Please use your
key to return to the previous page.
| Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Information |
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Information
For information concerning PCT member countries, see the notice
appearing in the Official Gazette at 1350 O.G. 73, on January 12, 2010.
For information on subject matter under Rule 39 that a particular
International Searching Authority will not search, see Annex D of the PCT
Applicants' Guide.
European Patent Office as Searching and Examining Authority
The European Patent Office (EPO) may act as the International Searching
Authority (ISA) for an international application filed with the United
States Receiving Office or the International Bureau (IB) as Receiving
Office where at least one of the applicants is either a national or
resident of the United States of America. However, the EPO is no longer
a competent ISA, within the meaning of PCT Article 16(3), for
international applications filed by U.S. residents or nationals on or
after March 1, 2002, in the USPTO or IB as a Receiving Office, and where
the application contains one or more claims directed to the field of
business methods. For the definition of what the EPO considers to be
precluded subject matter in the field of business methods, applicants
should see the "Notice from the President of the European Patent
Office", dated November 26, 2001, and which was published as Annex A in
the "Notice Concerning EPO Competence to Act as PCT Authority" in
the Official Gazette at 1255 O.G. 878, on February 19, 2002.
The European Patent Office may act as the International Preliminary
Examining Authority (IPEA) for an international application filed in the
United States Receiving Office or the International Bureau as Receiving
Office where at least one of the applicants is either a national or
resident of the United States of America, provided that the European
Patent Office acted as the International Searching Authority. However,
the EPO is no longer a competent IPEA, within the meaning of PCT Article
32(3), for international applications filed by U.S. residents or nationals
in the USPTO or IB as a Receiving Office where the corresponding demand is
filed with the EPO on or after March 1, 2002, and where the application
contains one or more claims directed to the field of business methods.
The search fee of the European Patent Office was decreased, effective
September 15, 2010, and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1357 O.G.
135, on August 17, 2010.
Korean Intellectual Property Office as Searching and Examining Authority
For use of the Korean Intellectual Property Office as an International
Searching Authority and International Preliminary Examining Authority for
international applications filed in the United States Receiving Office,
see the notice appearing in the Official Gazette at 1302 O.G. 1261 on
January 17, 2006.
The search fee of the Korean Intellectual Property Office was increased,
effective January 1, 2010, and was announced in the Official Gazette at
1350 O.G. 72, on January 12, 2010.
Australian Patent Office as Searching and Examining Authority
The Australian Patent Office (IP Australia) may act as the International
Searching Authority (ISA) for an international application filed with the
United States Receiving Office or the International Bureau (IB) as
Receiving Office where at least one of the applicants is either a national
or resident of the United States of America. However, IP Australia is not a
competent ISA, within the meaning of PCT Artical 16(3), for international
applications filed by U.S. residents or nationals in the USPTO or IB as a
Receiving Office, and where the application contains one or more claims
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 199 |
directed to the field of business methods or mechanical inventions.
IP Australia may act as the International Preliminary Examining
Authority (IPEA) for an international application filed in the United
States Receiving Office or the International Bureau as Receiving Office
where at least one of the applicants is either a national or resident of
the United States of America, provided that IP Australia acted as the
International Searching Authority. However, IP Australia is not a competent
IPEA, within the meaning of PCT Article 32(3), for international
applications filed by U.S. residents or nationals in the USPTO or IB as a
Receiving Office where the corresponding demand is filed with IP Australia
and where the application contains one or more claims directed to the
fields of business methods or mechanical engineering or analogous fields of
technology as defined by specified areas of the International Patent
Classification System, as indicated in Annex A to the agreement between the
USPTO and IP Australia. See the notice appearing in the Official Gazette
at 1337 O.G. 261 on December 23, 2008.
For use of IP Australia as an International Searching Authority and
International Preliminary Examining Authority for international
applications filed in the United States Receiving Office, see the notice
appearing in the Official Gazette at 1337 O.G. 265 on December 23, 2008.
The search fee of IP Australia was increased, effective August 1, 2010,
and was announced in the Official Gazette at 1357 O.G. 135, on August 17,
2010.
Fees
The transmittal fee and search fees for the USPTO were changed,
effective January 12, 2009, and were announced in the Federal Register on
November 12, 2008. The fee for filing a request for the restoration of the
right of priority was established, effective November 9, 2007, and was
announced in the Federal Register on September 10, 2007.
International filing fees were increased, effective November 1, 2010, and
were announced in the Official Gazette at 1360 O.G. 5, on November 2, 2010.
The schedule of PCT fees (in U.S. dollars), as of November 1, 2010, is
as follows:
International Application (PCT Chapter I) fees:
Transmittal fee $240.00
Search fee
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as
International Searching Authority (ISA)
- Search fee $2,080.00
- Supplemental search fee, per additional
invention (payable only upon invitation) $2,080.00
European Patent Office as ISA $2,185.00
Korean Intellectual Property Office as ISA
- for international applications filed in English $1,092.00
IP Australia as ISA $1,605.00
International fees
International filing fee $1,277.00
International filing fee-filed in paper
with PCT EASY zip file or
electronically without PCT EASY zip file $1,181.00
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 200 |
International filing fee-filed
electronically with PCT EASY zip files $1,085.00
Supplemental fee for each page over 30 $14.00
Restoration of Priority
Filing a request for the restoration of the
right of priority under § 1.452 $1,410.00
International Application (PCT Chapter II) fees associated
with filing a Demand for Preliminary Examination:
Handling fee $192.00
Handling fee-90% reduction, if applicants meet criteria
specified at:
http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/fees/fee_reduction.pdf $19.20
Preliminary Examination Fee
USPTO as International Preliminary
Examining Authority (IPEA)
- USPTO was ISA in PCT Chapter I $600.00
- USPTO was not ISA in PCT Chapter I $750.00
- Additional preliminary examination fee,
per additional invention
(payable only upon invitation) $600.00
U.S. National Stage fees (for international applications entering
the U.S. national phase under 35 U.S.C. 371) can be found on the USPTO's
Web site (www.uspto.gov).
October 13, 2010 ROBERT W. BAHR
Acting Associate Commissioner
for Patent Examination Policy
United States Patent and Trademark Office
| Notice of Maintenance Fees Payable |
Notice of Maintenance Fees Payable
Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 1.362(d) provides
that maintenance fees may be paid without surcharge for the six-month
period beginning 3, 7, and 11 years after the date of issue of patents
based on applications filed on or after Dec. 12, 1980. An additional
six-month grace period is provided by 35 U.S.C. 41(b) and 37 CFR 1.362(e)
for payment of the maintenance fee with the surcharge set forth in 37 CFR
1.20(h), as amended effective Dec. 16, 1991. If the maintenance fee is
not paid in the patent requiring such payment the patent will expire on
the 4th, 8th, or 12th anniversary of the grant.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on Nov. 13, 2007
for which maintenance fees due at 3 years and six months may now be paid.
The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges:
Utility Patents 7,293,295 through 7,296,299
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on Nov. 11, 2003
for which maintenance fees due at 7 years and six months may now be paid.
The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges:
Utility Patents 6,643,844 through 6,647,548
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
Attention is drawn to the patents that were issued on Nov. 9, 1999
for which maintenance fees due at 11 years and six months may now be paid.
The patents have patent numbers within the following ranges:
Utility Patents 5,978,960 through 5,983,389
Reissue Patents based on the above identified patents.
No maintenance fees are required for design or plant patents.
Payments of maintenance fees in patents may be submitted electronically
over the Internet at www.uspto.gov. Click on the "Site Index" link at the
top of the homepage (www.uspto.gov), and then scroll down and click on the
"Maintenance Fees" link for more information.
Payments of maintenance fees in patents not submitted electronically
over the Internet should be mailed to "United States Patent and Trademark
Office, P.O. Box 979070, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000".
Correspondence related to maintenance fees other than payments of
maintenance fees in patents is not to be mailed to P.O. Box 979070,
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, but must be mailed to "Mail Stop M
Correspondence, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O.
Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450".
Patent owners must establish small entity status according to 37 CFR
1.27 if they have not done so and if they wish to pay the small entity
amount.
The current amounts of the maintenance fees due at 3 years and six
months, 7 years and six months, and 11 years and six months are set forth
in the most recently amended provisions in 37 CFR 1.20(e)-(g). To obtain
the current maintenance fee amounts, please call the USPTO Contact Center
at (800)-786-9199 or see the current USPTO fee schedule posted on the USPTO
Internet web site. At the top of the USPTO homepage at www.uspto.gov, click
on the "Site Index" link and then scroll down and click on the "Fees,
USPTO" link to find the current USPTO fee schedule.
| Notice of Expiration of Patents Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee |
Notice of Expiration of Patents
Due to Failure to Pay Maintenance Fee
35 U.S.C. 41 and 37 CFR 1.362(g) provide that if the required
maintenance fee and any applicable surcharge are not paid in a patent
requiring such payment, the patent will expire at the end of the 4th, 8th
or 12th anniversary of the grant of the patent depending on the first
maintenance fee which was not paid.
According to the records of the Office, the patents listed below have
expired due to failure to pay the required maintenance fee and any
applicable surcharge.
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON October 6, 2010
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
5,815,849 08/826,580 10/06/98
5,815,856 08/772,018 10/06/98
5,815,857 08/829,950 10/06/98
5,815,860 08/828,648 10/06/98
5,815,866 08/812,456 10/06/98
5,815,874 08/689,918 10/06/98
5,815,877 08/764,098 10/06/98
5,815,886 08/780,209 10/06/98
5,815,887 08/841,926 10/06/98
5,815,888 08/889,148 10/06/98
5,815,905 08/846,441 10/06/98
5,815,909 08/702,734 10/06/98
5,815,910 08/502,398 10/06/98
5,815,911 08/829,341 10/06/98
5,815,914 08/743,124 10/06/98
5,815,922 08/925,989 10/06/98
5,815,923 08/601,504 10/06/98
5,815,933 08/792,702 10/06/98
5,815,935 08/979,076 10/06/98
5,815,938 08/713,414 10/06/98
5,815,942 08/766,774 10/06/98
5,815,945 08/652,549 10/06/98
5,815,946 08/709,252 10/06/98
5,815,952 08/641,874 10/06/98
5,815,961 08/870,668 10/06/98
5,815,964 08/708,755 10/06/98
5,815,965 08/617,389 10/06/98
5,815,975 08/863,439 10/06/98
5,815,980 08/740,433 10/06/98
5,815,993 08/809,887 10/06/98
5,815,997 07/953,438 10/06/98
5,815,998 08/698,111 10/06/98
5,816,005 08/711,369 10/06/98
5,816,009 08/801,155 10/06/98
5,816,017 08/595,786 10/06/98
5,816,019 08/754,246 10/06/98
5,816,022 08/933,365 10/06/98
5,816,035 08/587,938 10/06/98
5,816,036 08/728,835 10/06/98
5,816,045 08/615,596 10/06/98
5,816,054 08/676,246 10/06/98
5,816,055 08/669,442 10/06/98
5,816,059 08/782,395 10/06/98
5,816,068 08/897,697 10/06/98
5,816,083 08/510,486 10/06/98
5,816,098 08/733,015 10/06/98
5,816,101 08/689,733 10/06/98
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 203 |
5,816,103 08/678,550 10/06/98
5,816,108 08/722,217 10/06/98
5,816,116 08/864,380 10/06/98
5,816,119 08/553,491 10/06/98
5,816,128 08/701,515 10/06/98
5,816,129 08/574,710 10/06/98
5,816,131 08/845,763 10/06/98
5,816,145 08/853,112 10/06/98
5,816,146 08/805,745 10/06/98
5,816,171 08/721,213 10/06/98
5,816,178 08/530,902 10/06/98
5,816,181 08/798,641 10/06/98
5,816,187 08/831,894 10/06/98
5,816,191 08/648,608 10/06/98
5,816,194 08/917,263 10/06/98
5,816,195 08/794,676 10/06/98
5,816,209 08/759,273 10/06/98
5,816,213 08/837,670 10/06/98
5,816,224 08/432,658 10/06/98
5,816,227 08/916,883 10/06/98
5,816,233 08/754,973 10/06/98
5,816,254 08/787,924 10/06/98
5,816,255 08/585,720 10/06/98
5,816,259 08/782,380 10/06/98
5,816,275 08/778,578 10/06/98
5,816,280 08/659,654 10/06/98
5,816,290 08/615,627 10/06/98
5,816,292 08/638,785 10/06/98
5,816,294 08/776,812 10/06/98
5,816,306 08/648,144 10/06/98
5,816,321 08/590,127 10/06/98
5,816,325 08/757,891 10/06/98
5,816,334 08/890,497 10/06/98
5,816,338 08/766,294 10/06/98
5,816,342 08/788,226 10/06/98
5,816,348 08/842,816 10/06/98
5,816,352 08/704,985 10/06/98
5,816,354 08/331,082 10/06/98
5,816,356 08/594,645 10/06/98
5,816,358 08/581,511 10/06/98
5,816,360 08/647,859 10/06/98
5,816,369 08/805,873 10/06/98
5,816,370 08/836,725 10/06/98
5,816,371 08/647,567 10/06/98
5,816,372 08/304,005 10/06/98
5,816,376 08/748,473 10/06/98
5,816,392 08/546,194 10/06/98
5,816,401 08/907,942 10/06/98
5,816,404 08/802,229 10/06/98
5,816,424 08/543,505 10/06/98
5,816,436 08/709,138 10/06/98
5,816,444 08/546,957 10/06/98
5,816,445 08/590,389 10/06/98
5,816,460 08/727,788 10/06/98
5,816,463 08/739,059 10/06/98
5,816,472 08/521,196 10/06/98
5,816,482 08/638,031 10/06/98
5,816,506 08/650,454 10/06/98
5,816,509 08/970,079 10/06/98
5,816,514 08/783,658 10/06/98
5,816,518 08/828,717 10/06/98
5,816,527 08/855,932 10/06/98
5,816,539 08/511,346 10/06/98
5,816,558 08/163,265 10/06/98
5,816,567 08/843,221 10/06/98
5,816,573 08/808,803 10/06/98
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 204 |
5,816,575 08/871,829 10/06/98
5,816,581 08/802,728 10/06/98
5,816,585 08/750,898 10/06/98
5,816,587 08/681,424 10/06/98
5,816,591 08/593,836 10/06/98
5,816,598 08/616,258 10/06/98
5,816,608 08/854,671 10/06/98
5,816,609 08/690,854 10/06/98
5,816,613 08/887,816 10/06/98
5,816,632 08/786,288 10/06/98
5,816,639 08/821,905 10/06/98
5,816,642 08/848,315 10/06/98
5,816,645 08/583,880 10/06/98
5,816,647 08/622,205 10/06/98
5,816,654 08/819,904 10/06/98
5,816,665 08/783,421 10/06/98
5,816,679 08/549,547 10/06/98
5,816,684 08/748,502 10/06/98
5,816,692 08/496,076 10/06/98
5,816,699 08/874,793 10/06/98
5,816,700 08/735,546 10/06/98
5,816,708 08/805,358 10/06/98
5,816,721 08/778,224 10/06/98
5,816,722 08/934,566 10/06/98
5,816,723 08/921,660 10/06/98
5,816,725 08/587,192 10/06/98
5,816,743 08/699,967 10/06/98
5,816,744 08/630,110 10/06/98
5,816,747 08/640,492 10/06/98
5,816,757 08/777,875 10/06/98
5,816,761 08/744,672 10/06/98
5,816,770 08/787,174 10/06/98
5,816,771 08/733,396 10/06/98
5,816,784 08/644,042 10/06/98
5,816,787 08/637,296 10/06/98
5,816,803 08/657,811 10/06/98
5,816,808 08/596,265 10/06/98
5,816,820 08/710,666 10/06/98
