Hollaar Professor School of Computing University of Utah October 31 200 version Introduction The present system brPage 2br brPage 3br Gaming the measure ie brPage 4br Toward a modern system ubmi ssion of pertinent prior art brPage 5br An incentive ID: 35960
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "Made to Measure How an antiquated perfor..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
MadetoMeasure: Howanantiquatedperformancemeasure leadstobadpatents LeeA.Hollaar Professor,SchoolofComputing UniversityofUtah October 31 ,200 7 version (Thelatestversionofthispapercanbefoundat http://digital - law - online.info/papers/lah/ measure .htm Commentsorsuggestionsonthisproposalshouldbesentto hollaar@cs.utah.edu ) Copyright © 2006,2007byLeeHollaar Introduction Itistimeforthe UnitedStates PatentandTrademarkOffice( USPTO ) to bringitscurrentsystemfordeterminingexaminerperformanceintothe21st Century.Thereisnoneedtocontinuethecurrentcoarse - grained“count” system,whichmayhavemadesensewhenrecordswerekeptwithpaper and pencil,buthasnojustificationnow.Ithasbeensaidthatthemeasure determinesthesystem,andthatiscertainlythecasehere. Equallyarchaicisthepatentfeestructure,developedtomakeiteasyfor anapplicanttodeterminetheamountofthec heckincludedwiththe application.Whilethere isasurchargefor longapplications andclaimsbeyond 20,thatisonlyavery limitedapproximationoftheeffortrequiredtoexamine theapplication. Andeventhosesurchargesaren’tconsideredwhendetermi ning examinerperformance. Inarecentreport, 1 theGovernmentAccountabilityOfficenotedthatthe assumptionstheUSPTOusestocalculatepatentexaminerproductiongoals wereestablishedinthe1970sandhavenotbeenadjustedtoreflectchangesin scie nceandtechnology.OnOctober4,2007,theUSPTOannouncedthatit wouldbeginastudytoreevaluateexaminerproductiongoals. Thispapersuggestschangestoperformancemeasureandapplicationfees thatwillnotonlyimprovetheexaminers’workenvironm ent,butalsoresultin higherqualitypatents. Thepresentsystem Thecurrent“count”systemisdescribedinSection1705oftheManualof PatentExaminingProcedures(MPEP). A nexaminerreceivesonecountfora firstactiononthemeritsforanapplicati on.Thiswillnormallybearejectionof 1 HiringEffortsAreNotSufficienttoReducethePatentApplicationBacklog ,GAO - 07 - 1102,September2007. - 3 - thetimeallottedtoachievethosegoals,and50percentaredissatisfiedwit h howthegoalsarecalculated. 6 Gamingthemeasure Theoriginalcountsystemgavetheexamineracreditforeachsubstantive actionperformed.Butthat rewarded thepiecemealexaminationofan application , sothateachissuewouldbeaddressedinas epara teaction and givetheexamineranothercount.Withtheadventofcompactexaminationof applications,whereallissuesaretobeaddressedinthefirstofficeaction,the changewasmadetothecurrentsystem. R atherthanincreasethecountbypiecemeale xamination, some examiners now increasethepossiblecountforanapplication intwonewways , amplydemonstratinghowthemeasuredeterminesthesystem. First, the examinercan mak e arejection“final,”genera llyonthesecondofficeaction . Thisrequires theapplicanttopayanewfee to continue the examination.This, inturn,allowstheexaminertoreceive a countforthe dispositionoftheoriginal applicationandanotherforthefi rstactiononthemeritsofthe continuing application . Thishadleadt o new USPTOrulesthatwouldlimitthenumberof continuations. 7 Whiletherulemaking proposal note d that“Thecurrentvolume ofcontinuedexaminationfilings – includingbothcontinuingapplicationsand requestsforcontinuedexamination – andduplicative applicationsthatcontain ‘conflicting’orpatentablyindistinctclaims,arehavingacripplingeffectonthe USPTO ’sabilitytoexamine‘new’( i.e. ,non - continuing)applications,” 8 itd id not acknowledgethatpartofthereasonfortheproblemwithconti nuationsmaybe theconsequenceofsomeexaminersgamingthecurrentperformancemeasure. Andthefinalrulesdonothingtoaddressthisaspectoftheproblem. 