Proposal 1 Under Pillar 1: OPQA Review
Richard B. Almon
Use PTO’s Critics to Enhance Patent Quality
Donald L. Champagne
Opening the Prosecution History’s Black Box
Bernard Chao
Adding to PLUS: The Promise of Automated Pre-Examination Search
Andrew Chin
Common Knowledge and Non-Patent Literature in the Internet Age
Jorge L. Contreras
Provisional Patent Applications as Prior Art
Dennis Crouch
Re: Comments in response to USPTO’s Request for Comments on Enhancing Patent Quality
Tracy Durkin, Daniel A. Gajewski
Revising Patent Examiner’s Time Allocations
Michael D. Frakes, Melissa F. Wasserman
Reducing Patent Application Backlog to Improve Patent Quality
Michael D. Frakes, Melissa F. Wasserman
In Person Interview Capability with All Examiners
Thomas Franklin
Improving Patent Examination at the US Patent and Trademark Office
David J. French
“Final” Versus “Non-Final” Office Action
Kate S. Gaudry
Pre-Search Interview Program
Kate S. Gaudry
Regarding USPTO Proposal 2: Automated Pre-Examination Search
Adam J. Gianola
Proposal: Training for Examiners on Compact Prosecution—Interview/Mediation Training
Adam J. Gianola
Standardizing Patent Examiner Training and Qualifications
H. Whei Hsueh
Untitled
Raph Younghoon Kim, Sarah Frank, and Alexandra El-Bayeh
Comment Regarding USPTO Proposal 3: Clarity of Record
Matthew T. Kitces
Taking Functional Claiming Seriously
Mark A. Lemley
To Improve Patent Quality, Let’s Use Fees to Weed Out Weak Patents
Brian J. Love
Re: Comments and proposals for improving patent quality
Bernadette Marshall
Promoting Patent Claim Clarity
Peter S. Menell
Improving the Compact Prosecution Model through a Count Deduction System
C. Wook Pak, Mark D. Nielse
Untitled
David L. Schwartz
Focus on Economically Important Patent Applications to Enhance Patent Quality
Ted Sichelman
Comments on Pillar 1, Proposal 2: Preventing the Potential Perils Associated with Automated Pre-Examination Search
Brenda M. Simon