5,816,827 08/838,348 10/06/98
5,816,833 08/840,696 10/06/98
5,816,838 08/805,270 10/06/98
5,816,841 08/419,892 10/06/98
5,816,846 08/470,234 10/06/98
5,816,850 08/677,643 10/06/98
5,816,860 08/689,907 10/06/98
5,816,869 08/892,646 10/06/98
5,816,872 08/713,513 10/06/98
5,816,876 08/848,350 10/06/98
5,816,878 08/737,777 10/06/98
5,816,885 08/795,439 10/06/98
5,816,892 08/797,480 10/06/98
5,816,895 08/785,487 10/06/98
5,816,897 08/710,396 10/06/98
5,816,903 08/649,028 10/06/98
5,816,917 08/577,018 10/06/98
5,816,919 08/781,609 10/06/98
5,816,926 08/867,833 10/06/98
5,816,931 08/866,978 10/06/98
5,816,936 08/376,409 10/06/98
5,816,946 08/560,792 10/06/98
5,816,950 08/829,305 10/06/98
5,816,974 08/699,909 10/06/98
5,816,982 08/868,940 10/06/98
5,816,986 08/777,055 10/06/98
5,816,998 08/809,091 10/06/98
5,817,005 08/767,377 10/06/98
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 205 |
5,817,010 08/824,107 10/06/98
5,817,011 08/794,284 10/06/98
5,817,012 08/909,538 10/06/98
5,817,017 08/446,652 10/06/98
5,817,025 08/864,239 10/06/98
5,817,027 08/919,876 10/06/98
5,817,029 08/883,022 10/06/98
5,817,039 08/662,258 10/06/98
5,817,068 08/784,314 10/06/98
5,817,075 08/395,699 10/06/98
5,817,077 08/814,688 10/06/98
5,817,097 08/967,268 10/06/98
5,817,098 08/669,474 10/06/98
5,817,106 08/857,406 10/06/98
5,817,107 08/772,461 10/06/98
5,817,110 08/851,878 10/06/98
5,817,116 08/828,794 10/06/98
5,817,122 08/674,575 10/06/98
5,817,138 08/758,637 10/06/98
5,817,155 08/761,387 10/06/98
5,817,161 08/783,797 10/06/98
5,817,163 08/854,519 10/06/98
5,817,167 08/701,255 10/06/98
5,817,168 08/661,379 10/06/98
5,817,172 08/739,758 10/06/98
5,817,174 08/764,591 10/06/98
5,817,176 08/634,017 10/06/98
5,817,183 08/695,468 10/06/98
5,817,184 08/739,900 10/06/98
5,817,190 08/650,747 10/06/98
5,817,197 08/732,826 10/06/98
5,817,215 08/649,728 10/06/98
5,817,218 08/702,628 10/06/98
5,817,239 08/788,397 10/06/98
5,817,240 08/745,811 10/06/98
5,817,242 08/691,285 10/06/98
5,817,243 08/740,443 10/06/98
5,817,246 08/894,361 10/06/98
5,817,258 08/625,249 10/06/98
5,817,269 08/738,263 10/06/98
5,817,270 08/716,401 10/06/98
5,817,274 08/923,458 10/06/98
5,817,304 08/672,090 10/06/98
5,817,305 08/316,507 10/06/98
5,817,307 08/484,376 10/06/98
5,817,309 08/694,831 10/06/98
5,817,312 08/949,862 10/06/98
5,817,316 07/858,165 10/06/98
5,817,326 08/566,339 10/06/98
5,817,336 08/774,892 10/06/98
5,817,356 08/645,462 10/06/98
5,817,358 08/737,358 10/06/98
5,817,363 08/686,230 10/06/98
5,817,369 08/711,214 10/06/98
5,817,370 08/762,480 10/06/98
5,817,373 08/764,756 10/06/98
5,817,389 08/738,589 10/06/98
5,817,393 08/595,666 10/06/98
5,817,397 08/732,310 10/06/98
5,817,398 08/755,328 10/06/98
5,817,402 08/624,617 10/06/98
5,817,403 08/718,542 10/06/98
5,817,410 08/495,186 10/06/98
5,817,411 08/814,234 10/06/98
5,817,412 08/755,489 10/06/98
5,817,424 08/630,811 10/06/98
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 206 |
5,817,428 08/747,426 10/06/98
5,817,437 08/725,162 10/06/98
5,817,444 08/927,658 10/06/98
5,817,455 08/639,806 10/06/98
5,817,457 08/597,774 10/06/98
5,817,460 08/513,764 10/06/98
5,817,464 08/748,900 10/06/98
5,817,469 08/535,058 10/06/98
5,817,473 08/454,122 10/06/98
5,817,476 08/487,942 10/06/98
5,817,477 08/467,568 10/06/98
5,817,481 08/854,222 10/06/98
5,817,485 08/207,412 10/06/98
5,817,486 08/469,319 10/06/98
5,817,489 08/691,149 10/06/98
5,817,495 08/624,545 10/06/98
5,817,502 08/729,214 10/06/98
5,817,506 08/728,785 10/06/98
5,817,510 08/747,622 10/06/98
5,817,515 08/605,672 10/06/98
5,817,518 08/573,768 10/06/98
5,817,534 08/567,376 10/06/98
5,817,552 08/635,526 10/06/98
5,817,555 08/850,821 10/06/98
5,817,556 08/536,173 10/06/98
5,817,572 08/768,790 10/06/98
5,817,574 08/396,131 10/06/98
5,817,576 08/743,929 10/06/98
5,817,577 08/746,068 10/06/98
5,817,578 08/648,912 10/06/98
5,817,590 08/619,884 10/06/98
5,817,591 08/483,110 10/06/98
5,817,594 08/556,888 10/06/98
5,817,595 08/656,762 10/06/98
5,817,596 08/569,185 10/06/98
5,817,609 08/779,548 10/06/98
5,817,634 08/364,501 10/06/98
5,817,640 08/443,245 10/06/98
5,817,648 08/646,640 10/06/98
5,817,649 08/476,933 10/06/98
5,817,662 08/468,656 10/06/98
5,817,664 08/470,317 10/06/98
5,817,674 08/583,637 10/06/98
5,817,676 08/782,478 10/06/98
5,817,684 08/982,600 10/06/98
5,817,686 08/865,427 10/06/98
5,817,687 08/865,425 10/06/98
5,817,688 08/761,982 10/06/98
5,817,690 08/909,800 10/06/98
5,817,691 08/838,747 10/06/98
5,817,693 08/336,444 10/06/98
5,817,706 09/052,515 10/06/98
5,817,709 08/461,919 10/06/98
5,817,715 08/906,629 10/06/98
5,817,718 08/688,769 10/06/98
5,817,719 08/725,363 10/06/98
5,817,721 08/836,311 10/06/98
5,817,735 08/597,632 10/06/98
5,817,737 08/848,488 10/06/98
5,817,743 08/645,824 10/06/98
5,817,745 08/684,017 10/06/98
5,817,749 08/371,624 10/06/98
5,817,758 08/485,582 10/06/98
5,817,767 08/021,879 10/06/98
5,817,774 08/719,407 10/06/98
5,817,777 08/433,503 10/06/98
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 207 |
5,817,784 08/694,579 10/06/98
5,817,797 07/200,876 10/06/98
5,817,799 07/556,713 10/06/98
5,817,812 08/748,981 10/06/98
5,817,813 08/845,326 10/06/98
5,817,815 08/995,988 10/06/98
5,817,824 08/905,266 10/06/98
5,817,826 08/905,943 10/06/98
5,817,827 08/734,987 10/06/98
5,817,829 08/727,571 10/06/98
5,817,843 08/730,989 10/06/98
5,817,857 08/880,095 10/06/98
5,817,858 08/629,619 10/06/98
5,817,862 08/702,471 10/06/98
5,817,863 08/898,981 10/06/98
5,817,866 08/988,448 10/06/98
5,817,867 08/742,732 10/06/98
5,817,873 08/331,544 10/06/98
5,817,876 08/310,466 10/06/98
5,817,878 08/765,537 10/06/98
5,817,886 08/772,908 10/06/98
5,817,889 08/464,720 10/06/98
5,817,893 08/868,349 10/06/98
5,817,894 08/922,319 10/06/98
5,817,897 08/524,860 10/06/98
5,817,907 08/642,191 10/06/98
5,817,931 08/897,524 10/06/98
5,817,932 08/510,571 10/06/98
5,817,933 08/703,732 10/06/98
5,817,944 08/819,919 10/06/98
5,817,949 08/726,092 10/06/98
5,817,952 08/673,439 10/06/98
5,817,954 08/750,701 10/06/98
5,817,959 08/696,628 10/06/98
5,817,962 08/597,843 10/06/98
5,817,965 08/975,758 10/06/98
5,817,966 08/896,725 10/06/98
5,817,975 08/531,585 10/06/98
5,817,976 08/229,439 10/06/98
5,817,977 08/809,510 10/06/98
5,817,988 08/512,907 10/06/98
5,817,989 08/531,647 10/06/98
5,817,991 08/815,365 10/06/98
5,817,995 07/969,663 10/06/98
5,818,000 08/844,503 10/06/98
5,818,003 08/598,454 10/06/98
5,818,008 08/885,342 10/06/98
5,818,017 08/593,250 10/06/98
5,818,021 08/758,347 10/06/98
5,818,022 08/468,842 10/06/98
5,818,038 08/749,005 10/06/98
5,818,040 08/748,994 10/06/98
5,818,043 08/897,836 10/06/98
5,818,056 08/835,699 10/06/98
5,818,058 08/785,257 10/06/98
5,818,060 08/990,570 10/06/98
5,818,065 08/795,835 10/06/98
5,818,066 08/746,810 10/06/98
5,818,072 07/881,599 10/06/98
5,818,080 08/601,554 10/06/98
5,818,083 08/825,057 10/06/98
5,818,086 08/661,659 10/06/98
5,818,087 08/747,659 10/06/98
5,818,090 08/917,515 10/06/98
5,818,095 07/928,251 10/06/98
5,818,106 08/564,500 10/06/98
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 208 |
5,818,114 08/452,224 10/06/98
5,818,115 08/680,613 10/06/98
5,818,126 08/810,621 10/06/98
5,818,127 08/884,171 10/06/98
5,818,128 08/603,388 10/06/98
5,818,131 08/855,437 10/06/98
5,818,132 08/782,620 10/06/98
5,818,143 08/926,553 10/06/98
5,818,145 08/629,433 10/06/98
5,818,151 08/600,444 10/06/98
5,818,155 08/521,222 10/06/98
5,818,157 08/869,472 10/06/98
5,818,158 08/752,148 10/06/98
5,818,159 08/807,844 10/06/98
5,818,160 08/498,279 10/06/98
5,818,170 08/400,332 10/06/98
5,818,171 08/782,638 10/06/98
5,818,176 08/762,698 10/06/98
5,818,177 08/777,050 10/06/98
5,818,178 08/611,774 10/06/98
5,818,181 08/752,646 10/06/98
5,818,184 08/231,179 10/06/98
5,818,190 08/857,840 10/06/98
5,818,202 08/793,467 10/06/98
5,818,210 08/762,983 10/06/98
5,818,222 08/473,225 10/06/98
5,818,225 08/758,463 10/06/98
5,818,231 08/814,304 10/06/98
5,818,235 08/738,968 10/06/98
5,818,243 08/859,585 10/06/98
5,818,261 08/694,891 10/06/98
5,818,263 08/536,435 10/06/98
5,818,273 08/867,163 10/06/98
5,818,277 08/790,228 10/06/98
5,818,278 08/805,883 10/06/98
5,818,281 08/528,887 10/06/98
5,818,284 08/693,526 10/06/98
5,818,297 08/855,189 10/06/98
5,818,302 08/795,566 10/06/98
5,818,305 08/688,371 10/06/98
5,818,311 08/277,277 10/06/98
5,818,320 08/939,204 10/06/98
5,818,322 08/537,351 10/06/98
5,818,328 08/725,571 10/06/98
5,818,329 08/681,785 10/06/98
5,818,330 08/902,681 10/06/98
5,818,338 08/835,200 10/06/98
5,818,345 08/687,538 10/06/98
5,818,349 08/007,060 10/06/98
5,818,357 07/959,104 10/06/98
5,818,358 08/795,781 10/06/98
5,818,373 08/772,017 10/06/98
5,818,383 08/331,076 10/06/98
5,818,399 08/385,541 10/06/98
5,818,415 08/672,755 10/06/98
5,818,418 08/867,039 10/06/98
5,818,427 08/793,105 10/06/98
5,818,432 07/945,714 10/06/98
5,818,442 08/640,004 10/06/98
5,818,464 08/960,113 10/06/98
5,818,472 08/496,974 10/06/98
5,818,477 08/627,729 10/06/98
5,818,493 08/453,663 10/06/98
5,818,494 08/493,532 10/06/98
5,818,497 08/816,217 10/06/98
5,818,502 08/553,033 10/06/98
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 209 |
5,818,508 08/539,964 10/06/98
5,818,519 08/587,392 10/06/98
5,818,523 08/602,381 10/06/98
5,818,527 08/574,639 10/06/98
5,818,530 08/666,773 10/06/98
5,818,544 08/688,786 10/06/98
5,818,548 08/736,865 10/06/98
5,818,552 08/681,912 10/06/98
5,818,563 08/926,152 10/06/98
5,818,572 08/639,015 10/06/98
5,818,580 08/615,036 10/06/98
5,818,596 08/922,756 10/06/98
5,818,600 08/497,144 10/06/98
5,818,604 08/642,115 10/06/98
5,818,605 08/699,528 10/06/98
5,818,612 08/563,964 10/06/98
5,818,620 08/757,625 10/06/98
5,818,624 08/579,298 10/06/98
5,818,633 08/639,900 10/06/98
5,818,638 08/753,596 10/06/98
5,818,644 08/743,156 10/06/98
5,818,650 08/687,720 10/06/98
5,818,653 08/785,166 10/06/98
5,818,655 08/506,635 10/06/98
5,818,657 08/690,698 10/06/98
5,818,660 08/678,599 10/06/98
5,818,680 08/648,573 10/06/98
5,818,687 08/794,810 10/06/98
5,818,699 08/674,807 10/06/98
5,818,709 08/555,708 10/06/98
5,818,727 08/625,240 10/06/98
5,818,728 08/616,581 10/06/98
5,818,733 08/454,285 10/06/98
5,818,737 08/900,765 10/06/98
5,818,741 08/632,932 10/06/98
5,818,742 07/720,202 10/06/98
5,818,745 08/658,933 10/06/98
5,818,758 08/777,586 10/06/98
5,818,768 08/767,496 10/06/98
5,818,770 08/979,302 10/06/98
5,818,772 08/841,368 10/06/98
5,818,795 08/741,313 10/06/98
5,818,799 08/651,827 10/06/98
5,818,807 08/697,352 10/06/98
5,818,814 08/738,227 10/06/98
5,818,816 08/613,000 10/06/98
5,818,826 08/664,718 10/06/98
5,818,829 08/544,489 10/06/98
5,818,833 08/701,478 10/06/98
5,818,842 08/676,256 10/06/98
5,818,845 08/588,378 10/06/98
5,818,853 08/609,995 10/06/98
5,818,864 08/716,307 10/06/98
5,818,875 08/627,084 10/06/98
5,818,878 08/343,989 10/06/98
5,818,882 08/593,688 10/06/98
5,818,885 08/664,912 10/06/98
5,818,886 08/697,310 10/06/98
5,818,900 08/806,067 10/06/98
5,818,903 08/717,805 10/06/98
5,818,910 08/561,986 10/06/98
5,818,911 08/500,808 10/06/98
5,818,913 08/698,778 10/06/98
5,818,915 08/743,409 10/06/98
5,818,918 08/656,526 10/06/98
5,818,919 08/680,190 10/06/98
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 210 |
5,818,941 08/811,799 10/06/98
5,818,944 08/823,959 10/06/98
5,818,945 08/633,295 10/06/98
5,818,950 08/391,950 10/06/98
5,818,974 08/968,909 10/06/98
5,818,981 08/923,883 10/06/98
5,818,993 08/746,376 10/06/98
5,819,008 08/663,908 10/06/98
5,819,012 08/496,175 10/06/98
5,819,016 08/665,546 10/06/98
5,819,024 08/678,071 10/06/98
5,819,041 08/823,026 10/06/98
5,819,043 08/747,313 10/06/98
5,819,045 08/581,041 10/06/98
5,819,061 08/279,588 10/06/98
5,819,079 08/526,540 10/06/98
5,819,082 08/480,618 10/06/98
5,819,083 08/116,087 10/06/98
5,819,088 08/036,947 10/06/98
5,819,094 08/715,401 10/06/98
5,819,095 08/769,844 10/06/98
5,819,096 08/893,447 10/06/98
5,819,102 08/618,013 10/06/98
5,819,121 08/484,622 10/06/98
5,819,126 08/784,259 10/06/98
5,819,130 08/672,264 10/06/98
5,819,131 08/861,691 10/06/98
5,819,133 08/768,330 10/06/98
5,819,137 08/885,309 10/06/98
5,819,140 08/796,369 10/06/98
5,819,158 08/866,876 10/06/98
5,819,164 08/592,934 10/06/98
5,819,181 08/609,076 10/06/98
5,819,186 08/842,949 10/06/98
5,819,205 08/769,448 10/06/98
5,819,218 08/794,138 10/06/98
5,819,223 08/592,174 10/06/98
5,819,239 08/775,121 10/06/98
5,819,253 08/498,778 10/06/98
5,819,267 08/626,544 10/06/98
5,819,279 08/590,740 10/06/98
5,819,280 08/593,821 10/06/98
5,819,287 08/681,993 10/06/98
5,819,302 08/639,742 10/06/98
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON October 1, 2010
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
6,457,180 09/888,974 10/01/02
6,457,181 09/514,486 10/01/02
6,457,182 09/877,279 10/01/02
6,457,184 09/829,660 10/01/02
6,457,189 10/010,276 10/01/02
6,457,191 09/839,434 10/01/02
6,457,197 09/717,467 10/01/02
6,457,201 09/544,091 10/01/02
6,457,202 09/694,576 10/01/02
6,457,204 09/712,755 10/01/02
6,457,208 09/756,041 10/01/02
6,457,209 09/938,839 10/01/02
6,457,213 09/735,554 10/01/02
6,457,215 09/744,198 10/01/02
6,457,221 09/553,124 10/01/02
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 211 |
6,457,223 09/576,247 10/01/02
6,457,225 09/767,388 10/01/02
6,457,226 09/589,045 10/01/02
6,457,227 09/555,457 10/01/02
6,457,228 09/592,649 10/01/02
6,457,229 09/828,922 10/01/02
6,457,238 09/568,347 10/01/02
6,457,239 09/732,649 10/01/02
6,457,240 09/837,269 10/01/02
6,457,244 09/897,841 10/01/02
6,457,245 09/827,217 10/01/02
6,457,247 09/902,637 10/01/02
6,457,248 09/613,188 10/01/02
6,457,255 09/597,352 10/01/02
6,457,261 09/766,786 10/01/02
6,457,265 09/149,393 10/01/02
6,457,278 09/657,040 10/01/02
6,457,280 09/804,140 10/01/02
6,457,283 09/597,656 10/01/02
6,457,287 10/039,052 10/01/02
6,457,291 09/282,297 10/01/02
6,457,297 09/678,007 10/01/02
6,457,300 09/755,803 10/01/02
6,457,301 09/849,427 10/01/02
6,457,305 09/778,340 10/01/02
6,457,306 09/712,778 10/01/02
6,457,307 09/719,201 10/01/02
6,457,310 09/790,529 10/01/02
6,457,318 09/708,274 10/01/02
6,457,319 09/717,804 10/01/02
6,457,323 09/625,614 10/01/02
6,457,335 09/574,496 10/01/02
6,457,346 10/113,642 10/01/02
6,457,347 09/464,668 10/01/02
6,457,348 09/813,248 10/01/02
6,457,368 09/702,682 10/01/02
6,457,370 09/556,523 10/01/02
6,457,379 09/667,302 10/01/02
6,457,380 09/569,078 10/01/02
6,457,385 09/946,354 10/01/02
6,457,391 09/651,955 10/01/02
6,457,395 09/148,526 10/01/02
6,457,401 09/822,225 10/01/02
6,457,406 09/534,015 10/01/02
6,457,412 09/729,026 10/01/02
6,457,435 09/911,302 10/01/02
6,457,439 09/802,572 10/01/02
6,457,440 09/949,173 10/01/02
6,457,442 09/715,912 10/01/02
6,457,445 10/030,047 10/01/02
6,457,446 09/665,383 10/01/02
6,457,450 09/831,919 10/01/02
6,457,458 09/590,424 10/01/02
6,457,460 09/711,467 10/01/02
6,457,478 09/439,474 10/01/02
6,457,486 10/063,418 10/01/02
6,457,492 09/915,744 10/01/02
6,457,496 09/900,906 10/01/02
6,457,500 09/588,420 10/01/02
6,457,501 09/787,703 10/01/02
6,457,503 09/700,914 10/01/02
6,457,508 09/275,435 10/01/02
6,457,519 09/789,243 10/01/02
6,457,523 09/612,060 10/01/02
6,457,543 09/707,857 10/01/02
6,457,549 09/584,199 10/01/02
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 212 |
6,457,554 09/811,139 10/01/02
6,457,560 09/642,230 10/01/02
6,457,563 09/367,286 10/01/02
6,457,565 09/774,025 10/01/02
6,457,581 09/576,568 10/01/02
6,457,584 09/825,047 10/01/02
6,457,589 09/512,490 10/01/02
6,457,592 09/934,148 10/01/02
6,457,593 09/817,281 10/01/02
6,457,597 09/766,595 10/01/02
6,457,604 09/911,404 10/01/02
6,457,606 09/492,533 10/01/02
6,457,616 09/767,743 10/01/02
6,457,617 09/719,845 10/01/02
6,457,618 09/910,612 10/01/02
6,457,619 09/723,171 10/01/02
6,457,620 09/756,709 10/01/02
6,457,623 09/459,231 10/01/02
6,457,624 09/555,776 10/01/02
6,457,637 10/067,676 10/01/02
6,457,641 09/623,260 10/01/02
6,457,646 09/398,741 10/01/02
6,457,653 09/790,400 10/01/02
6,457,659 09/582,236 10/01/02
6,457,661 09/772,691 10/01/02
6,457,664 09/635,106 10/01/02
6,457,667 09/555,436 10/01/02
6,457,668 09/952,500 10/01/02
6,457,672 09/929,087 10/01/02
6,457,680 09/587,279 10/01/02
6,457,685 09/645,024 10/01/02
6,457,686 09/922,285 10/01/02
6,457,696 09/428,189 10/01/02
6,457,700 09/811,262 10/01/02
6,457,704 09/717,891 10/01/02
6,457,709 09/705,311 10/01/02
6,457,711 09/881,889 10/01/02
6,457,718 09/648,907 10/01/02
6,457,721 09/770,813 10/01/02
6,457,725 09/805,291 10/01/02
