-present and future perspectives- -challenges- -enhance

May 29, 2008 1

The Patent Lawyers Club of Washington

Michael R. FlemingChief Administrative Patent JudgeBoard of Patent Appeals and Interferences571-272-9797

-Present and Future Perspectives--Challenges-

-Enhance Flexibility--Best Practices-

May 29, 2008 2


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


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


Ex Parte Results by TC for FY 08 (cumulative as of March 2008)

FY 2008 CUMULATIVE DISPOSITIONS

PENDING APPEALS PENDING INCREASE/ PERCENT

TECHNOLOGY R BEGINNING RECEIVED PANEL ADMINISTRATIVE END DECREASE OF CASE

CENTER R FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR AFFIRMED AFFIRMED-IN-PART REVERSED REMANDS REMANDS DISMISSED TOTAL FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR WORKLOAD

1600 o 258 161 134 12 68 6 2 10 232 187 -71 6.5

1700 o 266 428 277 42 90 12 0 2 423 271 5 9.5

2100 o 547 628 216 52 93 14 0 2 377 798 251 27.9

2600 o 348 227 153 40 78 2 1 3 277 298 -50 10.4

2800 o 254 188 103 20 41 7 0 2 173 269 15 9.4

2900 o 13 6 3 0 1 1 0 0 5 14 1 0.5

3600 o 562 489 175 76 114 14 5 9 393 658 96 23.0

3700 o 253 356 150 43 58 9 1 9 270 339 86 11.9

3900 o 10 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

DispositionAFFIRMED 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


Ex Parte ProductionMid-Year End of Year

FY2007 Actual 1405 3485

FY2008 2160 5200% Increase in Production over FY2007

54% 49%

* Projected

*

*

May 29, 2008 6


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


Challenge

Record Years for BPAI Receipts

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

FY1995 FY1996 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008

Rece

ipts

Workload Increase: Record Years for BPAI Receipts

7,0004,6393,3493,6074,318Receipts

FY2008FY2007FY2006FY1996FY1995

May 29, 2008 8


ChallengeFY1994-FY2008 BPAI Pendency

05

1015202530354045

FY1994

FY1995

FY1996

FY1997

FY1998

FY1999

FY2000

FY2001

FY2002

FY2003

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

FY2007

Mid FY20

08P

ende

ncy,

mon

ths

May 29, 2008 9


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

Pen

denc

y, m

onths

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


0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

Fiscal Year

No.

of D

ocke

ted

App

eals

Ex Parte Workload Increases

Projected Effect of Examining Corps Initiatives on Ex Parte Appeals Workload

Challenge

May 29, 2008 11


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


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


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


May 29, 2008 15


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


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



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


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


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



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



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


Establishing Best Practices

Publication of Board DecisionsPrecedentialInformativeRoutineAll Published on Board Website

May 29, 2008 23



Precedential DecisionsBinding on BoardProcedure for becoming precedential set forth in SOP 2

May 29, 2008 24


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


Recent Precedential DecisionsEx 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


Recent Precedential DecisionsEx 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


Informative DecisionsNot Binding on Board or ExaminersIllustrative of Board Norms – Addressing:

Best PracticesReoccurring ProblemsDeveloping Areas of Law

Citable by commercial reporting service or URL from BPAI website


May 29, 2008 28


Recently Posted Informative DecisionsObviousness

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


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


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


Recently Posted Informative DecisionsWritten 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


Recently Posted Informative DecisionsNonfunctional 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


Recently Posted Informative DecisionsStatutory 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


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



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



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


Routine DecisionsAll Other Board Decisions (Great Majority)Citable for Whatever Persuasive Value They May HaveShould be Cited Sparingly


May 29, 2008 38


Questions

-present and future perspectives- -challenges- -enhance

Documents