Transcript Recent Rule Changes - Patent Lawyers Club

The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
-Present and Future
Perspectives-Challenges-Enhance Flexibility-Best PracticesMichael R. Fleming
Chief Administrative Patent Judge
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
571-272-9797
May 29, 2008
1
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Major Accomplishments
Interferences
FY 2007
Mid-FY2008
Pendency of Terminated
Interferences
10.6 months 13.6 months
Interferences Terminated
≤ 2 years
92.0%
83.2%
Interferences Declared
58
34
Interferences Pending
60
59
May 29, 2008
2
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Major Accomplishments
Ex Parte Appeals
FY 2007
FY2008
End of Year Mid-Year
Pendency
5.4 months 6.6 months
Disposals
3,485
2,160
Docketed
4,639
2,506
Pending Appeals
2,511
2,857
May 29, 2008
3
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Ex Parte Results by TC for FY 08
(cumulative as of March 2008)
FY 2008 CUMULATIVE DISPOSITIONS
PENDING
TECHNOLOGY REPORTING BEGINNING
CENTER
PERIOD
FISCAL YEAR
10-1-07 to 3-31-08
258
1600
10-1-07 to 3-31-08
266
1700
10-1-07 to 3-31-08
547
2100
10-1-07 to 3-31-08
348
2600
10-1-07 to 3-31-08
254
2800
10-1-07 to 3-31-08
13
2900
10-1-07 to 3-31-08
562
3600
10-1-07 to 3-31-08
253
3700
10-1-07 to 3-31-08
10
3900
Board Totals
2511
APPEALS
RECEIVED
ADMINISTRATIVE
PENDING
INCREASE/
END
DECREASE
PERCENT
OF CASE
FISCAL YEAR
AFFIRMED
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
REVERSED
REMANDS
REMANDS
DISMISSED
TOTAL
FISCAL YEAR
FISCAL YEAR
WORKLOAD
161
134
12
68
6
2
10
232
187
-71
6.5
428
277
42
90
12
0
2
423
271
5
9.5
628
216
52
93
14
0
2
377
798
251
27.9
227
153
40
78
2
1
3
277
298
-50
10.4
188
103
20
41
7
0
2
173
269
15
9.4
6
3
0
1
1
0
0
5
14
1
0.5
489
175
76
114
14
5
9
393
658
96
23.0
356
150
43
58
9
1
9
270
339
86
11.9
23
6
1
2
0
0
1
10
23
13
0.8
2506
1217
286
545
65
9
38
2160
2857
346
100.0
Disposition
AFFIRMED
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
REVERSED
PANEL REMANDS
ADMINISTRATIVE REMANDS
DISMISSED
TOTAL
May 29, 2008
PANEL
% Decisions Fiscal Year to Date
56.3%
13.2%
25.2%
3.0%
0.4%
1.8%
100.0%
4
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Ex Parte Production
Mid-Year
1405
End of Year
3485
FY2008
2160
5200*
% Increase in
Production over
FY2007
54%
49% *
FY2007 Actual
* Projected
May 29, 2008
5
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Challenge
Workload Increase
FY2007 FY2008 FY2008
End of Year Mid-Year End of Year*
Docketed Appeals
4639
2506
Pending Appeals
2511
2857 3650-4650
May 29, 2008
6000 - 7000
6
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Challenge
Workload Increase: Record Years for BPAI Receipts
Receipts
FY1995 FY1996
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
4,318
3,349
4,639
7,000
3,607
Record Years for BPAI Receipts
8000
7000
6000
Receipts
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
FY1995
May 29, 2008
FY1996
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
7
19
9
FY 4
19
FY 95
19
FY 96
19
9
FY 7
19
FY 98
19
9
FY 9
20
0
FY 0
20
FY 01
20
FY 02
20
0
FY 3
20
FY 04
20
0
FY 5
20
0
FY 6
M
id 200
FY 7
20
08
FY
Pendency, months
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Challenge
FY1994-FY2008 BPAI Pendency
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
May 29, 2008
8
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Challenge
FY 2008 Cumulative Pendency
12.0
Pendency, months
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
FY 2008
Number
of
Appeals
2511
500
500
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
It will not be until May 2008 that these appeals
will be mailed by BPAI
Appeals docketed in Oct 2007 will not be mailed
until June/July 2008------------------------------>
Appeals docketed in Nov 2007 will not be mailed until
August/September 2008---------------------------------------->
500
500
May 29, 2008
Appeals docketed after Nov 2007 will not be mailed until
FY2009
9
Sep
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Challenge
Ex Parte Workload Increases
12000
Projected Effect of
Examining Corps
Initiatives on Ex Parte
Appeals Workload
No. of Docketed Appeals