6,457,730 09/788,080 10/01/02
6,457,733 09/756,254 10/01/02
6,457,734 09/919,261 10/01/02
6,457,735 09/802,973 10/01/02
6,457,736 09/603,370 10/01/02
6,457,738 09/812,189 10/01/02
6,457,743 09/543,005 10/01/02
6,457,746 09/810,613 10/01/02
6,457,749 09/713,054 10/01/02
6,457,751 09/765,133 10/01/02
6,457,752 09/489,489 10/01/02
6,457,758 10/041,153 10/01/02
6,457,760 09/595,612 10/01/02
6,457,765 09/681,900 10/01/02
6,457,777 09/652,258 10/01/02
6,457,786 09/553,869 10/01/02
6,457,799 08/982,520 10/01/02
6,457,800 09/205,625 10/01/02
6,457,803 09/583,983 10/01/02
6,457,822 09/918,856 10/01/02
6,457,835 09/491,912 10/01/02
6,457,840 09/966,384 10/01/02
6,457,849 09/789,137 10/01/02
6,457,853 09/750,272 10/01/02
6,457,854 09/529,970 10/01/02
6,457,855 09/530,041 10/01/02
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 213 |
6,457,861 09/713,730 10/01/02
6,457,864 09/309,902 10/01/02
6,457,866 09/669,501 10/01/02
6,457,867 09/625,809 10/01/02
6,457,874 09/652,287 10/01/02
6,457,890 09/478,066 10/01/02
6,457,896 09/715,274 10/01/02
6,457,897 09/653,017 10/01/02
6,457,900 09/874,916 10/01/02
6,457,907 09/701,092 10/01/02
6,457,911 09/703,990 10/01/02
6,457,912 09/524,982 10/01/02
6,457,918 09/643,623 10/01/02
6,457,919 09/371,328 10/01/02
6,457,925 09/844,093 10/01/02
6,457,926 09/730,642 10/01/02
6,457,928 09/369,288 10/01/02
6,457,932 09/376,765 10/01/02
6,457,941 09/804,642 10/01/02
6,457,965 09/565,980 10/01/02
6,457,969 09/642,700 10/01/02
6,457,976 10/072,156 10/01/02
6,457,979 10/016,285 10/01/02
6,457,982 09/906,089 10/01/02
6,457,985 10/062,018 10/01/02
6,457,986 09/799,203 10/01/02
6,458,007 09/838,639 10/01/02
6,458,008 09/655,205 10/01/02
6,458,010 09/673,510 10/01/02
6,458,012 09/612,215 10/01/02
6,458,013 09/628,962 10/01/02
6,458,019 09/811,949 10/01/02
6,458,029 09/867,950 10/01/02
6,458,030 09/758,795 10/01/02
6,458,036 09/299,474 10/01/02
6,458,038 09/945,410 10/01/02
6,458,040 09/546,746 10/01/02
6,458,042 09/895,631 10/01/02
6,458,064 09/441,228 10/01/02
6,458,076 09/495,810 10/01/02
6,458,078 09/678,919 10/01/02
6,458,083 09/518,348 10/01/02
6,458,094 09/832,609 10/01/02
6,458,101 09/867,530 10/01/02
6,458,104 09/785,984 10/01/02
6,458,112 09/555,587 10/01/02
6,458,115 09/284,061 10/01/02
6,458,117 09/487,652 10/01/02
6,458,124 09/821,364 10/01/02
6,458,126 09/551,440 10/01/02
6,458,131 09/633,480 10/01/02
6,458,132 09/777,808 10/01/02
6,458,133 09/765,641 10/01/02
6,458,140 09/771,007 10/01/02
6,458,159 09/646,169 10/01/02
6,458,166 09/552,584 10/01/02
6,458,167 09/484,998 10/01/02
6,458,176 09/732,373 10/01/02
6,458,181 09/581,700 10/01/02
6,458,185 09/821,217 10/01/02
6,458,190 09/729,197 10/01/02
6,458,192 09/476,328 10/01/02
6,458,196 09/800,923 10/01/02
6,458,201 09/485,721 10/01/02
6,458,205 09/719,995 10/01/02
6,458,208 09/643,941 10/01/02
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 214 |
6,458,209 09/550,353 10/01/02
6,458,210 09/578,171 10/01/02
6,458,211 09/637,580 10/01/02
6,458,217 09/515,871 10/01/02
6,458,225 09/653,987 10/01/02
6,458,226 09/357,568 10/01/02
6,458,230 08/711,883 10/01/02
6,458,231 09/274,820 10/01/02
6,458,235 09/423,708 10/01/02
6,458,241 09/756,510 10/01/02
6,458,243 09/844,386 10/01/02
6,458,247 09/534,666 10/01/02
6,458,249 09/189,322 10/01/02
6,458,250 09/697,997 10/01/02
6,458,253 09/804,266 10/01/02
6,458,258 09/748,229 10/01/02
6,458,261 09/774,059 10/01/02
6,458,264 09/679,619 10/01/02
6,458,267 09/759,631 10/01/02
6,458,270 09/797,586 10/01/02
6,458,271 09/791,748 10/01/02
6,458,272 09/962,634 10/01/02
6,458,274 09/386,838 10/01/02
6,458,276 09/858,619 10/01/02
6,458,284 09/495,306 10/01/02
6,458,287 09/995,512 10/01/02
6,458,294 09/855,650 10/01/02
6,458,296 09/623,436 10/01/02
6,458,297 09/169,970 10/01/02
6,458,300 09/306,123 10/01/02
6,458,302 09/535,674 10/01/02
6,458,324 09/438,871 10/01/02
6,458,329 08/921,817 10/01/02
6,458,336 09/583,359 10/01/02
6,458,339 09/502,912 10/01/02
6,458,351 09/842,970 10/01/02
6,458,352 09/767,412 10/01/02
6,458,355 09/121,952 10/01/02
6,458,360 07/949,472 10/01/02
6,458,366 09/072,596 10/01/02
6,458,379 09/419,372 10/01/02
6,458,383 09/751,968 10/01/02
6,458,386 09/424,432 10/01/02
6,458,396 09/611,767 10/01/02
6,458,397 09/970,326 10/01/02
6,458,398 09/668,833 10/01/02
6,458,413 09/578,059 10/01/02
6,458,419 09/923,218 10/01/02
6,458,428 09/820,866 10/01/02
6,458,430 09/469,661 10/01/02
6,458,431 09/918,908 10/01/02
6,458,434 08/839,528 10/01/02
6,458,441 09/541,246 10/01/02
6,458,442 09/599,307 10/01/02
6,458,446 09/396,818 10/01/02
6,458,451 09/646,298 10/01/02
6,458,453 09/557,881 10/01/02
6,458,456 09/532,613 10/01/02
6,458,462 09/736,104 10/01/02
6,458,469 09/349,559 10/01/02
6,458,476 09/768,499 10/01/02
6,458,492 09/489,948 10/01/02
6,458,493 09/325,945 10/01/02
6,458,494 09/559,079 10/01/02
6,458,495 09/607,446 10/01/02
6,458,497 09/928,403 10/01/02
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 215 |
6,458,504 09/842,629 10/01/02
6,458,506 09/373,802 10/01/02
6,458,507 09/531,117 10/01/02
6,458,510 09/476,109 10/01/02
6,458,515 09/947,648 10/01/02
6,458,519 09/642,413 10/01/02
6,458,525 09/705,592 10/01/02
6,458,526 09/494,146 10/01/02
6,458,531 08/946,800 10/01/02
6,458,537 09/395,604 10/01/02
6,458,540 09/633,848 10/01/02
6,458,549 09/096,335 10/01/02
6,458,551 09/561,741 10/01/02
6,458,565 09/654,353 10/01/02
6,458,567 09/431,419 10/01/02
6,458,568 09/311,084 10/01/02
6,458,572 09/631,547 10/01/02
6,458,577 08/860,305 10/01/02
6,458,599 09/507,300 10/01/02
6,458,603 09/974,938 10/01/02
6,458,620 09/982,717 10/01/02
6,458,624 09/946,689 10/01/02
6,458,630 09/417,853 10/01/02
6,458,634 09/681,505 10/01/02
6,458,646 09/608,019 10/01/02
6,458,668 09/653,034 10/01/02
6,458,675 09/460,613 10/01/02
6,458,693 09/328,694 10/01/02
6,458,694 09/767,145 10/01/02
6,458,736 09/756,392 10/01/02
6,458,737 09/709,276 10/01/02
6,458,738 09/668,227 10/01/02
6,458,740 09/797,683 10/01/02
6,458,745 09/284,258 10/01/02
6,458,747 09/852,952 10/01/02
6,458,757 09/051,666 10/01/02
6,458,767 09/321,932 10/01/02
6,458,768 09/623,505 10/01/02
6,458,778 09/049,485 10/01/02
6,458,779 09/701,946 10/01/02
6,458,780 09/744,583 10/01/02
6,458,781 09/403,579 10/01/02
6,458,782 09/555,508 10/01/02
6,458,785 09/836,443 10/01/02
6,458,796 09/763,808 10/01/02
6,458,797 09/902,787 10/01/02
6,458,802 10/095,505 10/01/02
6,458,804 09/772,321 10/01/02
6,458,808 09/828,777 10/01/02
6,458,813 09/932,281 10/01/02
6,458,814 09/762,406 10/01/02
6,458,817 09/903,802 10/01/02
6,458,819 09/792,422 10/01/02
6,458,822 09/730,302 10/01/02
6,458,824 09/661,577 10/01/02
6,458,825 09/639,242 10/01/02
6,458,826 09/738,106 10/01/02
6,458,830 09/936,343 10/01/02
6,458,835 09/805,347 10/01/02
6,458,838 09/806,254 10/01/02
6,458,845 10/018,457 10/01/02
6,458,850 09/466,413 10/01/02
6,458,851 09/466,415 10/01/02
6,458,860 10/038,462 10/01/02
6,458,862 09/369,931 10/01/02
6,458,871 09/850,980 10/01/02
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 216 |
6,458,876 09/370,802 10/01/02
6,458,882 09/661,706 10/01/02
6,458,884 09/690,555 10/01/02
6,458,893 09/904,977 10/01/02
6,458,898 08/329,109 10/01/02
6,458,907 09/677,586 10/01/02
6,458,919 08/456,373 10/01/02
6,458,929 09/354,151 10/01/02
6,458,930 09/723,830 10/01/02
6,458,931 08/469,419 10/01/02
6,458,935 09/668,637 10/01/02
6,458,936 09/808,480 10/01/02
6,458,942 09/201,458 10/01/02
6,458,950 09/631,947 10/01/02
6,458,951 09/845,420 10/01/02
6,458,954 09/846,003 10/01/02
6,458,955 09/705,304 10/01/02
6,458,956 09/634,890 10/01/02
6,458,967 09/886,974 10/01/02
6,458,970 09/380,214 10/01/02
6,458,975 09/996,134 10/01/02
6,458,987 09/582,902 10/01/02
6,458,988 09/664,953 10/01/02
6,458,998 09/579,279 10/01/02
6,458,999 09/722,197 10/01/02
6,459,006 09/433,387 10/01/02
6,459,010 09/581,227 10/01/02
6,459,012 09/953,442 10/01/02
6,459,015 09/068,950 10/01/02
6,459,021 09/619,611 10/01/02
6,459,025 09/848,872 10/01/02
6,459,027 09/772,884 10/01/02
6,459,031 09/500,659 10/01/02
6,459,033 09/678,944 10/01/02
6,459,036 09/710,271 10/01/02
6,459,039 09/597,906 10/01/02
6,459,040 09/730,431 10/01/02
6,459,043 09/823,220 10/01/02
6,459,054 09/578,670 10/01/02
6,459,055 09/963,019 10/01/02
6,459,060 09/624,152 10/01/02
6,459,062 09/620,506 10/01/02
6,459,064 09/485,593 10/01/02
6,459,071 09/900,238 10/01/02
6,459,082 09/611,995 10/01/02
6,459,090 09/620,764 10/01/02
6,459,105 09/864,737 10/01/02
6,459,125 09/122,863 10/01/02
6,459,128 09/521,666 10/01/02
6,459,136 09/707,762 10/01/02
6,459,146 09/836,939 10/01/02
6,459,152 09/521,468 10/01/02
6,459,162 09/817,264 10/01/02
6,459,166 09/784,037 10/01/02
6,459,167 09/514,325 10/01/02
6,459,168 09/612,908 10/01/02
6,459,175 09/193,790 10/01/02
6,459,178 09/475,066 10/01/02
6,459,181 09/646,260 10/01/02
6,459,183 09/719,366 10/01/02
6,459,184 09/520,475 10/01/02
6,459,189 09/566,474 10/01/02
6,459,190 09/637,794 10/01/02
6,459,191 09/606,394 10/01/02
6,459,195 09/640,397 10/01/02
6,459,197 09/405,471 10/01/02
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 217 |
6,459,198 09/572,157 10/01/02
6,459,200 09/517,759 10/01/02
6,459,202 09/610,569 10/01/02
6,459,223 09/780,627 10/01/02
6,459,226 09/754,473 10/01/02
6,459,227 09/770,976 10/01/02
6,459,232 10/077,991 10/01/02
6,459,233 09/840,508 10/01/02
6,459,241 09/908,570 10/01/02
6,459,247 09/717,764 10/01/02
6,459,251 09/581,484 10/01/02
6,459,254 09/670,938 10/01/02
6,459,255 09/640,067 10/01/02
6,459,260 10/024,785 10/01/02
6,459,261 09/413,647 10/01/02
6,459,272 09/575,550 10/01/02
6,459,278 10/040,197 10/01/02
6,459,280 09/619,831 10/01/02
6,459,281 09/647,345 10/01/02
6,459,283 09/607,816 10/01/02
6,459,286 09/842,686 10/01/02
6,459,292 09/548,580 10/01/02
6,459,293 09/672,695 10/01/02
6,459,301 09/167,985 10/01/02
6,459,315 09/789,558 10/01/02
6,459,316 09/733,216 10/01/02
6,459,331 09/146,035 10/01/02
6,459,340 09/871,162 10/01/02
6,459,344 09/810,681 10/01/02
6,459,345 09/928,701 10/01/02
6,459,357 09/909,271 10/01/02
6,459,361 09/393,020 10/01/02
6,459,365 09/800,781 10/01/02
6,459,373 09/644,373 10/01/02
6,459,379 09/993,444 10/01/02
6,459,383 09/416,768 10/01/02
6,459,384 09/700,798 10/01/02
6,459,385 09/865,486 10/01/02
6,459,387 09/688,248 10/01/02
6,459,392 09/766,518 10/01/02
6,459,396 09/809,079 10/01/02
6,459,399 09/799,079 10/01/02
6,459,403 09/668,173 10/01/02
6,459,407 09/950,551 10/01/02
6,459,410 09/693,051 10/01/02
6,459,420 09/604,293 10/01/02
6,459,435 09/481,297 10/01/02
6,459,478 09/339,281 10/01/02
6,459,481 09/565,441 10/01/02
6,459,487 09/944,126 10/01/02
6,459,491 09/904,870 10/01/02
6,459,492 09/380,437 10/01/02
6,459,493 08/663,742 10/01/02
6,459,494 09/506,805 10/01/02
6,459,497 08/574,925 10/01/02
6,459,501 09/280,232 10/01/02
6,459,503 08/352,879 10/01/02
6,459,508 09/432,698 10/01/02
6,459,511 09/040,942 10/01/02
6,459,517 09/241,730 10/01/02
6,459,519 09/056,611 10/01/02
6,459,527 09/568,540 10/01/02
6,459,531 09/672,971 10/01/02
6,459,534 09/591,218 10/01/02
6,459,543 09/635,340 10/01/02
6,459,546 09/353,854 10/01/02
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 218 |
6,459,551 09/468,016 10/01/02
6,459,556 09/605,954 10/01/02
6,459,568 09/916,577 10/01/02
6,459,570 09/198,424 10/01/02
6,459,573 09/606,793 10/01/02
6,459,574 09/752,257 10/01/02
6,459,576 09/984,138 10/01/02
6,459,587 09/676,087 10/01/02
6,459,590 09/883,118 10/01/02
6,459,596 09/932,568 10/01/02
6,459,599 09/872,681 10/01/02
6,459,603 09/824,616 10/01/02
6,459,604 09/933,844 10/01/02
6,459,608 09/818,579 10/01/02
6,459,649 09/854,258 10/01/02
6,459,650 09/858,832 10/01/02
6,459,655 09/679,172 10/01/02
6,459,657 09/504,590 10/01/02
6,459,659 09/364,530 10/01/02
6,459,661 09/398,204 10/01/02
6,459,673 09/271,533 10/01/02
6,459,677 09/350,333 10/01/02
6,459,701 09/370,096 10/01/02
6,459,709 09/774,904 10/01/02
6,459,715 09/546,086 10/01/02
6,459,716 09/773,765 10/01/02
6,459,717 09/615,206 10/01/02
6,459,720 09/924,817 10/01/02
6,459,721 09/182,004 10/01/02
6,459,723 09/310,389 10/01/02
6,459,727 09/289,991 10/01/02
6,459,742 09/244,422 10/01/02
6,459,777 09/954,585 10/01/02
6,459,779 09/148,935 10/01/02
6,459,789 09/427,488 10/01/02
6,459,791 09/194,980 10/01/02
6,459,794 09/197,152 10/01/02
6,459,798 09/881,830 10/01/02
6,459,800 09/614,066 10/01/02
6,459,801 09/670,556 10/01/02
6,459,802 09/607,979 10/01/02
6,459,806 09/453,200 10/01/02
6,459,816 09/073,873 10/01/02
6,459,824 09/350,390 10/01/02
6,459,838 09/515,448 10/01/02
6,459,843 09/704,993 10/01/02
6,459,845 10/094,330 10/01/02
6,459,846 09/498,321 10/01/02
6,459,847 09/601,753 10/01/02
6,459,848 09/120,734 10/01/02
6,459,849 08/671,117 10/01/02
6,459,855 09/567,478 10/01/02
6,459,865 09/778,577 10/01/02
6,459,868 09/536,462 10/01/02
6,459,877 09/487,731 10/01/02
6,459,900 09/724,911 10/01/02
6,459,909 09/586,460 10/01/02
6,459,917 09/575,591 10/01/02
6,459,918 09/653,546 10/01/02
6,459,920 09/262,555 10/01/02
6,459,931 10/006,087 10/01/02
6,459,940 09/566,163 10/01/02
6,459,941 09/757,857 10/01/02
6,459,943 09/303,653 10/01/02
6,459,951 09/394,184 10/01/02
6,459,954 08/581,645 10/01/02
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 219 |
6,459,958 10/001,990 10/01/02
6,459,970 09/881,692 10/01/02
6,459,971 09/931,853 10/01/02
6,459,973 09/780,654 10/01/02
6,459,974 09/870,151 10/01/02
6,459,983 09/468,671 10/01/02
6,460,012 09/397,185 10/01/02
6,460,016 09/685,234 10/01/02
6,460,024 09/398,519 10/01/02
6,460,035 09/227,253 10/01/02
6,460,039 09/456,682 10/01/02
6,460,062 09/239,348 10/01/02
6,460,066 09/309,627 10/01/02
6,460,068 09/071,217 10/01/02
6,460,073 09/352,054 10/01/02
6,460,097 09/328,507 10/01/02
6,460,099 09/353,330 10/01/02
6,460,100 09/435,929 10/01/02
6,460,101 09/435,926 10/01/02
6,460,107 09/301,870 10/01/02
6,460,117 09/339,409 10/01/02
6,460,118 09/339,410 10/01/02
6,460,120 09/384,744 10/01/02
6,460,129 08/955,238 10/01/02
6,460,133 09/315,488 10/01/02
6,460,135 09/411,376 10/01/02
6,460,142 09/535,321 10/01/02
6,460,160 09/503,761 10/01/02
6,460,165 09/521,178 10/01/02
6,460,166 09/213,322 10/01/02
6,460,169 09/422,040 10/01/02
6,460,172 09/598,588 10/01/02
PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON October 3, 2010
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES
Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
7,114,186 11/007,330 10/03/06
7,114,187 11/192,746 10/03/06
7,114,190 10/936,346 10/03/06
7,114,193 10/908,650 10/03/06
7,114,194 10/940,399 10/03/06
7,114,203 11/017,208 10/03/06
7,114,208 11/192,248 10/03/06
7,114,212 10/351,653 10/03/06
7,114,219 10/650,628 10/03/06
7,114,222 10/919,499 10/03/06
7,114,229 11/330,967 10/03/06
7,114,230 10/700,763 10/03/06
7,114,234 10/723,483 10/03/06
7,114,240 10/706,531 10/03/06
7,114,247 10/974,345 10/03/06
7,114,249 10/786,468 10/03/06
7,114,256 10/660,306 10/03/06
7,114,257 10/768,207 10/03/06
7,114,259 10/706,824 10/03/06
7,114,261 10/334,930 10/03/06
7,114,264 11/209,560 10/03/06
7,114,267 10/534,509 10/03/06
7,114,268 10/273,160 10/03/06
7,114,275 10/908,094 10/03/06
7,114,278 10/843,800 10/03/06
7,114,288 11/096,431 10/03/06
7,114,290 10/794,598 10/03/06
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 220 |
7,114,306 10/311,075 10/03/06
7,114,307 10/531,920 10/03/06
7,114,316 10/094,526 10/03/06
7,114,320 10/330,735 10/03/06
7,114,321 10/631,028 10/03/06
7,114,341 10/934,909 10/03/06
7,114,346 10/612,323 10/03/06
7,114,354 11/401,060 10/03/06
7,114,356 11/211,946 10/03/06
7,114,373 11/197,780 10/03/06
7,114,378 11/107,996 10/03/06
7,114,392 10/092,877 10/03/06
7,114,399 10/793,605 10/03/06
7,114,407 09/830,096 10/03/06
7,114,408 10/354,426 10/03/06
7,114,412 10/347,440 10/03/06
7,114,413 11/212,780 10/03/06
7,114,414 11/424,641 10/03/06
7,114,416 10/540,366 10/03/06
7,114,417 11/068,212 10/03/06
7,114,428 10/832,123 10/03/06
7,114,429 10/947,556 10/03/06
7,114,432 11/053,804 10/03/06
7,114,439 10/485,102 10/03/06
7,114,447 10/508,345 10/03/06
7,114,452 10/684,841 10/03/06
7,114,456 11/240,502 10/03/06
7,114,457 11/021,502 10/03/06
7,114,462 10/755,248 10/03/06
7,114,466 10/947,110 10/03/06
7,114,479 11/227,552 10/03/06
7,114,485 11/048,188 10/03/06
7,114,491 10/876,528 10/03/06
7,114,496 10/906,704 10/03/06
7,114,497 10/851,952 10/03/06
7,114,508 10/402,526 10/03/06
7,114,522 10/944,364 10/03/06
7,114,526 11/086,705 10/03/06
7,114,527 10/505,309 10/03/06
7,114,531 10/909,854 10/03/06