9 Thesecondwayforanexaminertoincreasethecountsreceivedforan applicationistomakea restrictionrequirement. Eachdivisionalapplication requiresitsownfeesandtheexaminerreceivescountsasifitwereaseparate application. Somepatentpractitionersfeelthatexaminerssometimesissue restrictionrequirementstoforceanapplicantt ofileadditionalapplicationsto providetheopportunityforadditional credits forexamin ingalongorcomplex application . 10 Thatalso highlightsthedifficult ies causedby thecurrentsystem ofperformancemeasurementandfees. 6 GAO - 07 - 1102,at16. 7 72Fed.Reg.46716(August21,2007). 8 71Fed.Reg.48,49(January3,2006). 9 OnOctober31,2007,theDistrictCourtfortheEasternDistrictofVi rginiaissueda preliminaryinjunction,haltingtheimplementationoftherules.PerhapstheUSPTOwill takethisopportunitytodeveloprulesthatrecognizethatsomeofitsproblemswith continuationsaretheresultofthecurrentexaminerperformanceme asures.Thenew USPTOrulesseemtoignorethattheapplicanthaspaidanadditionalfeetocontinue theexamination,andwhenlookingattheworkloadimposedbyacontinuation,not recognizingthatthatworkloadshouldbelessthanforanewapplicationb ecausethe examinerisalreadyfamiliarwiththeapplication. 10 And,ofcourse,topayanadditionalapplicationfee. - 4 - Towardamodernsystem As theUSPTOhasautomated,ithasbecomeeasiertocollectthe informationneededtobettercreditexaminerswiththeworkthattheyhave performed.Forexample,t heUSPTOalreadycountsthenumberofpagesfor eachdocumentsubmittedbytheapplicant,asc anbeseenintheentriesforthe ImageFileWrapperofanapplication. Withtheadventofelectronicfilingofapplications,many(ifnotmost) applicants nolonger paythe fees by includingacheck withtheirapplication , butbyfurnishingachargecard number.Itnolongermakessensetohaveafee structurethatdoesnotrecognizetheeffortrequiredforaparticularapplication sotheapplicantcaneasilydeterminetheamountofachecktomailwiththe application. Atthesametimeitreformsitsinte rnalperformancemeasuringsystem, the USPTO shouldaskCongressforauthoritytochargeforotherthingswithin thecontrolofanapplicantthatrequireadditionalexaminertime,suchas voluminousinformationdisclosuresthataremorecalculatedtobury the examinerinhopesofaquickinitialingofthesheetforareferencesothatit can’tbeusedinlaterlitigation.The USPTO shouldevenconsider recommendingtoCongresssurchargesforparticulartechnologies,suchas businessmethodpatentswherethe “secondsetofeyes”programhasimproved examinationqualitybutataclearincreaseincost. Toseehowachangetotheexaminerperformancemeasuresandthefees chargedtoapplicantscanprovidesubstantialbenefitsoverthecurrentsystem, considert hesubmissionofpertinentpriorartbytheapplicantandtheeffectof timeandnatureofclaimsduringtheprosecutionofapatentapplication. S ubmi ssionof pertinentpriorart Foratleast threetimesin2006,theUSPTO has triedtoimposea requiremen tforanapplicanttocharacterizethepriorartsubmittedalongwith anapplicationfortheexaminertoconsiderand,infact,arguewhythe inventionasclaimedispatenta bleinlightofthatpriorart. Thefirsttimewasaspartoftheproposed “Changes toPracticeforthe ExaminationofClaimsinPatentApplications ,” 11 wheredocumentdescriptions arerequiredaspartoftheExaminationSupportDocumentrequiredwhenthere aremorethanten representative claimsselectedforinitialexamination. Itshowe dupagaininthe“ ChangestoPracticeforPetitionsinPatent ApplicationsToMakeSpecialandforAcceleratedExamination,” 12 where documentdescriptionsarerequiredaspartoftheAcceleratedSupport Documentthatmustbefiledinordertojumptotheh eadofthemulti - year backlogofpendingapplications,oratleastgototheendoftheother applicationsthathavecutinlinebymeetingalltherequirementsfor “accelerated”examination. Finally,under “ChangestoInformationDisclosureStatement Requ irementsandOtherRelatedMatters , ” 13 documentdescriptions wouldbe 11 71Fed.Reg.61(January3,2006). 