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
FY 2008
FY 2009
FY 2010
FY 2011
Fiscal Year
May 29, 2008
10
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Action Plan
Hiring
Administrative Patent Judges (APJs)
Patent Attorneys (PAs)
Management Structure Changes
Streamline the Trial Division
Implement APJ/PA program
Increase Efficiency
ACTS Releases
Improve Efficiency in Writing Appeal Decisions
Ex Parte Board Rules
May 29, 2008
11
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Appeals Division
Biotechnology Section
Chemical Section
Communications/Electrical Section
Computer Section
Mechanical/Business Methods Section
Eric Grimes (LAPJ)
Bradley Garris (LAPJ)
Kenneth Hairston (LAPJ)
Allen MacDonald (LAPJ)
Linda Horner(LAPJ)
Catherine Joyce (PA)
Michael Colaiani (APJ)
Eleni Mantis-Mercader (PA)
Glen Choi (PA)
Jennifer Bahr (APJ)
Stefan Staicovici (PA)
Romulo Delmendo (APJ)
Donald Adams (APJ)
Michael Hayes (PA)
Jeffrey Fredman (APJ)
Lora Green (APJ)
Linda Gaudette (APJ)
Richard Ward (PA)
Richard Lebovitz (APJ)
Melanie McCollum (APJ)
Demetra Mills (APJ)
Karen Hastings (APJ)
Scott Boalick (APJ)
Lance Barry (APJ)
Muriel Crawford (APJ)
Karl Easthom (APJ)
Howard Blankenship (APJ)
Anton Fetting (APJ)
Anita Gross (APJ)
St. John Courtenay III (APJ)
Marc Hoff (APJ)
John Jeffery (APJ)
Denise Pothier (PA)
Edward Kimlin (APJ)
Joseph Fischetti (APJ)
David Brown (PA)
John Kerins (APJ)
Thu Dang (APJ)
Hubert Lorin (APJ)
Joseph Dixon (APJ)
Steven McCarthy (APJ)
Jean Homere (APJ)
Jean Homere (APJ)
Jay Lucas (APJ)
Bibhu Mohanty (APJ)
Stephen Siu (APJ)
Michael O'Neill (APJ)
Carolyn Thomas (APJ)
Terry Owens (APJ)
James Thomas (APJ)
William Pate III (APJ)
Carla Krivak (APJ)
Francisco Prats (APJ)
Peter Kratz (APJ)
Robert Nappi (APJ)
Toni Scheiner (APJ)
Chung Pak (APJ)
Jonathan Johnson, Jr. (PA)
Joseph Ruggiero (APJ)
Jeffrey Robertson (APJ)
Mashid Saadat (APJ)
Jeffrey Smith (APJ)
Kevin Turner (APJ)
Catherine Timm (APJ)
Ralph Varndell, Jr. (APJ)
Rae Lynn Guest (PA)
Daniel Song (PA)
David Walker (APJ)
Thomas Waltz (APJ)
John Giblin, Jr. (PA)
May 29, 2008
12
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Trial Division
James Moore (LAPJ)
Erica Franklin (PA)
Contested Cases Section
Lee Barrett (APJ)
Interference Section
Sally Lane (APJ)
Debora Katz (PA)
Teddy Gron (APJ)
Jameson Lee (APJ)
Adriene Hanlon (APJ)
John Martin (APJ)
Josiah Cocks (PA)
Sally Medley (APJ)
Kristen Droesch (PA)
Mark Nagumo (APJ)
Richard Schafer (APJ)
Carol Spiegel (APJ)
Doug McGinty (PA)
Michael Tierney (APJ)
Richard Torczon (APJ)
Edward Clancy (PA)
May 29, 2008
13
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
May 29, 2008
14
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Enhance Flexibility
Proposed Ex Parte Appeal Rules
Reduce the time between filing of
Notice of Appeal to Entry of
Docketing Notice at the Board
Improve Appeal Process
Improve Briefing
May 29, 2008
15
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Enhance Flexibility
Proposed Ex Parte Appeal Rules
Reduce the time between filing of
Notice of Appeal to Entry of Docketing
Notice at the Board
No New Ground of Rejection in the
Examiner’s Answer
No Supplemental Examiner’s Answer
Reduce the likelihood of a Return
May 29, 2008
16
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Enhance Flexibility
Proposed Ex Parte Appeal Rules
Reduce Administrative Returns of Appeal Briefs
Determination of Non-Compliance – Examiners will check for presence
of elements only, not substance of elements
For many matters, if element is not present, presumption is that it
does not exist, i.e., Real Party in Interest, Related Appeals, Evidence
Appendix
For other matters, the element must be present, but the Examiner will
not hold the Brief defective if he/she disagrees with the statement of
the element, i.e., Jurisdictional Statement, Table of Contents, Table of
Authorities, Statement of Facts, Claims and Drawing Support
Appendix, Means Analysis Appendix (when applicable)
May 29, 2008
17
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Patent Appeal Timeline
(Present Appeal Rules)
2-7 months
Notice of
Appeal
Filed
3.5 months
Appeal
Brief
Entered
2 months
Examiner's
Answer