7,114,536 10/819,529 10/03/06
7,114,541 10/363,965 10/03/06
7,114,552 10/866,818 10/03/06
7,114,553 10/281,641 10/03/06
7,114,569 10/867,478 10/03/06
7,114,583 11/051,110 10/03/06
7,114,589 10/914,423 10/03/06
7,114,590 10/675,842 10/03/06
7,114,591 10/500,656 10/03/06
7,114,592 10/874,470 10/03/06
7,114,597 10/813,134 10/03/06
7,114,607 10/987,971 10/03/06
7,114,608 10/802,263 10/03/06
7,114,609 11/053,282 10/03/06
7,114,619 10/799,787 10/03/06
7,114,622 10/821,086 10/03/06
7,114,623 11/050,168 10/03/06
7,114,624 10/673,256 10/03/06
7,114,632 10/476,830 10/03/06
7,114,634 10/772,496 10/03/06
7,114,641 10/666,992 10/03/06
7,114,645 10/315,329 10/03/06
7,114,647 10/716,691 10/03/06
7,114,650 11/107,097 10/03/06
7,114,667 10/845,902 10/03/06
7,114,678 10/851,914 10/03/06
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 221 |
7,114,687 10/974,927 10/03/06
7,114,698 10/966,379 10/03/06
7,114,704 10/908,171 10/03/06
7,114,705 11/058,761 10/03/06
7,114,706 10/815,592 10/03/06
7,114,707 10/473,498 10/03/06
7,114,708 10/860,612 10/03/06
7,114,732 10/718,864 10/03/06
7,114,733 10/926,347 10/03/06
7,114,745 10/731,671 10/03/06
7,114,755 10/908,616 10/03/06
7,114,757 11/127,426 10/03/06
7,114,769 11/154,445 10/03/06
7,114,772 10/897,075 10/03/06
7,114,775 10/937,052 10/03/06
7,114,778 10/954,142 10/03/06
7,114,779 11/238,805 10/03/06
7,114,781 10/742,368 10/03/06
7,114,783 11/100,096 10/03/06
7,114,787 10/485,384 10/03/06
7,114,809 10/481,259 10/03/06
7,114,816 10/855,323 10/03/06
7,114,826 10/948,246 10/03/06
7,114,829 11/001,861 10/03/06
7,114,847 10/517,426 10/03/06
7,114,852 10/085,110 10/03/06
7,114,856 10/617,713 10/03/06
7,114,869 10/729,435 10/03/06
7,114,874 11/100,673 10/03/06
7,114,877 10/356,964 10/03/06
7,114,892 11/034,723 10/03/06
7,114,895 11/070,662 10/03/06
7,114,896 11/260,371 10/03/06
7,114,901 10/728,908 10/03/06
7,114,905 10/203,881 10/03/06
7,114,906 10/973,321 10/03/06
7,114,919 10/706,180 10/03/06
7,114,932 10/762,687 10/03/06
7,114,942 10/620,290 10/03/06
7,114,945 10/485,939 10/03/06
7,114,947 10/840,921 10/03/06
7,114,948 10/798,304 10/03/06
7,114,955 10/505,593 10/03/06
7,114,968 11/259,097 10/03/06
7,114,974 11/040,444 10/03/06
7,114,995 11/414,358 10/03/06
7,115,020 11/100,849 10/03/06
7,115,028 11/113,226 10/03/06
7,115,037 10/696,791 10/03/06
7,115,048 10/664,445 10/03/06
7,115,079 10/973,407 10/03/06
7,115,087 10/505,170 10/03/06
7,115,090 10/523,073 10/03/06
7,115,097 10/681,918 10/03/06
7,115,111 10/309,082 10/03/06
7,115,126 10/123,849 10/03/06
7,115,128 10/685,776 10/03/06
7,115,155 10/727,382 10/03/06
7,115,158 10/876,221 10/03/06
7,115,165 10/398,219 10/03/06
7,115,168 11/045,034 10/03/06
7,115,187 10/221,589 10/03/06
7,115,188 10/050,167 10/03/06
7,115,207 10/604,213 10/03/06
7,115,210 10/708,009 10/03/06
7,115,214 10/709,552 10/03/06
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 222 |
7,115,218 10/481,994 10/03/06
7,115,219 10/656,363 10/03/06
7,115,222 11/055,407 10/03/06
7,115,225 10/453,196 10/03/06
7,115,230 10/609,227 10/03/06
7,115,233 10/290,289 10/03/06
7,115,235 09/913,905 10/03/06
7,115,242 10/864,884 10/03/06
7,115,250 10/749,535 10/03/06
7,115,252 10/144,235 10/03/06
7,115,256 09/289,576 10/03/06
7,115,258 10/285,308 10/03/06
7,115,260 10/961,148 10/03/06
7,115,268 09/335,581 10/03/06
7,115,277 10/308,295 10/03/06
7,115,279 09/918,127 10/03/06
7,115,282 10/124,207 10/03/06
7,115,286 10/862,261 10/03/06
7,115,294 11/236,181 10/03/06
7,115,300 10/772,858 10/03/06
7,115,308 10/493,514 10/03/06
7,115,310 10/692,851 10/03/06
7,115,316 09/711,478 10/03/06
7,115,317 10/677,339 10/03/06
7,115,328 10/126,109 10/03/06
7,115,329 09/914,471 10/03/06
7,115,330 11/116,831 10/03/06
7,115,342 10/474,604 10/03/06
7,115,353 10/480,237 10/03/06
7,115,354 10/699,873 10/03/06
7,115,356 10/947,173 10/03/06
7,115,359 10/893,504 10/03/06
7,115,367 10/009,705 10/03/06
7,115,368 10/041,030 10/03/06
7,115,369 10/096,872 10/03/06
7,115,370 10/164,103 10/03/06
7,115,373 10/608,863 10/03/06
7,115,378 10/233,885 10/03/06
7,115,380 11/118,429 10/03/06
7,115,387 10/662,620 10/03/06
7,115,391 10/089,394 10/03/06
7,115,397 10/840,408 10/03/06
7,115,408 10/139,139 10/03/06
7,115,412 10/240,844 10/03/06
7,115,416 10/793,479 10/03/06
7,115,421 10/417,697 10/03/06
7,115,423 09/426,111 10/03/06
7,115,429 11/078,858 10/03/06
7,115,439 10/759,899 10/03/06
7,115,444 11/235,270 10/03/06
7,115,446 10/964,371 10/03/06
7,115,463 10/923,246 10/03/06
7,115,471 10/961,084 10/03/06
7,115,479 10/305,684 10/03/06
7,115,522 10/886,668 10/03/06
7,115,540 10/669,485 10/03/06
7,115,545 09/936,356 10/03/06
7,115,561 10/947,484 10/03/06
7,115,562 11/032,951 10/03/06
7,115,565 10/047,902 10/03/06
7,115,568 10/267,906 10/03/06
7,115,586 10/272,936 10/03/06
7,115,590 09/913,226 10/03/06
7,115,593 10/619,730 10/03/06
7,115,595 10/465,918 10/03/06
7,115,596 10/741,056 10/03/06
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 223 |
7,115,597 10/677,687 10/03/06
7,115,600 11/045,968 10/03/06
7,115,602 10/160,352 10/03/06
7,115,606 10/863,770 10/03/06
7,115,609 10/496,019 10/03/06
7,115,614 10/692,930 10/03/06
7,115,624 09/659,622 10/03/06
7,115,625 10/639,950 10/03/06
7,115,626 10/639,955 10/03/06
7,115,632 09/569,034 10/03/06
7,115,633 10/275,242 10/03/06
7,115,638 10/435,014 10/03/06
7,115,647 10/071,639 10/03/06
7,115,648 10/506,592 10/03/06
7,115,649 10/601,442 10/03/06
7,115,651 09/938,754 10/03/06
7,115,652 10/731,922 10/03/06
7,115,654 10/456,458 10/03/06
7,115,658 10/434,702 10/03/06
7,115,659 11/035,603 10/03/06
7,115,661 09/473,713 10/03/06
7,115,666 10/684,810 10/03/06
7,115,667 10/781,179 10/03/06
7,115,669 10/205,215 10/03/06
7,115,673 10/736,529 10/03/06
7,115,682 10/670,926 10/03/06
7,115,685 11/085,154 10/03/06
7,115,706 10/802,635 10/03/06
7,115,710 09/095,478 10/03/06
7,115,716 10/300,675 10/03/06
7,115,718 10/326,771 10/03/06
7,115,721 10/502,949 10/03/06
7,115,725 10/224,209 10/03/06
7,115,726 10/227,195 10/03/06
7,115,728 08/484,487 10/03/06
7,115,732 11/133,690 10/03/06
7,115,736 11/227,097 10/03/06
7,115,740 10/817,697 10/03/06
7,115,744 11/127,811 10/03/06
7,115,745 10/775,405 10/03/06
7,115,747 10/600,100 10/03/06
7,115,752 10/948,410 10/03/06
7,115,755 10/314,162 10/03/06
7,115,758 10/303,916 10/03/06
7,115,760 10/699,201 10/03/06
7,115,766 10/433,053 10/03/06
7,115,775 10/474,368 10/03/06
7,115,789 10/403,229 10/03/06
7,115,790 10/497,034 10/03/06
7,115,791 10/325,523 10/03/06
7,115,796 10/350,354 10/03/06
7,115,805 10/896,122 10/03/06
7,115,816 10/769,004 10/03/06
7,115,824 11/196,665 10/03/06
7,115,830 11/147,644 10/03/06
7,115,839 11/024,245 10/03/06
7,115,840 11/206,842 10/03/06
7,115,841 11/057,965 10/03/06
7,115,856 10/731,878 10/03/06
7,115,857 11/167,321 10/03/06
7,115,865 10/908,953 10/03/06
7,115,872 10/731,136 10/03/06
7,115,878 10/728,901 10/03/06
7,115,879 10/181,184 10/03/06
7,115,881 10/162,499 10/03/06
7,115,897 10/395,455 10/03/06
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 224 |
7,115,918 10/777,911 10/03/06
7,115,921 10/930,989 10/03/06
7,115,934 10/708,814 10/03/06
7,115,950 11/184,847 10/03/06
7,115,955 10/710,738 10/03/06
7,115,965 10/931,855 10/03/06
7,115,968 10/971,238 10/03/06
7,115,983 10/945,610 10/03/06
7,115,997 10/707,075 10/03/06
7,115,999 10/833,043 10/03/06
7,116,004 11/190,910 10/03/06
7,116,006 11/228,851 10/03/06
7,116,009 10/212,244 10/03/06
7,116,014 10/248,422 10/03/06
7,116,018 10/797,027 10/03/06
7,116,028 10/289,670 10/03/06
7,116,035 10/502,550 10/03/06
7,116,039 10/645,968 10/03/06
7,116,041 10/855,830 10/03/06
7,116,047 10/848,136 10/03/06
7,116,051 10/888,093 10/03/06
7,116,054 11/111,019 10/03/06
7,116,072 10/875,410 10/03/06
7,116,075 10/698,567 10/03/06
7,116,092 10/900,733 10/03/06
7,116,094 10/710,683 10/03/06
7,116,095 11/059,420 10/03/06
7,116,096 10/639,981 10/03/06
7,116,101 11/314,334 10/03/06
7,116,110 11/173,287 10/03/06
7,116,112 11/370,791 10/03/06
7,116,117 11/059,489 10/03/06
7,116,118 10/803,264 10/03/06
7,116,120 11/221,030 10/03/06
7,116,121 11/261,178 10/03/06
7,116,123 10/859,282 10/03/06
7,116,130 10/742,663 10/03/06
7,116,146 10/921,216 10/03/06
7,116,149 10/804,936 10/03/06
7,116,151 10/883,361 10/03/06
7,116,156 10/823,004 10/03/06
7,116,193 10/951,701 10/03/06
7,116,196 11/391,285 10/03/06
7,116,217 10/893,732 10/03/06
7,116,220 10/438,556 10/03/06
7,116,226 10/752,925 10/03/06
7,116,234 10/487,948 10/03/06
7,116,238 09/812,786 10/03/06
7,116,246 10/490,115 10/03/06
7,116,247 10/897,437 10/03/06
7,116,250 10/512,117 10/03/06
7,116,268 10/801,478 10/03/06
7,116,279 11/104,023 10/03/06
7,116,281 10/854,323 10/03/06
7,116,282 10/684,645 10/03/06
7,116,288 09/885,001 10/03/06
7,116,290 10/379,790 10/03/06
7,116,291 10/031,377 10/03/06
7,116,312 10/655,990 10/03/06
7,116,313 10/387,129 10/03/06
7,116,320 10/631,568 10/03/06
7,116,328 10/674,425 10/03/06
7,116,359 09/999,487 10/03/06
7,116,372 09/981,794 10/03/06
7,116,381 10/495,665 10/03/06
7,116,400 10/858,409 10/03/06
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 225 |
7,116,406 09/423,275 10/03/06
7,116,412 10/743,725 10/03/06
7,116,414 10/492,442 10/03/06
7,116,455 10/943,981 10/03/06
7,116,456 11/111,457 10/03/06
7,116,463 10/891,908 10/03/06
7,116,465 11/373,269 10/03/06
7,116,468 11/299,161 10/03/06
7,116,470 10/815,845 10/03/06
7,116,494 10/996,733 10/03/06
7,116,498 11/073,973 10/03/06
7,116,509 10/639,657 10/03/06
7,116,510 10/673,771 10/03/06
7,116,516 10/611,090 10/03/06
7,116,519 10/737,674 10/03/06
7,116,526 10/303,114 10/03/06
7,116,528 10/624,665 10/03/06
7,116,530 10/674,849 10/03/06
7,116,532 10/985,195 10/03/06
7,116,533 11/327,676 10/03/06
7,116,536 10/904,876 10/03/06
7,116,556 10/974,040 10/03/06
7,116,559 10/605,383 10/03/06
7,116,569 11/055,803 10/03/06
7,116,574 10/916,524 10/03/06
7,116,575 11/087,414 10/03/06
7,116,597 11/026,347 10/03/06
7,116,609 11/038,542 10/03/06
7,116,612 10/043,287 10/03/06
7,116,628 10/986,880 10/03/06
7,116,638 10/151,675 10/03/06
7,116,639 09/746,179 10/03/06
7,116,646 09/528,553 10/03/06
7,116,664 10/144,610 10/03/06
7,116,709 10/860,324 10/03/06
7,116,732 10/176,127 10/03/06
7,116,753 10/878,189 10/03/06
7,116,758 10/678,610 10/03/06
7,116,759 10/610,715 10/03/06
7,116,768 10/672,348 10/03/06
7,116,773 10/054,028 10/03/06
7,116,780 10/655,123 10/03/06
7,116,798 11/176,346 10/03/06
7,116,800 10/023,787 10/03/06
7,116,804 10/282,141 10/03/06
7,116,811 10/000,156 10/03/06
7,116,827 10/972,718 10/03/06
7,116,835 10/196,259 10/03/06
7,116,846 10/906,289 10/03/06
7,116,852 10/451,157 10/03/06
7,116,857 10/730,484 10/03/06
7,116,864 11/000,679 10/03/06
7,116,871 10/913,189 10/03/06
7,116,879 10/987,387 10/03/06
7,116,885 10/817,235 10/03/06
7,116,886 11/096,424 10/03/06
7,116,902 10/843,481 10/03/06
7,116,914 10/170,138 10/03/06
7,116,916 10/209,023 10/03/06
7,116,939 09/832,654 10/03/06
7,116,941 10/814,087 10/03/06
7,116,942 10/290,521 10/03/06
7,116,946 10/522,741 10/03/06
7,116,947 11/085,459 10/03/06
7,116,961 10/448,740 10/03/06
7,116,973 10/740,562 10/03/06
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 226 |
7,117,021 10/150,253 10/03/06
7,117,030 11/002,947 10/03/06
7,117,060 09/770,355 10/03/06
7,117,070 10/882,323 10/03/06
7,117,072 10/953,077 10/03/06
7,117,079 10/361,485 10/03/06
7,117,102 10/805,078 10/03/06
7,117,109 10/180,611 10/03/06
7,117,118 10/911,904 10/03/06
7,117,126 09/946,217 10/03/06
7,117,130 09/607,513 10/03/06
7,117,151 11/093,815 10/03/06
7,117,158 10/132,537 10/03/06
7,117,173 09/773,555 10/03/06
7,117,190 09/890,231 10/03/06
7,117,196 10/065,826 10/03/06
7,117,203 10/728,168 10/03/06
7,117,205 10/052,849 10/03/06
7,117,245 09/610,402 10/03/06
7,117,253 10/287,482 10/03/06
7,117,281 09/664,856 10/03/06
7,117,289 10/262,204 10/03/06
7,117,296 11/117,669 10/03/06
7,117,319 10/313,321 10/03/06
7,117,325 10/376,421 10/03/06
7,117,337 10/782,676 10/03/06
7,117,339 11/159,761 10/03/06
7,117,345 10/731,691 10/03/06
7,117,357 09/892,969 10/03/06
7,117,362 11/082,670 10/03/06
7,117,364 09/679,333 10/03/06
7,117,370 10/077,864 10/03/06
7,117,381 10/750,896 10/03/06
7,117,383 10/263,074 10/03/06
7,117,389 10/667,084 10/03/06
7,117,396 10/029,308 10/03/06
7,117,400 10/065,723 10/03/06
7,117,413 10/284,123 10/03/06
7,117,415 10/757,781 10/03/06
7,117,428 11/270,411 10/03/06
7,117,431 09/887,304 10/03/06
7,117,443 10/691,057 10/03/06
7,117,455 10/626,762 10/03/06
7,117,456 10/707,287 10/03/06
7,117,480 09/995,301 10/03/06
7,117,490 09/976,313 10/03/06
7,117,501 10/301,468 10/03/06
7,117,508 10/497,892 10/03/06
7,117,509 10/775,186 10/03/06
7,117,510 10/756,335 10/03/06
7,117,516 10/206,393 10/03/06
7,117,518 09/078,469 10/03/06
7,117,520 10/372,618 10/03/06
7,117,524 11/080,314 10/03/06
Erratum
In the notice of "PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON February 16, 2003 DUE TO
FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES" appearing in the Official Gazette of April
15, 2003, all reference to Patent No. 5,871,308 which issued from
Application No. 08/871,470 should be deleted since the relevant maintenance
fee was timely paid in that patent.
Erratum
In the notice of "PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON February 2, 2003 DUE TO
FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES" appearing in the Official Gazette of April
1, 2003, all reference to Patent No. 5,865,315 which issued from
Application No. 08/779,211 should be deleted since the relevant maintenance
fee was timely paid in that patent.
Erratum
In the notice of "PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON January 28, 2005 DUE TO
FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES" appearing in the Official Gazette of March
29, 2005, all reference to Patent No. 5,597,276 which issued from
Application No. 08/282,921 should be deleted since the relevant maintenance
fee was timely paid in that patent.
| Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a Late Maintenance Fee from 10/25/2010 |
Patents Reinstated Due to the Acceptance of a
Late Maintenance Fee from 10/25/2010
Patent Application Filing Issue Granted
Number Number Date Date Date
5,569,038 08/148,626 11/08/93 10/29/96 10/29/10
5,570,643 08/292,516 08/18/94 11/05/96 10/25/10
5,617,879 08/390,490 02/17/95 04/08/97 10/28/10
5,796,018 08/790,711 01/29/97 08/18/98 10/29/10
5,797,856 08/368,871 01/05/95 08/25/98 10/28/10
6,106,712 09/443,978 11/19/99 08/22/00 10/29/10
6,130,968 08/943,766 10/03/97 10/10/00 10/25/10
6,219,876 09/304,051 05/04/99 04/24/01 10/27/10
6,232,537 09/584,885 06/01/00 05/15/01 10/25/10
6,233,776 09/553,234 04/19/00 05/22/01 10/26/10
6,242,682 09/461,530 12/15/99 06/05/01 10/25/10
6,338,466 09/445,606 06/02/00 01/15/02 10/27/10
6,340,403 08/538,838 10/04/95 01/22/02 10/28/10
6,385,263 09/710,740 11/10/00 05/07/02 10/28/10
6,410,284 09/411,088 10/04/99 06/25/02 10/25/10
6,421,287 09/506,673 05/09/00 07/16/02 10/28/10
6,427,261 09/573,837 05/18/00 08/06/02 10/26/10
6,429,028 09/934,647 08/23/01 08/06/02 10/29/10
6,431,810 09/628,299 07/28/00 08/13/02 10/26/10
6,801,021 10/314,883 12/09/02 10/05/04 10/28/10
6,802,333 10/002,556 11/01/01 10/12/04 10/29/10
6,834,737 09/967,817 09/28/01 12/28/04 10/28/10
6,853,553 10/405,983 04/01/03 02/08/05 10/28/10
6,857,287 09/663,231 09/15/00 02/22/05 10/28/10
6,887,120 09/989,696 11/20/01 05/03/05 10/25/10
6,920,870 10/732,120 12/10/03 07/26/05 10/27/10
6,920,884 10/307,248 11/27/02 07/26/05 10/29/10
6,927,562 10/171,263 06/13/02 08/09/05 10/27/10
6,941,690 10/338,320 01/08/03 09/13/05 10/28/10
6,983,837 10/902,026 07/30/04 01/10/06 10/25/10
6,984,389 10/322,312 12/16/02 01/10/06 10/27/10
6,993,928 10/498,057 06/09/04 02/07/06 10/28/10
7,026,946 10/249,913 05/16/03 04/11/06 10/29/10
7,036,515 11/011,741 12/14/04 05/02/06 10/28/10
7,046,158 10/249,527 04/16/03 05/16/06 10/29/10
7,082,112 09/925,642 08/10/01 07/25/06 10/25/10
7,085,806 09/706,279 11/03/00 08/01/06 10/29/10
7,105,820 11/037,507 01/18/05 09/12/06 10/29/10
| Reissue Applications Filed |
Reissue Applications Filed
Notice under 37 CFR 1.11(b). The reissue applications listed below
are open to public inspection by the general public through the Image
File Wrapper (IFW) system (http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair)
on the USPTO internet web site (www.uspto.gov), and copies may be
obtained by paying the fee therefor (37 CFR 1.19).