12 71Fe d.Reg.36323(June26,2006), 13 71Fed.Reg.38808 ,(July10,2006). - 6 - haveanincentivetosubmitthemostpertinentpriorart(togettheheightened deference) and also adisincentivenottrytoburytheexaminer inpriorart (becausetheywillbepayingforthevolumetheysubmit) . Th esubmissionfees andperformancecreditswillgive theexaminerthetimetoreadandunderstand everydocumentthattheapplicantsubmits. Applicants can alsobenefitfrom providingadescriptionofthesubmittedart,notonlyinasasubstantially - reduce dsubmissionfeebutalsoinhavingtheircharacterizationinfluencethe examiner’sfact - findingwithrespecttothesubmittedart. C laim ingto aidprosecutionefficiency T heUSPTOhasnoted that“applicationswhichcontainalargenumberof claimscontinu etoabsorbaninordinateamountofpatentexaminingresources, astheyareextremelydifficulttoproperlyprocessandexamine. ” 16 But even thoughtheUSPTOcollects additionalfeesforapplicationswithmorethan twentyclaimsorthreeindependentclaims, theydon’tcredittheexaminerfor theextrawork. Surprisingly,thereisnochargemadewhenanexamined - and - rejected claimisreplacedbyanewclaim ,eventhoughthismayrequireacompletely newsearchbytheexaminer(unlesstheexaminercanissuea finalofficeaction andmaketheapplicantpayforcontinuedprosecution). A ndexceptforthedistinctionbetweenindependentanddependentclaims, thereisnodifferenceinthefeeforaclaimregardlessofwhetheritsformmakes examinationmoredifficul t. Forexample,a Markush - typeclaim may requirethe searchingforpriorartforallthealternativesgivenintheclaimelementthat hasalternatives,yetitistreatedasanyotherclaiminsteadofrecognizingthe extraworkrequiredasisdoneforamul tipledependantclaim. 17 Again,while thismadesensewhenitwasnecessarytohaveasimplifiedfeesystemsothat anapplicantcoulddeterminetheamountofthechecktomailwiththe application,thismakeslittlesensetoday. Specialtreatmentforafter - allowanceclaims TheUSPTOhasnoted: The Office’scurrentpracticeforexaminationofclaimsinpatent applicationsprovidesforaninitialexaminationofeachandevery claim,independentanddependent,ineveryOfficeactiononthe meritsoftheapplic ation.TheOffice’scurrentpracticefor examinationofclaimsinpatentapplicationsislessefficientthan itcouldbebecauseitrequiresaninitialpatentability examinationofeveryclaiminanapplication,notwithstanding thatthiseffortiswastedw henthepatentabilityofthedependent claimsstandorfalltogetherwiththeindependentclaimfrom whichtheydirectlyorindirectlydepend.Thus,theOfficeis misunderstandingleadtotheheightenedevidentiaryrequirementinpatentlitigation,” http://digital - law - online.info/papers/jk/unclear.htm . 16 71Fed.Reg.at62. 17 TheUSPTOhasrecognizedthisproblem,proposingnewrulesdirectedat Markus - typeclaimsandotherclaimsthatstatealternativesthatrequireadditionalsearchi ng. See72Fed.Reg.44992(August10,2007). - 8 - However,oncethepatentabilityoftheoverallsystemhasbeendetermined, theexaminationofclaimsforthecomponentsisstraightforward,particularlyif theclaimsarewritteninafo rmthatincorporatesthesamelimitationsofthe overallsystemclaims. W hiletheexaminerperformancemeasureshouldbeexpandedtoconsider thenumberofclaimsreviewedbytheexaminerduringtheprosecutionofthe application,becauseofthereducedwo rkfortheexaminerinhandlingafter - allowanceclaims,theyshouldonlyresultinareducedcreditwhencomparedto claimsbeingactivelyprosecuted. Examinationofclaimsets Thereisanotherreasonwhydependentclaimsarepresentedinan application,o nlypartiallyrecognizedbytheUSPTO“representativeclaim” proposal. Theycansubstantiallyaidintheprosecutionoftheapplicationby proposingarangeofalternativesforthebroadestscopeofthepatent,and allowingtheexaminertoindicatewhereh eorshewoulddrawthelinegiventhe priorartlocatedasthefirstofficeactionisbeingprepared. TheUSPTOproposaldiscourage d thisbyrequiringthatanydependent claimsthatarepartofsucha“claimset”bedesignatedasarepresentative claimto beexamined andcounttowardthetenrepresentativeclaimsthatare allowedtobedesignedbeforetheburdensome“examinationsupport document.” Efficiencyinexamination Thisdoesnotrecognizehowaclaimset canbeefficiently examined. Dependentclaim s include additionallimitations andtherefore require additionalsearchingbytheexaminer . Butt he examiner needonly searchfor priorartthatwouldcausetherejectionofthe last,and narrowest ,dependent claim ofth e claimsetandifsuchartwasnot found,determinefromthe referenceswhetheranyofthebroaderclaimsintheset are patentable. Theexaminerwouldindicatethisbyrejectinganyclaimthatis unpatentablebasedonthepriorartfoundinthesearch,butonlyobjectingto thedependent claimsthatwouldbepatentableoverthefoundpriorartand indicatingthattheclaimwouldbepatentableifrewrittenasanindependent claimincorporatingallthelimitationsoftheclaimsonwhichitdepends ,asis alreadythepractice. 20 Theapplicant wouldthencopythoselimitationsintothe dependentclaimandhavethatnewindependentclaimallowed. Ifapplicantsthoughtthattheexaminerhaddrawnthelinetoostrictly, theycouldthenreplybasedonthedifferencesinscopebetweentheallowable a ndrejectedclaimsandhowthoseareaddressedinthepriorart.Ifitwas desirabletoreceiveapatentquickly,theclaimsincontentioncouldbe cancelled,allowancetakenafterrewritingtheobjected - toclaim,anda continuingapplicationfiledcontain ingtheclaimsincontentionandaterminal disclaimer. ThisisexactlythetypeofefficientprosecutiontheUSPTOshouldbe encouragingthoughthefeesforclaims. Aspecialfee,lessthanthecostofa independentclaimandthedependentclaimsinthed esignatedclaimsetshould begivenforeachclaimsetdesignatedbytheapplicant. 20 SeeMPEP608.01(n)V. - 9 - Replacingmostdivisionalrequirements Theuseofclaimsetsforefficientexaminationcouldsubstantiallyreduce theneedformanyrestrictionrequirements,wheretheexam inermakesthe applicantprosecuteonlyasubsetoftheinitialclaimsandfiledivisional applicationsfortheremainingclaims.Somehavesaidthatthecurrentcount systemencouragesthisasawayforanexaminertogetnotonlytwocountsfor theorigi nalapplication,buttwocountsforeachdivisionalapplication. T hemostcommonrestrictionrequirementiswhentwoformsofthesame inventionareclaimedwithoutalsoclaimingonlythecommonelementsofthose forms(speciesclaimswithnogenusclaim), orwhentwodifferentclassesof inventionareclaimedsuchasacompositionofmatterandaparticularmethod ofusingthatcompositionofmatter. Forexample,arestrictionrequirementmaybeproperifoneclaimhas elementsA,B,andCandanotherclai mhaselementsA,B,andD,butonlyif thereisalsonotaclaimwithelementsAandB.ButwhethertheA,Bclaimis presentornot,theexaminerhastosearchforpriorartforboththoseelements anduse s theresultsforexaminingboththeA,B,Candthe A,B,Dclaims.The requirementfordivisionalapplicationstoincreasefeesandprovideadditional creditfortheexaminerisfartoocoarse - grained. Theuseofclaimsetscanprovideanalternativetorestriction requirementsasawaytoincreasefeesand examinercounts.ClaimsA,B,Cand A,B,Dwouldbeindifferentclaimsets,andrequireseparatefees.(Theclaimset includingA,B,CcouldbeindependentclaimA,dependentclaimA,BaddingBto claimA,anddependentclaimA,B,CaddingCtoclaimA,B.) T h ereshouldbe somereductioninthefeesrecognizingthatbothclaimsAandA,Barepartof bothclaimsets. AproblemfromtheFederalCircuit Butthatmanynotbeenoughtoencouragethishelpfulwayofclaiming. UndertheFederalCircuit’sopinionin Ho neywellv.HamiltonSundstrand , 21 restatingadependentclaiminindependentformbysimplycopyingallthe limitationsofitsparentclaimsisanarrowingamendment,andthereforea surrenderofthedoctrineofequivalents. Thisproblemcanbeavoidedbyw ritingalltheclaimstobeconsideredin independentform(andpayingaslightly - higherfee) , since cancellationofclaims notpatentable should notprejudicetheallowableindependentclaims,which wouldhaveapossiblescopeundertodoctrineofequival entsuptotherejected claims.Buttheexaminationiscomplicatedbecausetheexaminermustnow determinehowoneindependentclaimdiffersfromanother.Ifoneissimplya copyofanotherwithalimitationadded(aswouldbethecasewithadependent cla im),thenthisonlyrequiresaword - for - wordchecktodeterminewhathas beencopied.However,iftheclaimisstated somewhat differently,itmayrequire aseparatesearchstrategyonthepartoftheexaminer. TheUSPTOshouldworkwithotherinterestedp artiestohaveCongress legislativelyoverturntheFederalCircuit’s Honeywel ldecision,becausethe advantagetothelong - standingpracticeofusingdependentclaimstomake examinationmoreefficientshouldbepromoted,notpenalized. 