Mailed
Reply
Brief Filed
3.5 months
2 months
Reply Brief Noted
OR
Supplemental
Examiner's Answer
Mailed
1-2 months
Reply to
Supplemental
Examiner's
Answer
BPAI Pendency
Docketing
Notice Mailed
BPAI
Decision
Total Minimum Time to Docketing: 14 months
Total Maximum Time to Docketing: 20 months
May 29, 2008
18
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Patent Appeal Timeline
(New Appeal Rules)
2-7 months
Notice of
Appeal
Filed
3.5 months
Appeal
Brief
Entered
2 months
Examiner's
Answer
Mailed
1-2 months
Reply
Brief Filed
BPAI Pendency
Docketing
Notice
Mailed
BPAI
Decision
Total Minimum Time to Docketing: 8.5 months
Total Maximum Time to Docketing: 14.5 months
May 29, 2008
19
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Enhance Flexibility
Proposed Ex Parte Appeal Rules
Improve Process
Focus on dispute
Appellant is to establish that examiner erred
Appellant is to identify new arguments in
the appeal brief
Appellant is to reference page number of
the document of record for facts
Aid and improve Patent Corps’ Appeal
Conference Program
May 29, 2008
20
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Enhance Flexibility
Proposed Ex Parte Appeal Rules
Improve Briefing – Appeal Brief
Statement of facts
Argument
Focus on why the examiner erred
Address all points made by examiner
Format of Argument – identify the point and indicate where
the Appellant previously responded to the point
Brief format requirement
Page limitation
Double spacing and font size
Appendix
Pending claims and status
Claim support - map claims argued separately to specification
Evidence section – affidavits and declarations
May 29, 2008
21
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Establishing Best Practices
Publication of Board Decisions
Precedential
Informative
Routine
All Published on Board Website
May 29, 2008
22
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Establishing Best Practices
Precedential Decisions
Binding on Board
Procedure for becoming
precedential set forth in SOP 2
May 29, 2008
23
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Recent Precedential Decisions
Ex parte Kubin, 83 USPQ2d 1410 (BPAI 2007)
(expanded panel) (obvious to try).
Ex parte Smith, 83 USPQ2d 1509 (BPAI 2007)
(expanded panel) (predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established
functions).
Ex parte Catan, 83 USPQ2d 1569 (BPAI 2007)
(expanded panel) (precise teaching of
teaching, suggestion or motivation not
required).
May 29, 2008
24
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Recent Precedential Decisions
Ex Parte Nehls, Appeal No. 2007-1823, 2008 WL
258370 (BPAI January 28, 2008) (expanded panel)
(utility must be “substantial” and “specific”;
nonfunctional descriptive material).
Ex parte Letts, Appeal No. 2007-1392, 2008 WL
275515 (BPAI January 31, 2008) (expanded panel)
(BPAI will not accede to a conditional withdrawal
of a claim on appeal).
May 29, 2008
25
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Recent Precedential Decisions
Ex parte Fu, Appeal No. 2008-0601, 2008 WL 867826
(BPAI March 31, 2008) (expanded panel) (one skilled
in the art would anticipate success in substituting one
species for its genus where the genus contains a
limited number of species, citing KSR).
Ex parte Ghuman, Appeal No. 2008-1175 (BPAI May 1,
2008) (expanded panel) (rejected claims not appealed
are considered withdrawn and subject to cancellation
by examiner).
May 29, 2008
26
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Establishing Best Practices
Informative Decisions
Not Binding on Board or Examiners
Illustrative of Board Norms – Addressing:
Best Practices
Reoccurring Problems
Developing Areas of Law
Citable by commercial reporting service or
URL from BPAI website
May 29, 2008
27
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Recently Posted Informative Decisions
Obviousness
Ex parte McBrearty, Appeal No. 2007-1340 (BPAI July 27, 2007)
(application of § 103).
Ex parte Wright, Appeal No. 2006-0003 (BPAI April 6, 2006)
(consideration of secondary indicia of non–obviousness).
Ex parte Jud, Appeal No. 2006-1061 (BPAI January 30, 2007)
(determination of ordinary skill in the art).