5,991,500, Re. S.N. 12/894,247, Sept. 30, 2010, Cl. 386/000, COPY
CONTROL FOR A VIDEO SIGNAL WITH COPYRIGHT SIGNALS SUPERIMPOSED AS
PREDETERMINED BITS IN THE VBID DATA OF THE VIDEO SIGNAL, Keiji Kanagawa et.
al., Owner of Record: SONY CORPORATION, Attorney or Agent: Williams S.
Frommer, Ex. Gp.: 2621
5,991,500, Re. S.N. 12/894,258, Sept. 30, 2010, Cl. 386/000, COPY
CONTROL FOR A VIDEO SIGNAL WITH COPYRIGHT SIGNALS SUPERIMPOSED AS
PREDETERMINED BITS IN THE VBID DATA OF THE VIDEO SIGNAL, Keiji Kanagawa et.
al., Owner of Record: SONY CORPORATION, Attorney or Agent: Williams S.
Frommer, Ex. Gp.: 2621
6,049,721, Re. S.N. 12/884,330, Sept. 17, 2010, Cl. 455/000, A METHOD OF
PERFORMING AN FDMA RADIO COMMUNICATION BETWEEN A RADIO TERMINAL AND A BASE
STATION, Mutsumu Serizawa et. al., Owner of Record: KABUSHIKI KAISHA
TOSHIBA, Attorney or Agent: Glenn Law, Ex. Gp.: 2618
6,049,721, Re. S.N. 12/884,325, Sept. 17, 2010, Cl. 455/000, A METHOD OF
PERFORMING AN FDMA RADIO COMMUNICATION BETWEEN A RADIO TERMINAL AND A BASE
STATION, Mutsumu Serizawa et. al., Owner of Record: KABUSHIKI KAISHA
TOSHIBA, Attorney or Agent: Glenn Law, Ex. Gp.: 2618
6,049,721, Re. S.N. 12/884,355, Sept. 17, 2010, Cl. 455/000, A METHOD OF
PERFORMING AN FDMA RADIO COMMUNICATION BETWEEN A RADIO TERMINAL AND A BASE
STATION, Mutsumu Serizawa et. al., Owner of Record: KABUSHIKI KAISHA
TOSHIBA, Attorney or Agent: Glenn Law, Ex. Gp.: 2618
6,387,499, Re. S.N. 12/916,902, Nov. 11, 2010, CL. 428, COATED SOLDER
SPHERES AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE SAME, Daisuke Sohma, et al, Owner of
Record: Senju Metal Industry Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, Attorney or Agent:
Julie W. Meder, Ex. Gp.: 1788
6,660,487, Re. S.N. 12/911,587, Oct. 25, 2010, CL. 435, TREATMENT OF
AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE, Denise Faustman, Boston, MA, Owner of Record: The
General Hospital Corporation, Boston, MA, Attorney or Agent: Paul T. Clark,
Ex. Gp.: 1648
6,909,392, Re. S.N. 12/878,368, Sep. 09, 2010, CL. 341, ANALOG TO
DIGITAL CONVERSION FOR A CMOS IMAGER, Eric R. Fossum, et al, Owner of
Record: Round Rock Research, LLC, MT. Kisco, NY, Attorney or Agent:
Alexander D. Walter, Ex. Gp.: 2819
7,393,224, Re. S.N. 12/829,098, Jul. 01, 2010, CL. 396, SELECTIVE FLASH
MEMORY DRIVE WITH QUICK CONNECTOR, Henry Milan, Rochester, MI, Owner of
Record: Inventor, Attorney or Agent: Beverly M. Bunting, Ex. Gp.: 2862
7,431,494, Re. S.N. 12/924,897, Oct. 07, 2010, CL. 366, FLEXIBLE MIXING
BAG FOR MIXING SOLIDS, LIQUIDS, AND GASES, Jean-Pascal Zambaux, Audenge,
France, Owner of Record: ATMI BVBA, Hoegaarden, Belgium, Attorney or Agent:
Vincent K. Gustafson, Ex. Gp.: 1797
7,468,481, Re. S.N. 12/901,348, Oct. 08, 2010, CL. 084, METHOD OF
DISPLAYING DIRECTORY STRUCTURE OF RECORDED DATA, Hwan Kim, Seoul, Korea,
Owner of Record: LG Electronics Inc., Seoul, Korea, Attorney or Agent:
Esther H. Chong, Ex. Gp.: 2837
7,552,061, Re. S.N. 12/806,954, Aug. 25, 2010, CL. 705, METHOD AND
SYSTEM FOR PROVIDING PRESCRIPTION DRUG COVERAGE, Gregory Richmond,
Bloomfield Hills, MI, Owner of Record: Inventor, Attorney or Agent: Gregory
S. Donahue, Ex. Gp.: 3623
7,717,230, Re. S.N. 12/911,938, Oct. 30, 2010, CL. 181, DEVICE AND
METHOD FOR AMPLIFYING SUCTION NOISE, Shinichi Takeuchi, et al, Owner of
Record: NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD., Yokohama-shi, Kanagawa, Japan, Attorney or
Agent: Michelle L. Knight, Ex. Gp.: 2832
| Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed |
Requests for Ex Parte Reexamination Filed
5,365,113, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,127, Requested Date: September 1, 2010,
Cl. 257/786, Title: SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE, Inventor: Toshiyuki Sakuta et
al., Owners of Record: Hitachi, LTD., Japan, Attorney or Agent: Antonelli
Terry Stout & Kraus, LLP., Arlington, VA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: James
F. Lea, III, Fellers Snider Blankenship Bailey & Tippens, Tulsa, OK
5,377,156, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,110, Requested Date: August 31, 2010, Cl.
365/227, Title: SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE INCORPORATING MAIN AND STAND-BY
BOOSTED INTERNAL POWER SUPPLY FOR COMPENSATING FOR DEVIATION ON OPERATING
CONDITION AND FABRICATION PROCESS CONDITIONS, Inventor: Takao Watanabe et
al., Owners of Record: Renesas Electronics Corporation, Japan, Attorney or
Agent: Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP., Washington, DC, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester:
Shruti S. Costales, Law Office of Shruti Costales, PLLC., Washington, DC
5,541,206, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,808, Requested Date: August 25, 2010, Cl.
514/365, Title: RETROVIRAL PROTEASE INHIBITING COMPOUNDS, Inventor: Dale J.
Kempf et al., Owners of Record: Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL,
Attorney or Agent: Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, Ex. Gp.: 3991,
Requester: Daniel B. Ravicher, Public Patent Foundation, New York, NY
5,566,185, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,105, Requested Date: August 20, 2010, Cl.
371/022, Title: SEMICONDUCTOR INTEGRATED CIRCUIT, Inventor: Ryoichi Hori et
al., Owners of Record: Renesas Technology Corporation, Tokyo, Japan,
Attorney or Agent: Antonelli Terry Stout & Kraus, LLP., Arlington, VA, Ex.
Gp.: 3992, Requester: Shruti S. Costales, Law Office of Shruti Costales,
PLLC., Washington, DC
5,635,523, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,812, Requested Date: August 25, 2010, Cl.
514/365, Title: RETROVIRAL PROTEASE INHIBITING COMPOUNDS, Inventor: Dale J.
Kempf et al., Owners of Record: Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL,
Attorney or Agent: Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, Ex. Gp.: 3991,
Requester: Daniel B. Ravicher, Public Patent Foundation, New York, NY
5,648,497, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,811, Requested Date: August 25, 2010, Cl.
514/365, Title: RETROVIRAL PROTEASE INHIBITING COMPOUNDS, Inventor: Dale J.
Kempf et al., Owners of Record: Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL,
Attorney or Agent: Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, Ex. Gp.: 3991,
Requester: Daniel B. Ravicher, Public Patent Foundation, New York, NY
5,674,882, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,809, Requested Date: August 25, 2010, Cl.
514/365, Title: RETROVIRAL PROTEASE INHIBITING COMPOUNDS, Inventor: Dale J.
Kempf et al., Owners of Record: Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL,
Attorney or Agent: Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, Ex. Gp.: 3991,
Requester: Daniel B. Ravicher, Public Patent Foundation, New York, NY
5,811,142, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,130, Requested Date: September 10, 2010,
Cl. 426/124, Title: MODIFIED ATMOSPHERE PACKAGE FOR CUT OF RAW MEAT,
Inventor: Gary R. DelDuca et al., Owners of Record: Pactiv Corporation,
Lake Forest, IL, Attorney or Agent: Nixon Peabody, LLP., Chicago, IL, Ex.
Gp.: 3991, Requester: Multisorb Technologies, Inc., Michael J. Didas,
Harter Secreat & Emery, LLP., Rochester, NY
5,948,457, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,131, Requested Date: September 7, 2010,
Cl. 426/124, Title: MODIFIED ATMOSPHERE PACKAGE, Inventor: Gary R. DelDuca
et al., Owners of Record: Pactiv Corporation, Lake Forest, IL, Attorney or
Agent: Nixon Peabody, LLP., Chicago, IL, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester:
Multisorb Technologies, Inc., Michael J. Didas, Harter Secrest & Emery,
LLP., Rochester, NY
6,037,157, Reexam. C.N. 90/009,810, Requested Date: August 25, 2010, Cl.
435/184, Title: METHOD FOR IMPROVING PHARMACOKINETICS, Inventor: Daniel W.
Norbeck et al., Owners of Record: Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL,
Attorney or Agent: Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, Ex. Gp.: 3991,
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 231 |
Requester: Daniel B. Ravicher, Public Patent Foundation, New York, NY
6,183,790, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,128, Requested Date: September 9, 2010,
Cl. 426/124, Title: MODIFIED ATMOSPHERE PACKAGE, Inventor: Gary R. DelDuca
et al., Owners of Record: Pactiv Corporation, Lake Forest, IL, Attorney or
Agent: Nixon Peabody, LLP., Chicago, IL, Ex. Gp.: 3991, Requester:
Multisorb Technologies, Inc., Michael J. Didas, Harter Secrest & Emery,
LLP., Rochester, NY
6,495,809, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,111, Requested Date: September 2, 2010,
Cl. 219/548, Title: ELECTRICAL HEATER WITH THERMISTOR, Inventor: Edward
Bulgajewski et al., Owners of Record: Illinois Tool Works, Inc., Glenview,
IL, Attorney or Agent: Illinois Tool Works, Inc., Glenview, IL, Ex. Gp.:
3993, Requester: PATENT OWNER
6,546,446, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,109, Requested Date: August 16, 2010, Cl.
710/305, Title: SYNCHRONOUS MEMORY DEVICE HAVING AUTOMATIC PRECHARGE,
Inventor: Michael Farmwald et al., Owners of Record: Rambus, Inc., Los Altos, CA,
Attorney or Agent: Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, LLP.,
Washington, DC, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., Korea,
Barmak Sani, Townsend and Townsend and Crew, LLP., San Francisco, CA
6,584,037, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,163, Requested Date: August 17, 2010, Cl.
365/233, Title: MEMORY DEVICE WHICH SAMPLES DATA AFTER AN AMOUNT OF TIME
TRANSPIRES, Inventor: Michael Farmwald et al., Owners of Record: Rambus,
Inc., Los Altos, CA, Attorney or Agent: Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett
& Dunner, LLP., Washington, DC, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Hynix
Semiconductor, Inc., Korea, Barmak Sani, Townsend and Townsend and Crew,
LLP., San Francisco, CA
6,681,351, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,161, Requested Date: August 17, 2010, Cl.
714/724,Title: EASY TO PROGRAM AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT, Inventor: Andrew
W. Kittross et al., Owners of Record: Teradyne, Inc., Boston, MA, Attorney
or Agent: Teradyne, Inc., North Reading, MA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester:
Shawn W. O'Dowd, Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP., Washington, DC
6,966,019, Reexam. C.N. 90/011,162, Requested Date: August 17, 2010, Cl.
714/724, Title: INSTRUMENT INITIATED COMMUNICATION FOR AUTOMATIC TEST
EQUIPMENT, Inventor: Dominic Viens et al., Owners of Record: Teradyne,
Inc., Boston, MA, Attorney or Agent: Teradyne, Inc., North Reading, MA, Ex.
Gp.: 3992, Requester: Shawn W. O'Dowd, Kenyon & Kenyon, LLP., Washington,
DC
| Requests for Inter Partes Reexamination Filed |
Requests for Inter Partes Reexamination Filed
6,262,769, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,433, Requested Date: August 30, 2010,
Cl.: 348/333, Title: METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR AUTO ROTATING A GRAPHICAL USER
INTERFACE FOR MANAGING PORTRAIT AND LANDSCAPE IMAGES IN AN IMAGE CAPTURE
UNIT, Inventor: Eric C. Anderson et al., Owners of Record: FlashPoint
Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA, Attorney or Agent: FlashPoint Technology
and Withrow & Terranova, Cary, NC, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party
Requester: HTC Corporation; (Att'y Is: Lawrence J. McClure, Hogan Lovells
US, LLP., Los Angeles, CA), Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party
Requester
6,385,541, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,435, Requested Date: August 31, 2010,
Cl.: 701/213, Title: GLOBAL POSITIONING-BASED REAL ESTATE DATABASE ACCESS
DEVICE AND METHOD, Inventor: Brad W. Blumberg et al., Ex. Gp.: 3992,
Requester: Third Party Requester: (Att'y Is: Kirupa Pushparaj, Perkins
Coie, LLP., Seattle, WA), Real Party In Interest: Boopsie, Inc.; Classified
Ventures, LLC.; Hotpads, Inc.; IDX, Inc.; Multifamily Technology Solutions,
Inc.; Primedia, Inc.; Consumer Source, Inc.; Trsoft, Inc.; Trulia, Inc.;
Zillow, Inc.; ZipRealty, Inc.
6,496,776, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,437, Requested Date: September 1, 2010,
Cl.: 701/213, Title: POSITION-BASED INFORMATION ACCESS DEVICE AND METHOD,
Inventor: Brad W. Blumberg et al., Owners of Record: Smarter Agent, LLC.,
Camden, NJ, Attorney or Agent: Cooley, LLP., Washington, DC, Ex. Gp.: 3992,
Requester: Third Party Requester: (Att'y Is: Kinupa Pushparaj, Perkins
Coie, LLP., Seattle, WA), Real Party In Interest: Boopsie, Inc.; Classified
Ventures, LLC.; Hotpads, Inc.; IDX, Inc.; Multifamily Technology Solutions,
Inc.; Primedia, Inc; Consumer Source, Inc.; Trsoft, Inc.; Trulia, Inc.;
Zillow, Inc.; and ZipRealty, Inc.
7,072,665, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,436, Requested Date: August 31, 2010,
Cl.: 455/456, Title: POSITION-BASED INFORMATION ACCESS DEVICE AND METHOD OF
SEARCHING, Inventor: Brad W. Blumberg et al., Owners of Record: Smarter
Agent, LLC., Camden, NJ, Attorney or Agent: Cooley, LLP., Washington, DC,
Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: (Att'y Is: Kirupa
Pushparaj, Perkins Coie, LLP., Seattle, WA), Real Party In Interest:
Boopsie, Inc.; Classified Ventures, LLC.; Hotpads, Inc.; IDX, Inc.;
Multifamily Technology Solutions, Inc.; Primedia, Inc.; Consumer Source,
Inc.; Trsoft, Inc.; Trulia, Inc.; Zillow, Inc.; ZipRealty, Inc.
7,130,821, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,440, Requested Date: September 8, 2010,
Cl.: 705/026, Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR PRODUCT COMPARISON, Inventor:
Christopher M. Connors et al., Owners of Record: Versata Development Group,
Inc., Austin, TX, Attorney or Agent: Hamilton & Terrile, LLP., Austin, TX,
Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: (Att'y Is: Jeffrey A.
Tinker, Winstead, PC., Dallas, TX), Real Party In Interest: Internet
Brands, Inc.; AutoData Solutions, Co.; AutoData Solutions, Inc.
7,244,519, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,417, Requested Date: August 16, 2010,
Cl.: 428/698, Title: PVD COATED RUTHENIUM FEATURED CUTTING TOOLS, Inventor:
Gilles Festeau et al., Owners of Record: TDy Industries, Inc., Pittsburgh,
PA, Attorney or Agent: Allegheny Technologies, Pittsburgh, PA, Ex. Gp.:
3991, Requester: Third Party Requester: Ingersoll Cutting Tool Company;
(Att'y Is: Nanda K. Alapati, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC., Tysons
Corner, VA) Real Party in Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
7,591,005, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,434, Requested Date: August 31, 2010,
Cl.: 726/002, Title: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR USER LOG-IN NAME MAPPING,
Inventor: Paul Moore et al., Owners of Record: Centrify Corporation,
Mountain View, CA, Attorney or Agent: Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman,
LLP., Sunnyvale, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: Quest
Software, Inc.; (Att'y Is: Thomas M. Croft, Cooley, LLP., Washington, DC),
Real Party In Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
7,644,122, Reexam. C.N.: 95/001,411, Requested Date: August 25, 2010,
Cl.: 709/206, Title: METHOD APPARATUS AND BUSINESS SYSTEM FOR ONLINE
COMMUNICATIONS WITH ONLINE AND OFFLINE RECIPIENTS, Inventor: Frank Michael
Weyer et al., Owners of Record: Frank Michael Weyer, Beverly Hills, CA,
Troy Kurosh Javaher, Beverly Hills, CA, Attorney or Agent: TECHCOASTLAW,
Hollywood, CA, Ex. Gp.: 3992, Requester: Third Party Requester: Facebook,
Inc.; (Att'y Is: Heidi Keefe, Cooley, LLP., Palo Alto, CA), Real Party in
Interest: Same As Third Party Requester
| Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations Due to Failure to Renew |
Notice of Expiration of Trademark Registrations
Due To Failure to Renew
15 U.S.C. 1059 provides that each trademark registration may be renewed
for periods of ten years from the end of the expiring period upon payment
of the prescribed fee and the filing of an acceptable application for
renewal. This may be done at any time within one year before the expiration
of the period for which the registration was issued or renewed, or it may
be done within six months after such expiration on payment of an additional
fee.
According to the records of the Office, the trademark registrations
listed below are expired due to failure to renew in accordance with 15
U.S.C. 1059.
TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS WHICH EXPIRED
October 29, 2010
DUE TO FAILURE TO RENEW
Reg. Number Serial Number Reg. Date
888,415 72/288,886 03/24/1970
888,111 72/305,868 03/24/1970
888,211 72/310,003 03/24/1970
1,588,459 73/727,852 03/27/1990
2,336,624 75/425,990 03/28/2000
2,336,729 75/495,652 03/28/2000
2,336,794 75/552,985 03/28/2000
2,334,809 75/556,527 03/28/2000
2,334,830 75/560,555 03/28/2000
2,336,801 75/564,754 03/28/2000
2,335,062 75/600,740 03/28/2000
2,335,484 75/661,138 03/28/2000
2,335,525 75/666,337 03/28/2000
2,336,058 75/717,855 03/28/2000
1,588,461 73/763,079 03/27/1990
1,589,145 73/787,726 03/27/1990
1,589,483 73/798,246 03/27/1990
1,588,951 73/805,009 03/27/1990
1,588,896 73/809,552 03/27/1990
2,336,381 74/665,001 03/28/2000
2,336,382 74/667,107 03/28/2000
2,336,386 74/699,647 03/28/2000
2,336,393 75/013,696 03/28/2000
2,336,394 75/021,832 03/28/2000
2,336,395 75/024,857 03/28/2000
2,336,398 75/030,798 03/28/2000
2,334,066 75/031,885 03/28/2000
2,336,404 75/079,203 03/28/2000
2,334,072 75/103,537 03/28/2000
2,334,076 75/118,963 03/28/2000
2,336,413 75/137,650 03/28/2000
2,336,417 75/146,299 03/28/2000
2,334,082 75/147,298 03/28/2000
2,334,085 75/154,548 03/28/2000
2,334,095 75/186,260 03/28/2000
2,336,428 75/191,874 03/28/2000
2,334,098 75/194,021 03/28/2000
2,334,104 75/204,902 03/28/2000
2,336,822 75/221,903 03/28/2000
2,334,108 75/225,538 03/28/2000
2,336,445 75/230,914 03/28/2000
2,334,113 75/235,650 03/28/2000
2,334,114 75/239,156 03/28/2000
2,334,136 75/286,623 03/28/2000
2,334,143 75/297,143 03/28/2000
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 234 |
2,336,826 75/301,387 03/28/2000
2,336,487 75/306,433 03/28/2000
2,334,152 75/309,436 03/28/2000
2,334,153 75/310,053 03/28/2000
2,334,165 75/329,328 03/28/2000
2,334,166 75/331,153 03/28/2000
2,334,169 75/334,494 03/28/2000
2,334,174 75/338,993 03/28/2000
2,336,519 75/340,886 03/28/2000
2,336,521 75/342,593 03/28/2000
2,336,523 75/345,102 03/28/2000
2,334,186 75/351,064 03/28/2000
2,334,188 75/355,522 03/28/2000
2,334,191 75/358,109 03/28/2000
2,336,537 75/358,117 03/28/2000
2,336,545 75/368,151 03/28/2000
2,336,546 75/368,506 03/28/2000
2,334,206 75/369,903 03/28/2000
2,336,555 75/373,880 03/28/2000
2,336,557 75/378,743 03/28/2000
2,336,558 75/379,384 03/28/2000
2,336,831 75/381,198 03/28/2000
2,336,563 75/384,398 03/28/2000
2,336,568 75/386,988 03/28/2000
2,334,232 75/387,952 03/28/2000
2,336,570 75/387,995 03/28/2000
2,336,571 75/388,071 03/28/2000
2,336,573 75/389,680 03/28/2000
2,334,237 75/390,230 03/28/2000
2,334,239 75/391,104 03/28/2000
2,334,242 75/392,677 03/28/2000
2,336,584 75/400,510 03/28/2000
2,334,260 75/405,293 03/28/2000
2,334,269 75/412,775 03/28/2000
2,336,601 75/413,828 03/28/2000
2,334,280 75/420,239 03/28/2000
2,334,282 75/420,750 03/28/2000
2,336,839 75/421,407 03/28/2000
2,334,288 75/422,191 03/28/2000
2,336,617 75/423,025 03/28/2000
2,336,626 75/426,684 03/28/2000
2,334,304 75/428,383 03/28/2000
2,336,635 75/436,580 03/28/2000
2,336,638 75/438,013 03/28/2000
2,336,643 75/441,172 03/28/2000
2,336,647 75/443,133 03/28/2000
2,334,328 75/444,307 03/28/2000
2,334,334 75/446,795 03/28/2000
2,336,660 75/449,610 03/28/2000
2,334,341 75/450,838 03/28/2000
2,334,343 75/453,702 03/28/2000
2,334,351 75/456,645 03/28/2000
2,334,360 75/459,739 03/28/2000
2,334,361 75/459,808 03/28/2000
2,334,368 75/462,397 03/28/2000
2,334,375 75/464,651 03/28/2000
2,336,679 75/466,036 03/28/2000
2,336,683 75/467,303 03/28/2000
2,336,686 75/468,264 03/28/2000
2,334,390 75/469,021 03/28/2000
2,334,393 75/470,920 03/28/2000
2,334,396 75/472,305 03/28/2000
2,334,407 75/475,378 03/28/2000
2,334,408 75/475,402 03/28/2000
2,334,409 75/475,520 03/28/2000
2,334,411 75/476,514 03/28/2000
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 235 |
2,334,413 75/476,574 03/28/2000
2,334,418 75/477,561 03/28/2000
2,334,436 75/481,271 03/28/2000
2,336,713 75/482,769 03/28/2000
2,334,445 75/483,447 03/28/2000
2,336,716 75/483,487 03/28/2000
2,334,465 75/487,088 03/28/2000
2,334,466 75/487,099 03/28/2000
2,336,724 75/491,966 03/28/2000
2,334,489 75/492,027 03/28/2000
2,334,498 75/492,787 03/28/2000
2,334,505 75/494,249 03/28/2000
2,336,733 75/498,634 03/28/2000
2,334,522 75/498,867 03/28/2000
2,336,851 75/501,002 03/28/2000
2,334,530 75/502,588 03/28/2000
2,336,739 75/503,291 03/28/2000
2,334,534 75/503,575 03/28/2000
2,336,740 75/503,951 03/28/2000
2,334,544 75/506,772 03/28/2000
2,336,853 75/507,031 03/28/2000
2,336,741 75/507,406 03/28/2000
2,334,552 75/509,226 03/28/2000
2,336,747 75/510,089 03/28/2000
2,334,558 75/510,652 03/28/2000
2,334,560 75/511,232 03/28/2000
2,334,569 75/513,000 03/28/2000
2,334,572 75/513,474 03/28/2000
2,334,573 75/513,519 03/28/2000
2,334,577 75/514,546 03/28/2000
2,336,755 75/517,506 03/28/2000
2,334,590 75/518,685 03/28/2000
2,334,594 75/519,610 03/28/2000
2,334,599 75/520,041 03/28/2000
2,334,604 75/520,352 03/28/2000
2,334,607 75/520,851 03/28/2000
2,334,608 75/520,853 03/28/2000
2,334,619 75/523,120 03/28/2000
2,334,620 75/523,140 03/28/2000
2,336,856 75/524,096 03/28/2000
2,336,764 75/525,195 03/28/2000
2,334,642 75/526,838 03/28/2000
2,336,768 75/527,315 03/28/2000
2,336,858 75/531,017 03/28/2000
2,334,670 75/532,904 03/28/2000
2,334,671 75/532,905 03/28/2000
2,334,677 75/533,665 03/28/2000
2,336,776 75/536,543 03/28/2000
2,334,687 75/536,785 03/28/2000
2,334,693 75/538,062 03/28/2000
2,334,700 75/539,007 03/28/2000
2,334,702 75/539,195 03/28/2000
2,334,709 75/540,253 03/28/2000
2,336,780 75/540,280 03/28/2000
2,334,711 75/540,700 03/28/2000
2,334,715 75/540,932 03/28/2000
2,334,725 75/542,468 03/28/2000
2,334,745 75/545,111 03/28/2000
2,334,747 75/545,330 03/28/2000
2,334,766 75/549,668 03/28/2000
2,336,863 75/550,378 03/28/2000
2,336,793 75/552,337 03/28/2000
2,334,791 75/553,711 03/28/2000
2,334,807 75/556,264 03/28/2000
2,334,814 75/557,678 03/28/2000
2,334,819 75/558,818 03/28/2000
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 236 |
2,334,823 75/559,686 03/28/2000
2,334,826 75/559,990 03/28/2000
2,334,834 75/560,863 03/28/2000
2,334,847 75/562,164 03/28/2000
2,334,850 75/562,911 03/28/2000
2,334,872 75/565,629 03/28/2000
2,336,802 75/565,751 03/28/2000
2,334,873 75/566,525 03/28/2000
2,334,877 75/567,384 03/28/2000
2,334,881 75/568,174 03/28/2000
2,336,869 75/569,048 03/28/2000
2,336,870 75/569,049 03/28/2000
2,334,894 75/569,893 03/28/2000
2,334,895 75/569,939 03/28/2000
2,334,896 75/570,003 03/28/2000
2,334,912 75/574,025 03/28/2000
2,334,913 75/574,056 03/28/2000
2,334,915 75/574,229 03/28/2000
2,334,944 75/580,460 03/28/2000
2,334,958 75/584,427 03/28/2000
2,334,962 75/584,834 03/28/2000
2,334,967 75/586,242 03/28/2000
2,334,978 75/587,960 03/28/2000
2,334,979 75/588,113 03/28/2000
2,335,003 75/591,888 03/28/2000
2,335,010 75/593,566 03/28/2000
2,335,014 75/594,354 03/28/2000
2,335,018 75/595,068 03/28/2000
2,335,019 75/595,297 03/28/2000
2,335,026 75/595,689 03/28/2000
2,335,040 75/597,549 03/28/2000
2,335,046 75/599,117 03/28/2000
2,335,049 75/599,231 03/28/2000
2,336,882 75/600,011 03/28/2000
2,335,055 75/600,151 03/28/2000
2,335,061 75/600,721 03/28/2000
2,335,063 75/600,787 03/28/2000
2,335,078 75/602,944 03/28/2000
2,335,117 75/609,284 03/28/2000
2,335,119 75/609,650 03/28/2000
2,335,121 75/609,987 03/28/2000
2,335,123 75/610,741 03/28/2000
2,335,125 75/611,452 03/28/2000
2,335,126 75/611,505 03/28/2000
2,335,133 75/613,032 03/28/2000
2,335,136 75/613,340 03/28/2000
2,335,158 75/616,160 03/28/2000
2,335,160 75/616,220 03/28/2000
2,335,174 75/617,435 03/28/2000
2,335,176 75/617,569 03/28/2000
2,335,195 75/620,508 03/28/2000
2,335,199 75/620,822 03/28/2000
2,335,211 75/622,479 03/28/2000
2,335,218 75/623,454 03/28/2000
2,335,219 75/623,557 03/28/2000
2,335,226 75/624,262 03/28/2000
2,335,233 75/624,908 03/28/2000
2,335,260 75/630,620 03/28/2000
2,335,267 75/631,940 03/28/2000
2,335,273 75/632,963 03/28/2000
2,335,301 75/637,147 03/28/2000
2,335,316 75/640,073 03/28/2000
2,335,326 75/641,971 03/28/2000
2,335,329 75/642,224 03/28/2000
2,335,334 75/642,954 03/28/2000
2,335,337 75/643,282 03/28/2000
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 237 |
2,335,339 75/643,530 03/28/2000
2,335,340 75/643,611 03/28/2000
2,335,345 75/644,844 03/28/2000
2,335,351 75/645,453 03/28/2000
2,335,360 75/646,248 03/28/2000
2,335,370 75/647,536 03/28/2000
2,335,373 75/647,766 03/28/2000
2,335,387 75/649,470 03/28/2000
2,336,895 75/652,603 03/28/2000
2,335,408 75/652,770 03/28/2000
2,335,409 75/653,158 03/28/2000
2,335,410 75/653,292 03/28/2000
2,335,413 75/653,429 03/28/2000
2,335,415 75/654,078 03/28/2000
2,335,416 75/654,558 03/28/2000
2,335,421 75/655,224 03/28/2000
2,335,424 75/655,362 03/28/2000
2,335,429 75/655,773 03/28/2000
2,335,445 75/657,932 03/28/2000
2,335,451 75/658,214 03/28/2000
2,335,455 75/658,741 03/28/2000
2,335,458 75/659,066 03/28/2000
2,335,459 75/659,284 03/28/2000
2,335,467 75/659,986 03/28/2000
2,335,490 75/661,672 03/28/2000
2,335,492 75/661,820 03/28/2000
2,335,498 75/662,705 03/28/2000
2,335,515 75/664,695 03/28/2000
2,335,532 75/667,892 03/28/2000
2,335,548 75/669,657 03/28/2000
2,335,550 75/669,753 03/28/2000
2,335,554 75/669,892 03/28/2000
2,335,559 75/670,322 03/28/2000
2,335,561 75/670,491 03/28/2000
2,335,567 75/671,545 03/28/2000
2,335,575 75/672,359 03/28/2000
2,336,898 75/677,305 03/28/2000
2,335,610 75/677,966 03/28/2000
2,335,613 75/678,346 03/28/2000
2,335,651 75/682,043 03/28/2000
2,335,659 75/682,778 03/28/2000
2,335,669 75/684,318 03/28/2000
2,335,670 75/684,545 03/28/2000
2,335,675 75/685,422 03/28/2000
2,335,676 75/685,430 03/28/2000
2,335,685 75/686,029 03/28/2000
2,335,692 75/686,403 03/28/2000
2,335,699 75/687,445 03/28/2000
2,335,702 75/687,645 03/28/2000
2,335,711 75/688,426 03/28/2000
2,335,713 75/688,653 03/28/2000
2,335,726 75/689,938 03/28/2000
2,335,730 75/690,653 03/28/2000
2,335,736 75/690,979 03/28/2000
2,335,737 75/690,985 03/28/2000
2,335,744 75/691,364 03/28/2000
2,335,747 75/691,611 03/28/2000
2,335,749 75/691,991 03/28/2000
2,335,753 75/692,705 03/28/2000
2,335,755 75/692,983 03/28/2000
2,335,756 75/692,984 03/28/2000
2,335,762 75/693,517 03/28/2000
2,335,769 75/694,263 03/28/2000
2,335,774 75/694,454 03/28/2000
2,335,779 75/694,798 03/28/2000
2,335,782 75/695,304 03/28/2000
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 238 |
2,335,794 75/696,327 03/28/2000
2,335,795 75/696,328 03/28/2000
2,335,807 75/697,290 03/28/2000
2,335,820 75/698,129 03/28/2000
2,335,827 75/699,360 03/28/2000
2,335,830 75/699,526 03/28/2000
2,335,833 75/699,649 03/28/2000
2,335,840 75/700,796 03/28/2000
2,335,850 75/701,154 03/28/2000
2,335,852 75/701,409 03/28/2000
2,335,859 75/701,847 03/28/2000
2,335,866 75/702,282 03/28/2000
2,335,869 75/702,375 03/28/2000
2,335,873 75/702,524 03/28/2000
2,335,878 75/702,803 03/28/2000
2,335,887 75/703,184 03/28/2000
2,335,889 75/703,454 03/28/2000
2,335,894 75/703,907 03/28/2000
2,335,906 75/704,741 03/28/2000
2,335,911 75/705,818 03/28/2000
2,335,920 75/706,907 03/28/2000
2,335,922 75/706,924 03/28/2000
2,335,932 75/707,836 03/28/2000
2,335,941 75/708,823 03/28/2000
2,335,944 75/709,137 03/28/2000
2,335,971 75/711,548 03/28/2000
2,335,991 75/713,128 03/28/2000
2,335,997 75/714,022 03/28/2000
2,335,998 75/714,023 03/28/2000
2,336,001 75/714,141 03/28/2000
2,336,004 75/714,221 03/28/2000
2,336,012 75/714,600 03/28/2000
2,336,013 75/714,604 03/28/2000
2,336,016 75/714,787 03/28/2000
2,336,019 75/714,877 03/28/2000
2,336,030 75/715,792 03/28/2000
2,336,031 75/715,816 03/28/2000
2,336,064 75/718,397 03/28/2000
2,336,082 75/719,908 03/28/2000
2,336,085 75/720,858 03/28/2000
2,336,091 75/722,219 03/28/2000
2,336,096 75/722,718 03/28/2000
2,336,098 75/722,741 03/28/2000
2,336,102 75/723,158 03/28/2000
2,336,118 75/726,573 03/28/2000
2,336,119 75/726,575 03/28/2000
2,336,120 75/726,737 03/28/2000
2,336,122 75/727,057 03/28/2000
2,336,132 75/727,896 03/28/2000
2,336,135 75/728,139 03/28/2000
2,336,141 75/728,742 03/28/2000
2,336,155 75/729,681 03/28/2000
2,336,157 75/729,755 03/28/2000
2,336,161 75/730,650 03/28/2000
2,336,169 75/731,501 03/28/2000
2,336,170 75/731,502 03/28/2000
2,336,172 75/731,660 03/28/2000
2,336,174 75/731,767 03/28/2000
2,336,188 75/733,005 03/28/2000
2,336,194 75/733,299 03/28/2000
2,336,197 75/733,582 03/28/2000
2,336,198 75/733,607 03/28/2000
2,336,200 75/733,886 03/28/2000
2,336,230 75/737,777 03/28/2000
2,336,232 75/737,902 03/28/2000
2,336,244 75/738,940 03/28/2000
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 239 |
2,336,246 75/739,059 03/28/2000
2,336,254 75/739,672 03/28/2000
2,336,261 75/739,986 03/28/2000
2,336,275 75/741,911 03/28/2000
2,336,279 75/742,387 03/28/2000
2,336,910 75/744,408 03/28/2000
2,336,301 75/745,996 03/28/2000
2,336,302 75/746,007 03/28/2000
2,336,912 75/746,153 03/28/2000
2,336,313 75/747,285 03/28/2000
2,336,319 75/748,417 03/28/2000
2,336,320 75/748,805 03/28/2000
2,336,327 75/749,313 03/28/2000
2,336,328 75/749,318 03/28/2000
2,336,330 75/749,511 03/28/2000
2,336,913 75/751,602 03/28/2000
2,336,343 75/751,899 03/28/2000
2,336,355 75/754,059 03/28/2000
2,336,358 75/754,785 03/28/2000
2,336,810 75/976,785 03/28/2000
2,336,921 75/978,771 03/28/2000
2,336,922 75/978,921 03/28/2000
Service by Publication
A notice of opposition to the registration of the mark in the
application identified below having been filed (in Class 30 only), and the
notice of such proceeding sent to applicant at the last known address
having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable, notice is
hereby given that unless the applicant listed herein, its assigns or legal
representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty days of this
publication, the opposition will proceed as in the case of default.
HUSEYIN AKBABA, NARLIDERE, IZMIR, TURKEY, Application Serial No. 79059176
for the mark "KIDSOLIO", Opposition No. 91195534.
Great Earth Companies, Inc., Farmingdale, New York, Registration Nos.
1181818, and 2510624 for the mark "GREAT SHAPE", Cancellation No. 92053136.
KARL KOCHERSPERGER
Paralegal Specialist
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for
LYNNE G. BERESFORD
Commissioner for Trademarks
Service by Publication
A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been
filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last
known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable,
notice is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its
assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty
days of this publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of
default.
Peter Wokwicz, Mundelein, IL, Registration No. 2349792 for the mark
"SKYTRAN", Cancellation No. 92052242.
CLARA VELA
Paralegal Specialist
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for
LYNNE G. BERESFORD
Commissioner for Trademarks
Service by Publication
A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been
filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last
known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable,
notice is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its
assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty
days of this publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of
default.
DVL Holdings LLC, Addison, TX, Registration No. 3024924 for the mark
"TECHNIKI INFORMATICA", Cancellation No. 92052977.
MONIQUE TYSON
Paralegal Specialist
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for
LYNNE G. BERESFORD
Commissioner for Trademarks
Service by Publication
A petition to cancel the registration identified below having been
filed, and the notice of such proceeding sent to registrant at the last
known address having been returned by the Postal Service as undeliverable,
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 241 |
notice is hereby given that unless the registrant listed herein, its
assigns or legal representatives, shall enter an appearance within thirty
days of this publication, the cancellation will proceed as in the case of
default.
Maverick CO PTY LTD, Victoria, Australia, Registration No. 3176043 for the
mark "CALAVERA", Cancellation No. 92053024.
TYRONE CRAVEN
Paralegal Specialist
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, for
LYNNE G. BERESFORD
Commissioner for Trademarks
| 37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication |
37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of an application with a petition
under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without the
signature of all the inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice has
been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor. The
inventor whose signature is missing (Richard Wilby) may join in the
application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration complying
with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is PCT/FR2008/051276
and was filed 08 July 2008 in the name of Richard Wilby for the invention
entitled DEVICE AND METHOD FOR DETECTING A FAILURE INA POWERED VALVE. The
national stage number is 12/668,607 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date of 30
August 2010.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of a national stage application
with a petition under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application
without the signature of all inventors. The petition has been granted. A
notice has been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor.
The inventor whose signature is missing (Steven Lane Percival) may join in
the application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration
complying with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is
CT/GB08/03893 and was filed on 20 November 2008 in the names of Steven Lane
Percival, Philip Godfrey Bowler, Samantha Alison Jones and Sarah Anne
Welsby entitled DIAGNOSTIC MARKERS OF WOUND INFECTION. The national stage
application is assigned number 12/743,633 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date
of 19 May 2010.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of a national stage application
with a petition under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application
without the signature of all of the inventors. The petition has been
granted. A notice has been sent to the last known address of the
non-signing inventor, Aymeric Goldsteinas. The inventor whose signature is
missing may join in the application by promptly filing an appropriate oath
or declaration complying with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application
number is PCT/FR2006/050357 and was filed on 19 April 2006 in the names of
Jean Berlier, Aymeric Goldsteinas and Xavier Doussot for the invention
entitled Low Pressure Carbonitriding Method and Device. The national stage
application is assigned number 11/918,805 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1),
(c)(2) and (c)(4) date of 22 June 2009.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of a national stage application
with a petition under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application
without the signature of all of the inventors. The petition has been
granted. A notice has been sent to the last known address of the
non-signing inventor, Ofer Wald. The inventor whose signature is missing
may join in the application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or
declaration complying with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application
number is PCT/IL2007/000891 and was filed on 16 July 2007 in the names of
Ofer Wald and Ayelet Wald for the invention entitled a Network Cache, a
User Device, a Computer Program Product and a Method for Managing Files.