21 370F.3d1131,71USPQ2d1065(Fed.Cir.2004). - 11 - theotherclassesthroughsimpledependentclaims isused.Forexample,if claim1isintheform: 1.Amethodoperatingonadigitalcomputer,themethod comprising: [Steponeofthemethod]; [Steptwoofthemethod]; . . .;and [Thelaststepofthemethod]. Then,withboilerplatesupporti nthespecifications,theapparatusand articleofmanufacturecanbeclaimedas: 2.Adigitalcomputersystemprogrammedtoperformthemethod ofclaim1. 3.Acomputer - readablemediumstoringacomputerprogram implementingthemethodofclaim1. T hecla imsareclearlypresentedinawaythathelpstheexaminerby highlightingthepatentableaspectsbeingclaimed(theparticularmethod)and requireslittleadditionalworkfortheothertwostatutoryclasses.Suchclaiming sho uldbeencouragedbytheUSPTO ,perhapsbynotcharging for dependent claimsintheformabove. Suchclaimsoutwardlyresemble“product - by - process”claims: 1.Amethodformanufacturing[product],themethod comprising: [Steponeofthemethod]; [Steptwoofthemethod]; . . . ;and [Thelaststepofthemethod]. 2.Theproductoftheprocessofclaim1. However,whilethecross - classclaimsforthesoftwaretechniquerequire noadditionalsearchandonlyneedtobeexaminedastoform,becausetheir noveltyandnonobviousnes sdependsolelyonthemethodclaim,theoppositeis trueforproduct - by - processclaims.AsnotedintheMPEP,“Thelackofphysical descriptioninaproduct - by - processclaimmakesdeterminationofthe patentabilityoftheclaimmoredifficult,sinceinsp iteofthefactthattheclaim mayreciteonlyprocesslimitations,itisthepatentabilityoftheproductclaimed andnotoftherecitedprocessstepswhichmustbeestablished.” 25 However,newUSPTOrulesactuallypenalizethisformofclaimingby treatin gsuchdependentclaimsasiftheywerereallyindependentclaims. 26 Thatmeansthatsuchdependentclaimswouldbecountedtowardthefive independentclaimsbeyondwhichanexaminationsupportdocumentmustbe filed,notjusttowardthe25totalclaims. 27 Whilebothtypesofcross - classclaimsaredependentclaimsnowentitled toalowerfee,clearly,theUSPTOshouldchargemore,andprovideappropriate 25 MPEP2113,citing InreBrown ,459 F.2d531,535,173USPQ685,688(CCPA1972). 26 New35CFR1.75(b)(2),secondsentence. 27 TheUSPTOseemedtoignorethisproblemforsoftware - basedinventionsandtheease inwhichitcanbesolvedwithlittleextraworkfortheexaminer,insteaddiscoun tingthe burdensomeeffectoftherequirementforanexaminationsupportdocumentinlimiting thenumberofclaimsanapplicantwillfile.SeeResponsetoComment202,72Fed.Reg. 46794. - 13 - Finally,Congressshould statutorilyoverruletheFederalCircuit’s misguide d decisionin Honeywellv.HamiltonSundstrand byamendingSection 112tomakeitclearthatamendingadependentclaimbyincludingthe limitationsofitsparentclaimsdoesnotaffectdoctrineofequivalents considerations.Thiscouldbedone,forexampl e,bychangingthelastsentence ofthefourthparagraphtoread:“ Aclaimindependentformshallbeconstrued toincorporatebyreferenceallthelimitationsoftheclaimtowhichitrefers ,and anylaterincorporationofthoselimitationsintheclaims hallnotbe considered a n arrowing amendmentofthe claim .” Conclusion Thepresentstatutoryfeestructureandexaminerperformancemeasureis anartifactoftheneedforsimplicitynolongerjustifiedwhencomputerstrack allthematerialsubmittedbythe applicantandcreditcardsareusedto authorizefeepaymentratherthanhavingtodeterminethefeeandattacha checktotheapplication. ButmanyoftheproblemsthattheUSPTOistryingtoaddressthrough recentrulemakingproposals,suchasexcessive claimsandcontinuationsor havingtheapplicantsupplyandcharacterizeprio rart,don’trecognizethat those problemsareartifactsofthecurrentfeestructureandperformance measures. Sincethemeasureoftendeterminesthesystem,therealsolutioni s goingtomeasures – feesandperformancecounts – thatpromotemoreefficient andbetterexamination.