Posts Tagged: "PTO guidelines"

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will host a public forum on May 9, 2014 at the USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, to solicit feedback from organizations and individuals on its recent guidance memorandum for determining subject matter eligibility of claims reciting or involving laws of nature, natural phenomena, and natural products (Laws of Nature/Natural Products Guidance). The Laws of Nature/Natural Products Guidance implemented a new procedure to address changes in the law relating to subject matter eligibility in view of recent Supreme Court precedent.

Of course, it will be most useful for patent examiners to review and truly internalize the guidelines, but there is some excellent language here that is quite practitioner and applicant friendly. There is explanation of situations where a rejection should be given, but more importantly from a practitioner standpoint will be those examples and illustrations of when a rejection is not appropriate. The discussions of what an appropriate Office Action should include will no doubt be particularly useful as well as practitioners try and hold examiners feet to the fire to provide the type of information required in order to truly appreciate any problems identified by the examiner and how to appropriately respond. Indeed, it is my guess that patent practitioners will be yelling “AMEN” from the top of their lungs as they read various portions of the Guidelines.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has provided an update to its Examination Guidelines concerning the law of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 in light of precedential decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued since the 2007 decision by the United States Supreme Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. The Updated Guidelines were published today in the Federal Register, and in response to the requests of many stakeholders the USPTO has included additional examples to help elucidate the ever-evolving law of obviousness. These guidelines are intended primarily to be used by Office personnel in conjunction with the guidance in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. The effective date of the these new Guidelines is September 1, 2010, but members of the public are invited to provide comments on the 2010 KSR Guidelines Update. The Office is especially interested in receiving suggestions of recent decisional law in the field of obviousness that would have particular value as teaching tools.

This morning the United States Patent and Trademark Office published Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos. The Interim Bilski Guidance is effective July 27, 2010, and applies to all applications filed before, on or after the effective date. Most noteworthy is that the Patent Office is encouraging examiners to issue 101 rejection in only “extreme cases” and allow patentability to be decided by sections 102, 103 and 112.

Who knows what will happen, but this early announcement form the USPTO seems helpful. They recognize that business methods are patentable unless they represent abstract ideas, as Bilski was determined to encompass. It is also recognized that satisfying the machine-or-transformation test is heavy evidence of satisfying the requirements of 101, and an interim process is put in place whereby the burden will be shifted to the applicant to demonstrate that the claimed invention is not simply drawn to an abstract idea if a machine-or-transformation rejection is given.

As I’ve said before, no one could rightly accuse me of being biased against patents. But, as I also pointed out in this article on Judge Rader’s dissent in Media Technologies Licensing, LLC v. The Upper Deck Company, I don’t believe every patent is “bullet proof,” or to use Judge Plager’s phrase, that some patents aren’t built on “quicksand.” In fact, I agree with Judge Plager’s dissent in the denial of rehearing en banc in Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., issued May 26, 2010, which argues that the “definiteness” requirement in the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C § 112 needs more “teeth” than Federal Circuit precedent appears to give it.