The national stage application is assigned number 12/374,315 and has a 35
U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (c)(2) and (c)(4) date of 21 April 2010.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice by Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of an application with a petition
under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without the
signature of one of the joint inventors. The petition has been granted. A
notice has been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor.
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 243 |
The inventor whose signature is missing (Saskia Rietjens) may join in the
application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration complying
with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is PCT/EP2007/008636
and was filed on 05 October 2007 in the name of Saskia Rietjens et al for
the invention entitled "Olive Extracts for Promoting Muscle Health". The
national stage application number is 12/443,548 and has a date of 01
October 2010 under 35 U.S.C. 371(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(4).
37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of an application with a petition
under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without the
signature of all the inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice has
been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor. The
inventor whose signature is missing (Ji-Sang Yu) may join in the
application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration complying
with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is PCT/KR2009/001033
and was filed 03 March 2009 in the names of BAE, Yoon-Jung, PARK, Pil-Kyu,
KIM, Jong-Hwan, HAN, Dong-Hun, LEE, Han-Ho, LEE, Sang-Young, YU, Ji-Sang
and JANG, Hyun-Min for the invention entitled SEPARATOR HAVING POROUS
COATING LAYER AND ELECTROCHEMICAL DEVICE CONTAINING THE SAME. The national
stage number is 12/745,717 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date of 24 August
2010.
37 CFR 1.47 Notice of Publication
Notice is hereby given of the filing of an application with a petition
under 37 CFR 1.47 requesting acceptance of the application without the
signature of all of the inventors. The petition has been granted. A notice
has been sent to the last known address of the non-signing inventor. The
inventor whose signature is missing (Satoru MORINO) may join in the
application by promptly filing an appropriate oath or declaration complying
with 37 CFR 1.63. The international application number is PCT/JP2008/052407
and was filed 14 February 2008 in the names of Satoru MORINO and Tatsuya
OKA for the invention entitled EXTRACTION PREVENTING DEVICE FOR CONNECTOR.
The national stage number is 12/675,984 and has a 35 U.S.C. 371(c) date of
02 March 2010.
Registration to Practice
The following list contains the names of persons seeking for
registration to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark
Office. Final approval for registration is subject to establishing to the
satisfaction of the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline
that the person seeking registration is of good moral character and repute.
37 CFR § 11.7 Accordingly any information tending to affect the eligibility
of any of the following persons on moral ethical or other grounds should be
furnished to the Director of Enrollment and Discipline on or before
December 10, 2010 at the following address: Mail Stop OED United States
Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria VA 22314
Au, Yiu Fai, 449 Gatewood Court, Glen Burnie, MD 21061
Azakli Maisami, Ceyda Nimet, Chadbourne & Parke LLP, 30 Rockefeller Plaza,
New York, NY 10112
Carlson, Clifford Alva Phillip, 110 Addington, Kathleen, GA 31047
Chung, Matthew Han, 336 Eastside Avenue, Ridgewood, NJ 07450
Deren, Stephen Patrick, 970 Corte Madera Avenue, Apartment # 501,
Sunnyvale, CA 94085
Evans, Vernon Edwards, Baker Botts L.L.P., 2001 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX
75201-2980
Greathouse, Brian David, 25464 N. 73rd Avenue, Peoria, AZ 85383
Holt, Benjamin Jack, Bateman IP Law Group, 8 E Broadway, Suite 550, Salt
Lake City, UT 84111
Iaconis, James Francis, P.O. Box 2352, Concord, NH 03302
Jin, Mingji, 1400 NW 10th Avenue, Apartment 1910, Miami, FL 33136
Joshi, Rakesh Niranjan, 100 Union Drive, Apartment 116-2, Albany, NY 12208
Kimmelblatt, Brian Alan, 205 State Street, Apartment 5N, Brooklyn, NY 11201
Kruse, Richard Andrew, 7524 Karl Drive, Lincoln, NE 68516
Kuhn, Steven Howard, 1193 Sierra Madres Terrace, San Jose, CA 95126
Lee, Sang Ki. 183 Lawn Court, Buffalo Grove, IL 60089
McCraw, Barry Clayton, 2822 Earlswood Road, Midlothian, VA 23113
McPartland, Joseph Owen, Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, 1290 Avenue
of the Americas, New York, NY 10104-3800
Merrill, Bryon Anderson, 3M Company, 275-5E-13, 3M CENTER, St. Paul, MN
55144
Milks, Wesley Albert, Lockheed Martin, 2526 Rainbow Springs Lane, Orlando,
FL 32828-7777
Mitchell, Kyle Myron, 17220 NW 64th Avenue, Apartment 203, Hialeah, FL
33015
Neu, Jacob William, 1013 Villa Place, Apartment C, Nashville, TN 37212
O'Sullivan, Desmond Paul, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, 12531 High Bluff Drive,
Suite 100, San Diego, CA 92130
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 245 |
Postolski, David Dov, Cantor Fitzgerald, 110 East 59th Street, New York, NY
10022
Prorok, Philip Alexander, 737 W. Kingsbury Drive, Arlington Heights, IL
60004
Satia, Purva Charu, 229 Forrester Road, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Schechter, Evan Bradley, 13213 N. 68th Street, Scottsdale, AZ 85254
Sharper, Sayuri Kuo, 1525 Clay Drive, Los Altos, CA 94024
Sullivan, Danial James. 24808 Boston Street, Dearborn, MI 481244
Western, Paul Lyle, 45672 Larchmont Drive, Canton, MI 48187
Wong, Amy Lai, Schox PLC, 500 Third Street, Suite 515, San Francisco, CA
94107
Yan, Ni, 38 Wharton Drive, Glen Mills, PA 19342
Ye, Gang, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Two Freedom
Square, 11955 Freedom Drive, Reston, VA 20190
Younkins, Karen Lynn, United States Patent & Trademark Office, 600 Dulany
Street, Alexandria, VA 22314
Zelle, Karen Michelle, 18104 Bent Ridge Drive, Wildwood, MO 63038
October 26, 2010 HARRY I. MOATZ
Director of Enrollment & Discipline
Registration to Practice
The following list contains the names of persons seeking for
registration to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark
Office. Final approval for registration is subject to establishing to the
satisfaction of the Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline
that the person seeking registration is of good moral character and repute.
37 CFR § 11.7 Accordingly any information tending to affect the eligibility
of any of the following persons on moral ethical or other grounds should be
furnished to the Director of Enrollment and Discipline on or before
December 17, 2010 at the following address: Mail Stop OED United States
Patent and Trademark Office P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria VA 22314
Bello, Ryan Michael, 1520 Eastlake Avenue E, Suite 203, Seattle, WA 98102
Birtley, Cassidy Hines, 10429 SW Eastridge Street, Portland, OR 97225
Boyd, Erin Marie, United States Patent and Trademark Office, 600 Dulany
Street, Alexandria, VA 22314
Butts, Christopher David, McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, 300
South Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606
Chen, Han-Wei, 2020 Latham Street, Apartment #09, Mountain View, CA 94040
Davis, Albert Frank, A.F. Davis Law, P.O. Box 712, Richmond, TX 77406
Falkenstern, Robert Leonard, 18 King Road, Park Ridge, NJ 07656
Gibbons, Michael Lawrence, 2680 139th Avenue SE, Apartment 31, Bellevue, WA
98005
Gish, Andrew Dale, 10925 SW Polsky Road, Beaverton, OR 97005
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 246 |
Goodman, Jonathan Samuel, 236 W 16th Street, Apartment #2C, New York, NY
10011
Hamada, Seiji, Panasonic Patent Center, Panasonic Corporation of North
America, 1130 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20036
Hammerlind, Chad Jeffrey, 1064 Marshall Avenue, Unit 2, Saint Paul, MN
55104
Hawk, Julie Denise, 3736 Fairway Park Drive, #202, Copeley, OH 44321
Higgins, Sheri Lynn, 4224 University Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75205
Howard, Kyle Lawson, Haynes and Boone, LLP, 2505 N. Plano Road, Suite 4000,
Richardson, TX 75082
Hsu, Andrea Miller, P.O. Box 73962, Davis, CA 95617
Jefferis, Robert Allen, 2256 Delaware Drive, Cleveland Heights, OH 44106
Lamb, Daniel Thomas, 10213 Rodgers Road, Fairfax, VA 22030
Lederman, Jonathan Leslie, 250 West El Camino Real, #5307, Sunnyvale, CA
94087
Long, Xilin, 1409 N Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770
Medeiros, Maya Jasmine, Bereskin & Parr LLP, Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street,
West, 40th Floor, Toronto Ont., M5H 3Y2 Canada
Owens, Sandra Kay, Aims Community College, 5401 W. 20th Street, Suite 145,
Greeley, CO 80632
Patel, Rikesh Pradip, Stryker Corporation, 2825 Airview Boulevard,
Kalamazoo, MI 49002
Ren, Yao, Quarles & Brady LLP, 411 E Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2040,
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Vuong, Thanh Vinh, Research in Motion Ltd., 295 Phillip Street, Waterloo,
Ont., N2L 3W8, Canada
Williams, Kristin Diane, Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 4222 Emperor
Boulevard, Suite 200, Durham, NC 27703
November 2, 2010 HARRY I. MOATZ
Director of Enrollment & Discipline
| Notice of Stayed Suspension |
Notice of Stayed Suspension
Ralph M. Martin of Longmont, Colorado, registered patent attorney
(Registration Number 32,267). The United States Patent and Trademark Office
("USPTO" or "Office") has suspended Mr. Martin for twenty-four months, with
the entirety of the suspension stayed, and placed him on a twenty-four (24)
month probation for violating 37 C.F.R. § 10.23(b)(4) by engaging in
conduct involving misrepresentation by submitting electronic funds
transfers to the USPTO that were dishonored for insufficient funds and 37
C.F.R. § 10.23(b)(6) by engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his
fitness to practice law by failing to adequately supervise his staff and
permitting submission of EFTs to the USPTO that were dishonored for
insufficient funds. Mr. Martin is permitted to practice before the Office
during his probation unless the stay of the suspension is lifted.
Mr. Martin maintained a client trust account and a separate operating
account for the business/operating transactions of his law practice. In
September 2008, Mr. Martin transferred his client trust account and his
operating account to a new bank. From September 2008 to April 2009, Mr.
Martin permitted his staff to make electronic funds transfers from his
operating account at his old bank. The electronic funds transfers were
dishonored because there were insufficient funds in the frozen operating
account at his old bank. The dishonored electronic funds transfers totaled
one thousand, nine hundred and forty-four dollars ($1944.00). Mr. Martin
has made good on all the dishonored electronic funds transfers, has an
electronic funds transfer capability on his new Coltaf trust account, has
had his staff trained in electronic funds transfers, and has taken steps to
ensure that the manner in which he and his staff handle electronic funds
transfers comply with USPTO Disciplinary Rules.
This action is the result of a settlement agreement between Mr. Martin
and the OED Director pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 2(b)(2)(D)
and 32 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.20, 11.26, and 11.59. Disciplinary decisions
involving practitioners are posted at the Office of Enrollment and
Discipline's Reading Room located at:
http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/OEDReadingRoom.jsp.
October 26 2010 WILLIAM R. COVEY
Deputy General Counsel for General Law
on behalf of
DAVID KAPPOS
Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
| Elimination of an Inventor's Mailing Address on Patents and Application Publications |
Elimination of an Inventor's Mailing Address on
Patents and Application Publications
Currently, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Office) prints
unassigned patents with a reference to an inventor's mailing address on the
front page of the patent. In some cases, the inventor's mailing address may
be the inventor's home address. Similarly, on application publications, the
Office includes a correspondence address below the inventor information
field, which may be the inventor's home address. Recognizing concerns of
privacy with respect to printing an inventor's home address on the front
page of a patent or application publication, the Office is eliminating: (1)
the inventor's address information on unassigned patents in the inventor
information field; and (2) the correspondence address information on
application publications. In order to remove reference to an inventor's
home address on application publications, the Office will no longer print a
correspondence address on the front page of the application publication,
regardless of whether the correspondence address is an inventor's home
address or an alternative correspondence address, e.g., a corporate
address.
With availability of correspondence information regarding a patent or
application publication in the Office's public Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system, printing such information on either a
patent or application publication, which can change over time, is
unnecessary. Members of the public can access PAIR to obtain necessary
correspondence information.
Thus, for unassigned patents, any address information in the inventor
information field relating to where an inventor resides will be limited to
city and state, if the inventor is a resident of the United States. In
cases where an inventor resides outside the United States, the inventor
information field will only include the city and country of the inventor.
Furthermore, to address privacy concerns and publication of potentially
incorrect correspondence information, the Office is completely eliminating
the correspondence address information shown below the inventor field in
application publications. Only the inventor's name, city and state, if the
inventor resides in the United States, will be listed. In cases where an
inventor resides outside the United States, only the inventor's name, city
and country will be listed.
Implementation of the elimination of inclusion of an inventor's address
will become effective three months from the publication date of this
notice.
Any inquiry regarding this notice may be directed to Mary C. Till, Legal
Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Associate
Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at (571) 272-7755
or (571) 272-7701, or by electronic mail at PatentPractice@uspto.gov.
October 29, 2010 DAVID J. KAPPOS
Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
| Pilot Program for Waiver of Patent Owner's Statement in Ex Parte Reexamination Proceedings |
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Patent and Trademark Office
[Docket No.: PTO-P-2010-0056]
Pilot Program for Waiver of Patent Owner's Statement in
Ex Parte Reexamination Proceedings
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recognizes
the need to reduce the pendency of reexamination proceedings and improve
the efficiency of the reexamination process. The USPTO is considering a
number of short and long-range initiatives that can be implemented in three
phases. In phase I, the USPTO will implement streamlined procedures, as
well as optional programs in which patent owners and third party requesters
may elect to participate in order to gain the benefit of shorter pendency.
In phases II and III, the USPTO will consider the data gathered from phase
I and the feedback from the patent owners and other stakeholders, and
implement process changes that are likely to improve efficiency. Such
changes may include internal procedural changes, rule making that includes
opportunities for the public to comment, and/or administrative proposals
for statutory changes to enhance the efficiency of the USPTO in conducting
reexamination proceedings. As part of phase I to reduce pendency and
improve efficiency in ex parte reexamination proceedings, the USPTO is
implementing, in this notice, a pilot program in which patent owners may
waive the right to file a patent owner's statement upon a request made by
the USPTO. This will enable USPTO in suitable cases to issue the first
Office action on the merits together with or soon after the reexamination
order, and thereby reduce the pendency of the proceeding by about three to
five months.
DATES: Effective Date: The changes set forth in this notice will take
effect on August 5, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert A. Clarke, Kenneth M. Schor or Joni
Y. Chang, Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Associate
Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, by telephone at 571-272-7735,
571-272-7710 or 571-272-7720, or by mail addressed to: Mail Stop Comments
Patents, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA
22313-1450.
Inquiries regarding the current reexamination practice may be directed
to the Office of Patent Legal Administration, by telephone at
(571) 272-7703, or by electronic mail at PatentPractice@uspto.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background: The USPTO recognizes the need to reduce the pendency of
reexamination proceedings and improve the efficiency of the reexamination
process. As of March 31, 2010, the average time to reach notice of intent
to issue reexamination certificate (NIRC) for ex parte reexamination
proceedings was about twenty-five months. Many of our stakeholders have
expressed the desire to have a proceeding in which patent owners can
resolve patent validity issues in a shorter time frame. The USPTO is
considering a number of short and long-range initiatives that can be
implemented in three phases to reduce pendency and improve efficiency in
reexamination proceedings. In phase I, the USPTO will implement streamlined
procedures and optional programs in which patent owners and third party
requesters may elect to participate in order to gain the benefit of shorter
pendency. For example, the USPTO recently implemented the streamlined
procedure for appeal brief review in ex parte reexamination proceedings.
See Streamlined Procedure for Appeal Brief Review in Ex Parte Reexamination
Proceedings, 75 FR 29321 (May 25, 2010). In the instant notice, the USPTO
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 250 |
is implementing a pilot program in which patent owners may waive the right
to file a patent owner's statement in response to a request from the USPTO.
The USPTO will also publish notices to implement additional optional
procedures and seek public comments on other procedural changes in the near
future. In phases II and III, the USPTO will consider the data gathered
from phase I and the feedback from the patent owners and other
stakeholders, and implement process changes through internal procedural
changes, rule making that includes opportunities for the public to comment,
and/or administrative proposals for statutory changes to enhance
reexamination proceedings. The USPTO welcomes feedback on improving its
processes. Suggestions may be directed to the Office of Patent Legal
Administration at (571) 272-7701 for the general examination process, or
(571) 272-7703 for the reexamination or reissue process.
II. Overview of the Pilot Program: As part of phase I to reduce pendency
and improve efficiency in ex parte reexamination proceedings, the USPTO
will implement a pilot program in which the USPTO will contact the patent
owner and request the optional waiver of the right to file a patent owner's
statement after the proceeding has been granted a filing date and before
the examiner begins his or her review. This will enable the USPTO in
suitable cases to issue the first Office action on the merits (including an
NIRC) together with or soon after the order for reexamination, and thereby
reduce the pendency of the proceeding by about three to five months.
Under the current procedure, a patent owner may file a statement under
35 U.S.C. 304 within two months from the issuance of an ex parte
reexamination order in a reexamination proceeding, and a third party
requester may file a reply (under 35 U.S.C. 304) to the patent owner's
statement within two months from the date of service of the patent owner's
statement. Last year, approximately ten percent of patent owners filed a
patent owner's statement under 35 U.S.C. 304 after the USPTO had ordered an
ex parte reexamination of a patent. When ex parte reexamination is ordered,
the examiner generally starts to prepare the first Office action on the
merits after the receipt of the patent owner's statement and the third
party requester's reply, or after the expiration of the time period for
filing the statement and reply. As of March 31, 2010, the average time to
order an ex parte reexamination from the filing of an ex parte
reexamination request was about two months and the average time to issue a
first Office action on the merits from the filing of an ex parte
reexamination request was between seven to eight months.
If the patent owner waives the right to file a patent owner's statement
in response to a request from the USPTO, the examiner will be able to act
on the first Office action on the merits immediately after determining that
reexamination will be ordered, and in a suitable case issue the
reexamination order and the first Office action on the merits (including an
NIRC) at the same time. This will eliminate the delay of waiting for a
patent owner's statement and the third-party requester's reply and will
permit the examiner to utilize his or her time more efficiently by drafting
the order and the first Office action on the merits (including an NIRC)
together. Moreover, by performing the threshold analysis of determining and
preparing an action on the merits concurrently when a request raises a
substantial new question of patentability (SNQ), the overall efficiency of
the USPTO in performing the reexamination process should be increased. The
Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) has experience in performing the threshold
SNQ analysis and concurrently preparing an Office action on the merits, and
the reexamination order and Office action are typically mailed together in
inter partes reexamination proceedings. See 37 CFR 1.935.
III. Waiver Procedure under the Pilot Program: Under the pilot program
for waiving the patent owner's statement announced in this notice, the CRU
will contact, via telephone, the patent owner to request the optional
waiver of the patent owner's statement after the proceeding has been
granted a filing date and before the examiner begins his or her review. The
telephone communication will be limited to the CRU requesting the waiver of
the patent owner's statement and agreement (or non-agreement) to the waiver
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 251 |
by the patent owner. Discussion of the merits of the proceedings, e.g., the
patentability of claims in patents, will not be permitted. The CRU will
make the agreement or non-agreement of record in the reexamination file in
an interview summary and a copy will be mailed to the patent owner and any
third party requester. The patent owner is not required to complete a
written statement of the telephone communication under 37 CFR 1.560(b) or
otherwise, and such a statement should not be filed as it will slow the
process. If the patent owner agrees to the waiver of the right to file a
patent owner's statement, the examiner will typically issue the
reexamination order and the first Office action on the merits on the same
day as the order, or within a few days thereafter.
The Office intends to make available to the public statistics on the
number of patent owners that agree to waive the statement and the impact on
pendency due to waiving the statement right. This data is expected to form
a portion of the data used in the decision making processes in phases II
and III.
