent. The numbers also show that if you carry the case all the way through appeal there is quite a high success rate for applicants; 66.7% when in Art Unit 3622 and 71.4% when in Art Unit 3689. It is hard to know for sure what is going on in Art Units 3622 and 3689, but one number jumps out at me as particularly alarming. In Art Unit 3689 nearly 4 out of 5...
3. Examining the Appealed Patent Allowances from Art Unit 3689The 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...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/02/26/is-there-a-systematic-denial-of-due-process-at-the-uspto/id=22403/feed/ 63 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/01/26/examining-the-appealled-patent-allowances-from-art-unit-3689/id=21992/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/01/26/examining-the-appealled-patent-allowances-from-art-unit-3689/id=21992/#comments Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:35:26 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=21992 Related posts:

1. Business Methods by the Numbers: A Look Inside PTO Class 705What these numbers tell you is if your application is in Art Unit 3622 or 3689 you are in for a long wait to obtain a patent. The numbers also show that if you carry the case all the way through appeal there is quite a high success rate for applicants; 66.7% when in Art Unit 3622 and 71.4% when in Art Unit 3689. It is hard to know for sure what is going on in Art Units 3622 and 3689, but one number jumps out at me as particularly alarming. In Art Unit 3689 nearly 4 out of 5...
2. Allowance Rates for Art Units Examining Business MethodsIf I were a patent examiner that hadn't issued patents for years I wouldn't want anyone to know that either. Similarly, if I were a Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) in an Art Unit that routinely only issued patents after a long drawn out appeal process that resulted in the Board overturning the rejections I wouldn't want the public to know about that either. Sadly, this type of gaming exists at the Patent Office. There are examiners who only rarely issue patents and Art Units that openly tell patent attorneys that they don't issue patents unless ordered to do so by the...
3. Is there a Systematic Denial of Due Process at the USPTO?After my presentation, as you might expect, I was approached by a number of patent attorneys. Story after story it was the same thing I have heard from so many others — depressing tales of not being able to get a patent. One particularly egregious thing I heard was from a patent attorney who told me about a conversation he recently had with a SPE from one of the business method art units. I don't know which Art Unit, and frankly I didn't ask, although it is probably easy enough to narrow down the Art Unit. This patent attorney told...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/01/26/examining-the-appealled-patent-allowances-from-art-unit-3689/id=21992/feed/ 30 http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/01/22/business-methods-by-the-numbers-a-look-inside-pto-class-705/id=21892/ http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/01/22/business-methods-by-the-numbers-a-look-inside-pto-class-705/id=21892/#comments Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:15:37 +0000 Gene Quinn http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=21892 Related posts:

1. Allowance Rates for Art Units Examining Business MethodsIf I were a patent examiner that hadn't issued patents for years I wouldn't want anyone to know that either. Similarly, if I were a Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) in an Art Unit that routinely only issued patents after a long drawn out appeal process that resulted in the Board overturning the rejections I wouldn't want the public to know about that either. Sadly, this type of gaming exists at the Patent Office. There are examiners who only rarely issue patents and Art Units that openly tell patent attorneys that they don't issue patents unless ordered to do so by the...
2. Is there a Systematic Denial of Due Process at the USPTO?After my presentation, as you might expect, I was approached by a number of patent attorneys. Story after story it was the same thing I have heard from so many others — depressing tales of not being able to get a patent. One particularly egregious thing I heard was from a patent attorney who told me about a conversation he recently had with a SPE from one of the business method art units. I don't know which Art Unit, and frankly I didn't ask, although it is probably easy enough to narrow down the Art Unit. This patent attorney told...
3. Examining the Appealed Patent Allowances from Art Unit 3689The 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...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin. ]]> http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/01/22/business-methods-by-the-numbers-a-look-inside-pto-class-705/id=21892/feed/ 18