Posts Tagged: "board"

The interview took place on the Alexandria Campus of the USPTO in the Madison Building. We sat around a modest conference table in the office of Chief Judge Smith. We chatted for approximately 60 minutes. Smith and Moore give us a rare glimpse into the Board and the day-to-day inner workings of the two top Administrators who also work hard to seek opportunities to stay engaged and join panels whenever possible.

Leading up to the swearing in, PTAB Vice-Chief Judge James Moore explained the need for the new Judges, as well as pointing out that the USPTO has already had 13 covered business method patent reviews and 42 inter partes reviews initiated just since they became available on September 16, 2012 in the second wave of implementation of the America Invents Act (AIA). “We have doubled our hearing review capacity,” Moore explained. He also said that the approximately 27,000 cases pending at the Board this year “was a high water mark and we will recceed from there thanks to the help of those sitting behind me,” referring to the soon to be sworn in APJs.

The 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Intellectual Property Law Association is underway at the Marriott Wardman Park hotel in Washington, DC. Judge James Smith, Chief Judge of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the USPTO gave the luncheon address, discussing the current state of the PTAB and what to expect moving forward.

The biggest myth about patent appeals is that that the examiner usually wins. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) posts that it reverses examiners only one out of every three decisions —33%. That number is accurate, and reflects the percentage of reversals among Board decisions. But another number is more helpful — 75%. That is the rough percentage of reversals among all appeals—not just Board decisions. The difference arises because not all appeals result in a Board decision. In fact, the vast majority of appeals (80%) never reach the Board. The Board’s 33% number has nothing to say about this invisible sea of patent appeals.

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 Similarly surprised will be the litigators who ask whether admissions in pleadings are binding or can be withdrawn, not whether they are admissible.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.