PTO Publishes Comments on Proposed BPAI Rules

Because of the expected increase of appeals to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the “Board”), the Patent Office has proposed a new set of rules governing practice before the Board. [Proposed Rules]. The PTO received over fifty comments from the public — mostly negative.  As it turns out, the rules appear to primarily serve as a roadblock to appeals — either by raising costs or creating procedural stumbling blocks.  The extra rules are especially shocking when you consider that the vast majority of appeals filed never reach the BPAI. Rather, even after the applicant files an appeal brief, most cases are re-opened by the Examiner who either allows the case or re-opens prosection. [cite]

In its letter to the PTO, the AIPLA noted problems with the new rules:

Some of these new requirements … do not appear to address any specific problem being experienced by the Board, and would simply add additional formal requirements that would increase the burden and costs of preparing an appeal brief, and lead to even more disputes over compliance of an appeal brief with the many formalities already required.

Intellectual Ventures said it more forcefully:

The proposed new rules are onesided and will serve as a significant hurdle to a patent applicant in pursuing their statutory right of an appeal to the BPAI. Many of the proposed changes run counter to the patent statute and improperly attempt to transfer responsibilities and shift burdens of proof from the USPTO to applicants. … Since the agency is forcing more appeals, the appeal process should be reformed to make appeals easier and less expensive to prepare rather than make appeals more expensive and burdensome as in the proposal.

Some Examples:

• Proposed Rule 41.37(q) and (r): would require applicants to identify for every argued claim where every claim limitation finds support in the specification and is illustrated in the drawings — even where a claim limitation is not at issue in the appeal. This requirement only raises the cost of preparing an appeal brief.
• Proposed Rule 41.37(o)(7): Would require applicant to provide an explanation of patentability when obviousness is asserted. There may be some policy reasons for requiring this. However, under current law, the applicant is not required to prove patentability — rather, the applicant only needs to poke holes in the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness.  

In its comments, the Adams law firm of New Mexico noted a recent Patently-O posting on BPAI delay — and suggested that briefs should be submitted directly to the BPAI — not to examiners for their initial review.  

David Boundy - writing for CantorFitz – debated whether these rules are actually ‘procedural.’

When combined, the various limits imposed in the propped Appeal Rule accumulate to a substantive denial of an applicant’s right to a fair and efficient appellate review. Increased fonts [14 point], decreased page limits [25 pages], added material that must be included, no limits on the amount of material that an Examiner can present, and a draconian remedy for failing to address every point raised by an Examiner – all make one question the motivation for these proposed changes. At some point, a collection of “procedural” limits becomes so stringent that they amount to a “substantive” limit on the ability to prosecute an application.

A. Intellectual Property Organizations and Government Agencies

1. American Bar Association (ABA) [PDF]
2. American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) [PDF]
3. Bar Association District Columbia (BADC) [PDF]
4. Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) [PDF]
5. BIOCOM [PDF]
6. Minnesota Intellectual Property Law Association (MIPLA) [PDF]
7. National Association of Patent Practitioners (NAPP) [PDF]
8. Washington State Patent Law Association [DOC]

B. Corporations and Associations

1. 3M Innovative Properties Company (3M IPC) [PDF]
2. Alkermes, Inc. [PDF]
3. Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. [PDF]
4. Intellectual Ventures (IV) [PDF]
5. Ceres [PDF]
6. Cantor Fitzgerald L.P. [PDF]
7. Eastman Kodak Company [PDF]
8. Eli Lilly and Company [PDF]
9. IBM Corporation [DOC]
10. Microsoft Corporation [DOC]
11. Wyeth [DOC]

C. Law Firm

1. Adams Law Firm Co. [PDF]
2. Greenblum & Bernstein, P.L.C. [PDF]

D. Individuals

1. Aaronson, Larry [DOC]
2. Alstadt, Lynn, J. [DOC]
3. Baker, Daniel [DOC]
4. Calvert, Ian, A. [DOC]
5. Cermank, Adam, J. [DOC]
6. Dolce, Marcus, P. [PDF]
7. Golladay, James, E., II [PDF]
8. Haynes, Michael [PDF]
9. Hoover, Allen, E. [DOC]
10. Hyatt, Gilbert P. (comments) [PDF]
11. Hyatt, Gilbert P. (appendix) [PDF]
12. Hyatt, Gilbert P. (comments) [PDF]
13. Hyatt, Gilbert P. (appendix) [PDF]
14. Hyatt, Gilbert P. [PDF]
15. Jocke, Ralph, E. [PDF]
16. Keegan, Robert, R. [DOC]
17. Katznelson, Ron, D. [PDF]
18. Marshall, Bob [DOC]
19. Meirs, Raymond, C. Jr.. [DOC]
20. Miller, Jerry, A. [PDF]
21. Moore, Steven, J. [DOC]
22. Moore, Steven, J. [DOC]
23. Mullen, James, J. [PDF]
24. Murashige, Kate, H. [PDF]
25. Paul, Scott, D. [PDF]
26. Reeves, Nancy, L. [DOC]
27. Schideler, Blynn, L. [DOC]
28. Steinkraus, Walter, J. [PDF]
29. Svensson, Leonard [PDF]

Comments

[Lionel Hutz]

I just want to chime in and say that Mr. Hyatt's practices are irrelevant to the accuracy of any comments he has made on the new rules. Whether he is a victim or a slimy manipulator of the patent system, why doesn't everyone address his argument rather than his person?

[ironicslip]

thank you

point is, his argument IS the answer.

[Michael L. Slonecker]

Having reviewed Mr. Hyatt's comments, it is clear to me that he has a firm grasp of the "system" and his comments are on the mark (quite unlike the blather coming from senior management at the USPTO).

Merely as an intellectual exercise, can anyone identify who among the senior management of the USPTO is registered to practice before the Office? Mr. Hyatt has been since 1975, but what about his "detractors" comprising the USPTO's senior management?

[Malcolm Mooney]

"why doesn't everyone address his argument rather than his person?"

The answer, Einstein, is: this is about politics, not science or math.