Upload
antonia-hancock
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
May 29, 2008 1
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Michael R. Fleming
Chief Administrative Patent Judge
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
571-272-9797
-Present and Future Perspectives--Challenges-
-Enhance Flexibility--Best Practices-
May 29, 2008 2
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Major AccomplishmentsInterferences
FY 2007 Mid-FY2008 Pendency of Terminated Interferences 10.6 months 13.6 monthsInterferences Terminated ≤ 2 years 92.0% 83.2%Interferences Declared 58 34Interferences Pending 60 59
May 29, 2008 3
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Major AccomplishmentsEx Parte Appeals
FY 2007 End of Year
FY2008 Mid-Year
Pendency 5.4 months 6.6 monthsDisposals 3,485 2,160Docketed 4,639 2,506Pending Appeals 2,511 2,857
May 29, 2008 4
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Ex Parte Results by TC for FY 08 (cumulative as of March 2008)
FY 2008 CUMULATIVE DISPOSITIONS
PENDING APPEALS PENDING INCREASE/ PERCENT
TECHNOLOGY REPORTING BEGINNING RECEIVED PANEL ADMINISTRATIVE END DECREASE OF CASE
CENTER PERIOD FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR AFFIRMED AFFIRMED-IN-PART REVERSED REMANDS REMANDS DISMISSED TOTAL FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR WORKLOAD
160010-1-07 to 3-31-08258 161 134 12 68 6 2 10 232 187 -71 6.5
170010-1-07 to 3-31-08266 428 277 42 90 12 0 2 423 271 5 9.5
210010-1-07 to 3-31-08547 628 216 52 93 14 0 2 377 798 251 27.9
260010-1-07 to 3-31-08348 227 153 40 78 2 1 3 277 298 -50 10.4
280010-1-07 to 3-31-08254 188 103 20 41 7 0 2 173 269 15 9.4
290010-1-07 to 3-31-0813 6 3 0 1 1 0 0 5 14 1 0.5
360010-1-07 to 3-31-08562 489 175 76 114 14 5 9 393 658 96 23.0
370010-1-07 to 3-31-08253 356 150 43 58 9 1 9 270 339 86 11.9
390010-1-07 to 3-31-0810 23 6 1 2 0 0 1 10 23 13 0.8
Board Totals 2511 2506 1217 286 545 65 9 38 2160 2857 346 100.0
Disposition
AFFIRMED 56.3%AFFIRMED-IN-PART 13.2%REVERSED 25.2%PANEL REMANDS 3.0%ADMINISTRATIVE REMANDS 0.4%DISMISSED 1.8%
TOTAL 100.0%
% Decisions Fiscal Year to Date
May 29, 2008 5
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Ex Parte Production
Mid-Year End of YearFY2007 Actual 1405 3485
FY2008 2160 5200
% Increase in Production over FY2007
54% 49%
* Projected
*
*
May 29, 2008 6
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
ChallengeWorkload Increase
FY2007 End of Year
FY2008 Mid-Year
FY2008 End of Year*
Docketed Appeals 4639 2506 6000 - 7000
Pending Appeals 2511 2857 3650-4650
May 29, 2008 7
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Challenge
Record Years for BPAI Receipts
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
FY1995 FY1996 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
Re
ce
ipts
Workload Increase: Record Years for BPAI Receipts
FY1995
FY1996 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008
Receipts 4,318 3,607 3,349 4,639 7,000
May 29, 2008 8
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
ChallengeFY1994-FY2008 BPAI Pendency
05
1015202530354045
Pe
nd
en
cy
, m
on
ths
May 29, 2008 9
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
ChallengeFY 2008 Cumulative Pendency
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Pe
nd
en
cy
, m
on
ths
Number of
Appeals Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
2511
500
500
500
500
Appeals docketed after Nov 2007 will not be mailed until FY2009
FY 2008
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---------------------------------------->
May 29, 2008 10
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Fiscal Year
No
. o
f D
oc
ke
ted
Ap
pe
als
Ex Parte Workload Increases
Projected Effect of Examining Corps Initiatives on Ex Parte Appeals Workload
Challenge
May 29, 2008 11
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Action PlanHiring
Administrative Patent Judges (APJs)Patent Attorneys (PAs)
Management Structure ChangesStreamline the Trial DivisionImplement APJ/PA program
Increase EfficiencyACTS Releases
Improve Efficiency in Writing Appeal Decisions
Ex Parte Board Rules
May 29, 2008 12
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Appeals Division
Carla Krivak (APJ)
Robert Nappi (APJ)
Joseph Ruggiero (APJ)
Mashid Saadat (APJ)
Kevin Turner (APJ)
Marc Hoff (APJ)
John Jeffery (APJ)
Denise Pothier (PA)
Richard Lebovitz (APJ)
Michael Colaiani (APJ)
Romulo Delmendo (APJ)
Rae Lynn Guest (PA)
John Giblin, Jr. (PA)
Linda Gaudette (APJ)
Karen Hastings (APJ)
Demetra Mills (APJ)
Francisco Prats (APJ)
Toni Scheiner (APJ)
David Walker (APJ)
Biotechnology Section
Eric Grimes (LAPJ)
Catherine Joyce (PA)
Donald Adams (APJ)
Jeffrey Fredman (APJ)
Lora Green (APJ)
Melanie McCollum (APJ)
Michael O'Neill (APJ)
Terry Owens (APJ)
William Pate III (APJ)
Daniel Song (PA)
Hubert Lorin (APJ)
Steven McCarthy (APJ)
Jean Homere (APJ)
Bibhu Mohanty (APJ)
Anton Fetting (APJ)
Joseph Fischetti (APJ)
John Kerins (APJ)
Mechanical/Business Methods Section
Linda Horner(LAPJ)
Muriel Crawford (APJ)
Jennifer Bahr (APJ)
Stefan Staicovici (PA)
James Thomas (APJ)
Carolyn Thomas (APJ)
Stephen Siu (APJ)
Joseph Dixon (APJ)
Jean Homere (APJ)
David Brown (PA)
Thu Dang (APJ)
Jay Lucas (APJ)
Ralph Varndell, Jr. (APJ)
Computer Section
Allen MacDonald (LAPJ)
Glen Choi (PA)
Lance Barry (APJ)
Howard Blankenship (APJ)
St. John Courtenay III (APJ)
Bradley Garris (LAPJ) Kenneth Hairston (LAPJ)
Eleni Mantis-Mercader (PA)
Karl Easthom (APJ)
Anita Gross (APJ)
Edward Kimlin (APJ)
Peter Kratz (APJ)
Communications/Electrical Section
