Comments on Pillar 1, Proposal 2: Preventing the Potential Perils Associated with Automated Pre-Examination Search

Brenda M. Simon The quality of prior art located for a given application is limited by ability and … Continue Reading

Focus on Economically Important Patent Applications to Enhance Patent Quality

Ted Sichelman Currently, the USPTO essentially treats every patent application as if each were “created equal.” However, from … Continue Reading

Untitled

We greatly appreciate the USPTO’s outreach to the community in its efforts to enhance patent quality. We write … Continue Reading

Improving the Compact Prosecution Model through a Count Deduction System

C. Wook Pak and Mark D. Nielsen The compact prosecution model has yet to be achieved because examiners, … Continue Reading

Re: Comments and proposals for improving patent quality

April 27, 2015 I appreciate the opportunity to submit comments for improving patent quality. The following comments address … Continue Reading

To Improve Patent Quality, Let’s Use Fees to Weed Out Weak Patents

To Improve Patent Quality, Let’s Use Fees to Weed Out Weak Patents Brian J. Love Too often, proposals … Continue Reading

Taking Functional Claiming Seriously

Taking Functional Claiming Seriously Mark A. Lemley I have argued elsewhere that software patentees have been writing patent … Continue Reading

In Person Interview Capability with All Examiners

In Person Interview Capability with All Examiners Thomas Franklin Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP The ability to meet … Continue Reading

“Final” Versus “Non-Final” Office Action

Designations: Roadblocks to Compact Prosecution Kate S. Gaudry Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP The patent office, applicants, and … Continue Reading

Proposal 1 Under Pillar 1: OPQA Review

Proposal 1 Under Pillar 1: OPQA Review Richard B. Almon Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Quality, as conceived … Continue Reading