Ex parte Dart , Appeal No. 2007-1325, 2007 WL 2399840
(BPAI Aug. 22, 2007) (person skilled in the art uses known
elements for their intended purpose).
Ex parte Righi, Appeal No. 2007-0590 (BPAI July 25, 2007)
(combination of known elements combined according to known
methods yielding predictable results is likely obvious).
Ex parte Tullis, Appeal No. 2006-0210 (BPAI May 17, 2006)
(obviousness-type double patenting).
May 29, 2008
28
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Recently Posted Informative Decisions
35 U.S.C. § 102
Ex parte May, Appeal No. 2006-1776 (BPAI April 30,
2007) (prior art date of published application is
earliest effective U.S. filing date).
Ex parte Batteux, Appeal No. 2007-0622 (BPAI March
27, 2007) (inherent feature of reference need not be
recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art).
Ex parte Ashkenazi, 80 USPQ2d 1753 (BPAI 2005)
(disclosure requirements the same for § 102(b) and §
102(e) references).
May 29, 2008
29
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Recently Posted Informative Decisions
Reissue
Ex parte Kraus, Appeal No. 2005-0841 (BPAI
September 21, 2005) (reissue recapture rule).
Ex parte Liebermann, Appeal No. 2007-0012 (BPAI
May 17, 2007) (reissue recapture rule).
Ex parte Wellerdieck, Appeal No. 2007-1119 (BPAI
May 4, 2007) (term of patent cannot be expanded
by reissue).
Ex parte Bradshaw, Appeal No. 2006-2744 (BPAI
July 19, 2007) (reissue recapture rule).
Ex parte Adams, Appeal No. 2007-0441 (BPAI
March 14, 2007) (error made by examiner’s
amendment – claim indefinite – not correctable by
broadening reissue).
May 29, 2008
30
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Recently Posted Informative Decisions
Written Description
Ex parte Gleave, 84 USPQ2d 1681 (BPAI 2006)
aff’d 210 Fed. App’x 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Rule 36)
(claim defining composition in functional terms is
defective under written description requirement of
§ 112, ¶ 1).
Ex parte Srinivasan, Appeal No. 2007-0512 (BPAI
May 1, 2007) (written description requirement
under § 112, ¶ 1).
May 29, 2008
31
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Recently Posted Informative Decisions
Nonfunctional Descriptive Material
Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI
2005) aff’d 191 Fed. App’x 959 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (Rule 36) (nonfunctional descriptive
material).
Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI
2005) aff’d No. 06-1003 (Fed. Cir. June 12,
2006) (Rule 36) (non-functional descriptive
material).
May 29, 2008
32
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Recently Posted Informative Decisions
Statutory Subject Matter
Ex parte Bilski, Appeal No. 2002-2257,
2006 WL 4080055 (BPAI Sep. 26, 2006)
(non-statutory subject matter) (appeal
pending at Federal Circuit, Appeal No.
2007-1130, en banc oral argument May 8,
2008).
Ex parte Shealy, Appeal No. 2006-1601,
2007 WL 1196758 (BPAI Apr. 23, 2007)
(non-statutory subject matter).
May 29, 2008
33
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Recently Posted Informative Decisions
Interferences
Karim v. Jobson, Int. No. 105,376, WL
630,220 (BPAI Feb. 28,2007) (Board has
discretion to decide patentability issues
presented that are not required for deciding
priority).
Rowells v. Vichinsky, Int. No. 105,518 (BPAI
Mar. 6, 2007) (derivation must be supported
by corroborated communication of invention
to opposing party)
May 29, 2008
34
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Recently Posted Informative Decisions
Interferences
Perego v. Drehmel, Int. No. 105,467 (BPAI
Mar. 9, 2007) (supplemental exhibit should be
numbered the same as original exhibit).
Guthrie v. Espiau, Int. No. 105,393 (BPAI
Apr. 18, 2007) (derivation from opposing
party is a priority issue).
Ashurst v. Brugger, Int. No. 105,482 (BPAI
Aug. 25, 2007) (standard for granting
discovery requests is high and requires
specific bases for expecting the discovery will
be productive).
May 29, 2008
35
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Recently Posted Informative Decisions
Interferences
Rabbani v. Notomi, Int. Nos. 105,427
and 105,432 (BPAI Jan. 25, 2008) (on
motions for priority, new evidence not
permitted with reply brief).
LaLonde v. Li, Int. No. 105,607 (BPAI
Mar. 19, 2008) (party may not reserve
right to modify its motions list).
May 29, 2008
36
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Establishing Best Practices
Routine Decisions
All Other Board Decisions (Great
Majority)
Citable for Whatever Persuasive
Value They May Have
Should be Cited Sparingly
May 29, 2008
37
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Questions
May 29, 2008
38