Scott Boalick (APJ)
Chung Pak (APJ)
Jeffrey Robertson (APJ)
Catherine Timm (APJ)
Thomas Waltz (APJ)
Jonathan Johnson, Jr. (PA)
Chemical Section
Jeffrey Smith (APJ)
Michael Hayes (PA)
Richard Ward (PA)
May 29, 2008 13
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Interference Section
Kristen Droesch (PA)
Doug McGinty (PA)
Edward Clancy (PA)
Michael Tierney (APJ)
Richard Torczon (APJ)
James Moore (LAPJ)
Teddy Gron (APJ)
Adriene Hanlon (APJ)
Erica Franklin (PA)
Lee Barrett (APJ)
Debora Katz (PA)
Josiah Cocks (PA)
Contested Cases Section
Carol Spiegel (APJ)
Sally Lane (APJ)
Jameson Lee (APJ)
Sally Medley (APJ)
Richard Schafer (APJ)
John Martin (APJ)
Mark Nagumo (APJ)
Trial Division
May 29, 2008 14
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
May 29, 2008 15
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Enhance FlexibilityProposed Ex Parte Appeal Rules
Reduce the time between filing of Notice of Appeal to Entry of Docketing Notice at the BoardImprove Appeal ProcessImprove Briefing
May 29, 2008 16
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 AnswerNo Supplemental Examiner’s AnswerReduce the likelihood of a Return
May 29, 2008 17
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Enhance Flexibility Proposed Ex Parte Appeal Rules
Reduce Administrative Returns of Appeal BriefsDetermination of Non-Compliance – Examiners will check for presence of elements only, not substance of elementsFor many matters, if element is not present, presumption is that it does not exist, i.e., Real Party in Interest, Related Appeals, Evidence AppendixFor 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 18
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Total Minimum Time to Docketing: 14 months
Total Maximum Time to Docketing: 20 months
Patent Appeal Timeline(Present Appeal Rules)
Reply Brief Filed
Examiner's Answer Mailed
Appeal Brief
Entered
Notice of Appeal Filed
Reply to Supplemental
Examiner's Answer
Reply Brief Noted OR
Supplemental Examiner's Answer
Mailed
2-7 months 3.5 months 2 months 3.5 months
Docketing Notice Mailed
BPAI Decision
2 months 1-2 months BPAI Pendency
May 29, 2008 19
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Total Minimum Time to Docketing: 8.5 months
Total Maximum Time to Docketing: 14.5 months
Patent Appeal Timeline(New Appeal Rules)
Reply Brief Filed
Examiner's Answer Mailed
Appeal Brief
Entered
Notice of Appeal Filed
Docketing Notice Mailed
2-7 months 3.5 months 2 months 1-2 months
BPAI Decision
BPAI Pendency
May 29, 2008 20
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Enhance Flexibility Proposed Ex Parte Appeal Rules
Improve ProcessFocus on disputeAppellant is to establish that examiner erredAppellant is to identify new arguments in the appeal briefAppellant is to reference page number of the document of record for facts Aid and improve Patent Corps’ Appeal Conference Program
May 29, 2008 21
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Enhance Flexibility Proposed Ex Parte Appeal Rules
Improve Briefing – Appeal BriefStatement of factsArgument
Focus on why the examiner erredAddress all points made by examinerFormat of Argument – identify the point and indicate where the Appellant previously responded to the point
Brief format requirementPage limitationDouble spacing and font size
AppendixPending claims and statusClaim support - map claims argued separately to specificationEvidence section – affidavits and declarations
May 29, 2008 22
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Establishing Best Practices
Publication of Board Decisions
PrecedentialInformativeRoutineAll Published on Board Website
May 29, 2008 23
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Establishing Best Practices
•Precedential DecisionsBinding on BoardProcedure for becoming precedential set forth in SOP 2
May 29, 2008 24
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Recent Precedential DecisionsEx 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 25
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 26
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 27
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Informative DecisionsNot Binding on Board or ExaminersIllustrative of Board Norms – Addressing:
Best Practices
Reoccurring Problems
Developing Areas of Law
Citable by commercial reporting service or URL from BPAI website
Establishing Best Practices
May 29, 2008 28
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 29
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 30
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 31
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 32
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 33
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 34
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Recently Posted Informative DecisionsInterferences
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 35
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Recently Posted Informative DecisionsInterferences
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 36
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Recently Posted Informative DecisionsInterferences
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 37
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Routine DecisionsAll Other Board Decisions (Great Majority)
Citable for Whatever Persuasive Value They May Have
Should be Cited Sparingly
Establishing Best Practices
May 29, 2008 38
The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington
Questions