July 16, 2010 DAVID J. KAPPOS
Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
| Streamlined Procedure for Appeal Brief Review in Inter Partes Reexamination Proceedings |
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
[Docket No.: PTO-P-2010-0065]
Streamlined Procedure for Appeal Brief Review in
Inter Partes Reexamination Proceedings
AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is
streamlining the procedure for the review of appeal briefs filed in inter
partes reexamination proceeding appeals to increase the efficiency of the
appellate process and to reduce the pendency of appeals. The Chief Judge of
the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) or his designee
(collectively, "Chief Judge"), will have the sole responsibility for
determining whether appeal briefs filed in inter partes reexamination
proceedings (i.e., appellant's briefs, respondent's briefs, and rebuttal
briefs) comply with the applicable regulations, and will complete the
determination before the appeal brief is forwarded to the examiner for
consideration. The examiner will no longer review appeal briefs for
compliance with the applicable regulations. The USPTO expects to achieve a
reduction in inter partes reexamination proceeding appeal pendency as
measured from the filing of a notice of appeal to the BPAI's docketing of
the appeal by eliminating duplicate reviews by the examiner and the BPAI.
The USPTO expects further reduction in pendency because the streamlined
procedure will increase consistency in the determination, and thereby
reduce the number of notices of noncompliant appeal briefs and
non-substantive returns from the BPAI that require parties to file
corrected appeal briefs in inter partes reexamination proceeding appeals.
DATES: Effective Date: The procedure set forth in this notice is effective
on August 17, 2010.
Applicability Date: The procedure set forth in this notice is applicable
to any appeal brief (regardless of whether it is an appellant's brief, a
respondent's brief, or a rebuttal brief) that is filed in an inter partes
reexamination proceeding on or after August 17, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Merrell Cashion, Case Management
Administrator, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, by telephone at
(571) 272-9797 or by electronic mail at BPAI.Review@uspto.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the streamlined procedure, upon the filing
of an appeal brief in an inter partes reexamination proceeding (i.e., an
appellant's brief, a respondent's brief, or a rebuttal brief), the Chief
Judge will review the appeal brief to determine whether the appeal brief
complies with 37 CFR 1.943(c) and 37 CFR 41.67, 41.68, or 41.71 before it
is forwarded to the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) or other Technology
Center examiner for consideration. The Chief Judge will endeavor to
complete this determination within one month from the filing of the appeal
brief. To assist parties in complying with 37 CFR 1.943(c), 41.67, 41.68,
and 41.71, the BPAI has provided a checklist for notices of appeal and
appeal briefs and a list of eight reasons appeal briefs have been
previously held to be noncompliant on the USPTO Web site at:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.
html&log=linklog&to=http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/procedures/
guidance_noncompliant_briefs.jsp. If the appeal brief is determined to be
compliant with 37 CFR 1.943(c) and 37 CFR 41.67, 41.68, or 41.71, the Chief
Judge will accept the appeal brief and forward it to the examiner for
consideration. If the Chief Judge determines that the appeal brief is not
compliant with 37 CFR 1.943(c) and 37 CFR 41.67, 41.68, or 41.71, and sends
appellant, respondent, or rebutting party a notice of noncompliant brief
requiring a corrected brief, the party will be required to file a corrected
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 253 |
brief within the time period set forth in the notice to avoid the dismissal
of the appeal. See 37 CFR 1.943(c) and 37 CFR 41.67(d), 41.68(c), or
41.71(e). The Chief Judge will also have the sole responsibility for
determining whether corrected appeal briefs comply with 37 CFR 1.943(c) and
37 CFR 41.67, 41.68, or 41.71, and will address any inquiries and petitions
regarding entry of appeal briefs or notices of noncompliant appeal briefs.
The Chief Judge's responsibility for determining whether appeal briefs
comply with 37 CFR 1.943(c) and 37 CFR 41.67, 41.68, or 41.71 is not
considered a transfer of jurisdiction when an appeal brief is filed, but
rather is only a transfer of the specific responsibility to notify
appellants under 37 CFR 1.943(c) and 37 CFR 41.67(d) 41.68(c), or 41.71(e)
of the reasons for non-compliance. The Patent Examining Corps retains the
jurisdiction over the inter partes reexamination proceeding to consider the
appeal brief, conduct any conference, draft an examiner's answer, and
decide the entry and consideration of amendments, evidence, and information
disclosure statements filed after final or after the filing of a notice of
appeal. Furthermore, petitions concerning the refusal to enter amendments
and/or evidence remain delegated to the Patent Examining Corps as provided
in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) Sec. 1002.02(b)-(c).
Once the Chief Judge accepts the appellant's brief, respondent's brief,
or rebuttal brief as compliant, an examiner's answer will be provided in
the inter partes reexamination proceeding if the examiner determines that
the appeal should be maintained. The format for the examiner's answer will
be streamlined such that the examiner may incorporate by reference any of
the examiner's positions (e.g., rejections) previously made on the record.
The examiner will treat all pending claims in the proceeding as being on
appeal. If the notice of appeal, notice of cross appeal, or appeal brief
identifies fewer than all of the rejected or non-rejected claims as being
appealed, the issue will be addressed by the BPAI panel. The jurisdiction
of the inter partes reexamination proceeding will be transferred to the
BPAI when a docketing notice is entered after the time period for filing
the last rebuttal brief (if appropriate) expires or the examiner
acknowledges the receipt and entry of the last rebuttal brief. After taking
jurisdiction, the BPAI will not return or remand the inter partes
reexamination proceeding to the Patent Examining Corps for issues related
to a noncompliant appeal brief.
July 20, 2010 DAVID J. KAPOS
Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Director of the
United States Patent and Trademark Office
| Patent Public Advisory Committee Annual Report 2010 |
Patent Public Advisory Committee Annual Report 2010
United States Patent and Trademark Office
1 NOVEMBER 2010
|
The Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC or
Committee) was formed by Congress in 1999 as part of the American Inventors
Protection Act. The PPAC includes 9 voting members selected from the public.
The current public members of the PPAC are: Damon Matteo, Chair, Marc Adler, D.
Benjamin Borson, Louis J. Foreman, Esther Kepplinger, F. Scott Kieff, Steven W.
Miller, Stephen M. Pinkos and Maureen K. Toohey. PPAC Union Representatives
are Robert D. Budens, Catherine Faint, Howard Friedman, and Vernon Ako Towler.
The PPAC holds regular public meetings and provides input to the USPTO, the
President, and Congress on matters relating to the Patent Office and its
operations.
The United States is a World leader in innovation, due
to a culture of innovation, and the formation at the beginning of the Republic,
of a vital patent system. The underpinnings of the patent system are reflected
in the Constitution, and to this day, the Constitutional underpinnings of the
patent system provide guides for legislative, administrative and judicial
interactions. Through the efforts of each arm of the government, the Committee
believes that the U.S. patent system will remain a leader of the innovation
ecosystem. Innovation is crucial to society’s continued advancement and our
nation’s economic vitality.
This Report reflects the cooperation between members
of the Committee and USPTO personnel, and addresses topics identified by the
Committee to be of particular importance to US innovators. This Report is
organized into different topical areas, each addressing aspects of the patent
process and USPTO operational issues. The Committee thanks the USPTO and the
Administration for its focus upon themes common to many of the topical areas
that are addressed in the USPTO Strategic Plan. Common themes include:
- Providing stable and predictable funding;
- Improved customer service;
- Collaboration and cooperation between the USPTO and the innovation community;
- Transparency of process;
- Clarity of rules and procedures; and
- Developing and implementing best practices.
Although the above themes can be considered
separately, the Committee believes that they are interrelated and individual
sections of this Report can be understood in light of these themes.
I. STABLE AND PREDICTABLE FUNDING
The PPAC takes note of the fact that the current
appropriations process does not work well for the USPTO, the Congressional
Appropriations Committees, and the IP community. The PPAC recommends that
Congress develop an alternative funding and budget process for the USPTO. The
USPTO operates solely with money it collects from user fees and it receives no
funds generated from taxes. Therefore, the USPTO is unique and should be
treated differently from other governmental programs that are funded by general
tax revenues.
The PPAC and innovators are committed to ensuring that
the USPTO has continuing access to all earned fees needed to achieve the aims
described below. We thank Congress for its understanding of the critical
nature of the innovation community and the value of patents, and believe that Congressional
action to restore additional fee collections to the USPTO for 2010 will greatly
help innovation. We wholeheartedly support efforts to (1) permanently
terminate fee diversion (unavailable funds), (2) permit the USPTO to develop
and maintain a reserve fund, and (3) with proper notice and public input,
provide the USPTO with authority to set and adjust fees to meet the needs of
our World-class 21st century patent system. We encourage all
parties to make all fees available to serve USPTO purposes. Although we
appreciate this year’s return of some, but not all, additional fees to the
USPTO, the Committee recommends that the USPTO receive stable long-term
funding.
II. CUSTOMER SERVICE
The PPAC thanks the USPTO for its commitment to
customer service as exemplified by the increased cooperation between the USPTO
and members of the public, inventors, companies and other stakeholders. The
committee believes that interaction of the USPTO, Congress, Judiciary and the
public are crucial to advancing innovation. The Committee appreciates the
focus of the U.S. patent system upon making it easy for applicants to enter the
patent system. Keeping up-front costs (filing and prosecution fees) low, in
favor of “back-loading” costs through maintenance fees assists independent
inventors and small entities. The PPAC agrees with this focus.
III. COOPERATION AND COLLABORATION
Cooperation and collaboration between all units within
the USPTO, user groups, and innovators is essential to development of effective
procedures for maintaining a vital patent system. To this end, the Committee
encourages efforts to provide open and effective communication between all
participants in the innovation community. The Committee also approves of the
USPTO’s efforts to increase the use of interviews at all stages of the
application process. Efforts of the USPTO to
provide current and complete information about plans and their implementation
are essential. Effective customer service also requires accountability of all
participants.
The Committee also thanks the USPTO for working with
employees, including providing more time for examination. Increased
collaboration has improved morale and has helped reduce attrition. The PPAC
encourages the USPTO to continue working with employees as needed to address
continuing concerns.
Cooperation and collaboration in development of
examination rules and procedures is essential for an effective patent system. The
PPAC applauds the decision of the Director and the USPTO to withdraw the Final
Rule on Claims and Continuations and the appeal in Tafas v. Kappos. The
PPAC believes that this action demonstrated that the USPTO understands the
highly collaborative nature of the patent process, and is working to maintain a
positive working relationship with innovators and patent applicants. The PPAC
believes that a proper balance between the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive
branches of government is crucial to maintaining the preeminence of the USPTO
as the World leader in fostering and developing new industries that are so
important to the U.S. and World economies. The PPAC looks forward to working
with the USPTO to develop and modify procedural rules to implement important
changes to improve the patent process.
Because the scope and contents of patent law are
crucial to maintaining and furthering the patent system, the PPAC recommends
that the Legislative branch take the lead in developing all substantive
requirements for obtaining patent protection. We believe that the Judiciary
should continue to ensure that any legislative enactment meet Constitutional
and practical objectives. The USPTO plays a central role in evaluating patent
applications and ensuring that any patent that issues meets the required
standards. PPAC believes that the USPTO should maintain the ability to
promulgate procedural rules for examining patent applications, and that
substantive rulemaking should be left to Congress.
The U.S. patent system does not exist in isolation
from the rest of the World. We are pleased that the USPTO and the
Administration are continuing the efforts of the previous Administrations to
engage with other patent offices and to move ahead with the Patent Prosecution
Highway (PPH) and the SHARE programs. We believe that through these efforts,
U.S. and foreign applicants will be able to take advantage of common experiences of
innovators and Patent Offices, and Patent Offices may be able to reduce
duplicative work.
IV. TRANSPARENCY
Effective customer service, cooperation and
collaboration require transparent processes. The committee applauds the
USPTO’s efforts at making its operations more transparent and open, and looks
forward to increased transparency as the Strategic Plan is further
implemented. Transparency is achieved through the use of public fora,
including public meetings, announcements, frank and open reporting, and modern
tools of communication. The committee especially appreciates the USPTO’s
efforts in improving usability of the Website and the frequent comments and Blog
posts by the Director.
The PPAC received questions from the public about the
different dockets that Examiners use. The Committee requests that the USPTO
describe the different dockets, what matters are placed on them, and how
differences in docketing affect examination.
The PPAC also appreciates and supports the USPTO’s
efforts to reengineer its electronic operations. We are pleased to work with
the USPTO to provide input into functional aspects of the new operations. In
particular, we support the move to a text-based electronic system. These
efforts will provide greater transparency of examination, and will increase
public confidence in the patent process.
V. CLARITY
The Committee appreciates that patent examination
occurs in a changing landscape of statutes, rules, regulations, and
procedures. We encourage the USPTO to continue to clarify its rules and
practices, and to ensure that the innovation community understands how the
patent process is effectively used. In particular, the PPAC recommends that
wherever possible, the USPTO provide guidance regarding practices that
effectively move examination forward, with a minimum of unneeded delays and
costs. We believe that the Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP) should
be maintained and updated in an ongoing fashion. We believe that the MPEP
should provide easily understandable assistance to innovators and patent
applicants.
Based on public comments, the Committee believes that
clarity of communication between Office personnel and applicants is crucial to
effective and efficient processing and examination. The Committee recommends
that the USPTO review form paragraphs used in Office Actions for clarity and
presence of any unnecessary jargon, and to provide training of personnel in
effective use of language. The PPAC especially recommends that all Office
personnel use plain language where ever possible and minimize use of legal
jargon.
VI. BEST PRACTICES
The PPAC believes that a result of implementing the
above goals is the development of best practices that can be a model for other
countries. We support efforts of the USPTO to develop those practices that
improve the operations of the patent system, and to communicate them to the
patent community. We also encourage the USPTO to train the examining corps in
best practices, to improve examination quality and efficiency, and therefore
reduce pendency.
The Committee also believes that if there are problems
identified in any patent application that action be taken to remedy the
problem. Thus, if USPTO personnel detect a problem with examination that falls
short of a proper standard, that the Office issue a corrective action as a
matter of course and take steps to ensure that similar errors happen less
frequently.
The USPTO has identified several financial objectives
to improve their ability to adapt to changing internal and external
circumstances.
The USPTO proposes to establish a sustainable funding
model including the authority, in conjunction with stakeholders input, to set
its fees to reflect the cost of providing the services and products requested
by businesses and innovators.
According to the USPTO, their action plan to implement
a sustainable funding model for operations can be divided into three categories:
| |
(1) authority to spend and manage resources; |
| |
(2) multi-year planning and management tools; and |
| |
(3) transparency into financial andnon-financial operations. |
The financial objectives identified by the USPTO in
their strategic plan are appropriate and necessary steps to allow them to set
priorities and goals and have the ability to plan and implement actions across
multiple fiscal years. Having the ability to set fees and have a reserve of
money is necessary to have any certainty when tackling large restructuring of
systems, particularly IT projects.
Setting fees has required legislative action and
consequently is a very slow process hampering the ability of the USPTO to
adjust to the changes in the economy or other circumstances. The PPAC supports
the USPTO having fee-setting authority in which the fees would be established
in conjunction with advice from the stakeholders and the PPAC. It is noted
that the plans set forth by the USPTO include aligning the fees with the full
aggregate cost to achieve the USPTO’s mission, establishing a reserve fund and
preparing a requirements based budget.
Fees at the USPTO have traditionally been set with a
lower front end to encourage entry into the system and higher maintenance fees
to offset the lower filing fees. It is recognized that this model may create
challenges and financial difficulties to a smooth operation of the USPTO,
however, the patent system has fostered innovation and the economic growth of
the United States, at least in part, by encouraging participation in the
system.
As with many past years, the most important
legislative activity affecting the USPTO centers around the Congressional
appropriations process --- the process by which Congress and the President
allocate money to federal agencies, including the USPTO. The USPTO operates
solely with money it collects from user fees and it receives no funds generated
from taxes. However, Congress still authorizes the specific amount of user fee
collections the USPTO can spend on its operations. In some years, Congress has
authorized an amount for the USPTO to spend that is less than the user fees
collected. Therefore the additional user fees beyond those appropriated were
diverted to other government functions.
For fiscal year 2010 (October 1, 2009-September 30,
2010), the USPTO originally requested, via the President’s budget in February
2009, $1.930 billion. This figure was based on the USPTO’s internal
estimates of what they expected to collect in user fees during fiscal year
2010. In September, 2009, the USPTO updated the Appropriations Committees in
Congress with a new fee collection estimate of $1.887 billion and at the same
time, renewed its request for up to $100 million in additional spending
authority should the USPTO collect more than $1.887 billion ---- a $100 million
“buffer,” so to speak. Congress eventually approved the $1.887 billion
figure but did not provide the $100 million buffer.
It is our understanding that the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) actually projected that the USPTO would collect $1.980 billion in
fiscal year 2010 (the CBO doesn’t necessarily rely on the USPTO’s own user fee
collection estimates). So, the Appropriations Committee was able to give
the USPTO a number that matched the USPTO’s revised estimate ($1.887 billion)
while at the same time the overall appropriations “pot” reflected the CBO’s
estimate ($1.980 billion), thus giving Congress more money to spend on other
governmental functions and programs.
As fiscal year 2010 progressed, it became clear the
USPTO would collect more than $1.887 billion in user fees; fees that could be
used to improve the quality and timeliness of patent application examination.
However, since the USPTO was only authorized to spend $1.887 billion, the
agency had to seek passage of legislation that would allow the USPTO to spend
the fee collections in excess of $1.887 billion. Passage of such legislation
was not as simple as some might expect ---it seemed simple because the USPTO
was just asking to spend additional revenue that it was collecting. Therefore,
it would be “deficit neutral” and not require funds from the general treasury.
However, it was not deemed deficit neutral by Congress because as noted above,
Congress had already “spent” $103 million in additional USPTO fee collections
on other government functions (the difference between the CBO’s estimate of
$1.980 billion and the USPTO’s original estimate of $1.887 billion).
Fortunately, the Obama Administration recognized that
the USPTO is an innovation catalyst and proposed legislation to provide
authority for the USPTO to spend its additional revenue. The Administration
proposed to “offset” the USPTO spending by rescinding authorized spending by
the Census Bureau that was no longer necessary. Congress responded by passing
legislation in July (signed into law by the President in August) that provided
the USPTO authority to spend an additional $129 million in fee collections in
fiscal year 2010. This was an extremely positive development. However,
Congress did not provide the USPTO with the “buffer” language to spend up to
$100 million in additional fee collections. By the end of fiscal year 2010,
the USPTO collected $53 million more than the agency was authorized to spend.
Thus, $53 million in fees paid by users of the USPTO were diverted to other
government functions.
This is PPAC’s understanding of a rather complicated
federal budget process, but regardless of the details, the USPTO clearly
collected more money in user fees than they were permitted to spend in fiscal
year 2010 to deliver their services and thus, this additional money was unavailable
to the USPTO. We urge Congress to rectify this untenable situation and work
to enact a permanent end to diversion
that will provide the USPTO with the certainty in planning that a performance
based organization needs. Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Lamar Smith
and other members of the House Judiciary Committee have proposed legislation to
do so --, H.R. 5322, The Patent and Trademark Office Funding Stabilization Act
of 2010. PPAC supports their well-placed
efforts because we strongly believe that all fees paid by patent owners and
applicants for USPTO services should be used solely for USPTO functions and
operations.
The inability to access these fees paid for services
to be rendered by the USPTO significantly impacts their ability to effectively
manage their workload. This diversion seriously undermines the patent system and
delays the examination and grant of applicants’ patents. As a result, one can
expect negative consequences for innovation, the US economy, and the
availability of these inventions to the public.
Furthermore, like the rest of the federal government, the
USPTO is currently operating pursuant to a Continuing Resolution, or “CR.” A
CR is legislation passed by Congress to fund government functions when
individual spending bills have not been enacted by the start of a new fiscal
year. The current CR limits FY 2011 spending by government agencies to FY 2010
levels. The CR is in effect until December 3, 2010 and limits USPTO current spending
to the amount appropriated for FY 2010, $2.016 billion (i.e. the
USPTO’s original FY 2010 appropriation of $1.887 billion plus the Supplemental
Appropriation of $129 million enacted on August 10, 2010). It is quite possible that
Congress will need to pass another CR lasting beyond December
2010. The situation with the CR is further negatively impacting the USPTO’s
ability to operate in a production oriented environment since the office cannot
count on more than $2.006 billion for the current fiscal year (2011). It’s
exceedingly difficult for the Office to make personnel and other investment
decisions that will improve pendency and quality when their Congressional
approved budget may fluctuate by hundreds of millions of dollars. The USPTO is
seeking, via the President’s FY 2011 budget request, $2.321 billion, which
includes collections from the 15 percent fee surcharge the USPTO has requested
--- but not yet been granted by Congress. It is unclear what the final figure
will turn out, given the inability of Congress to agree on Fiscal Year 2011
funding measures and weeks and months of fiscal year 2011 passing us by without
resolution of the fee increase issue.
Due to the reduced fee collections resulting from the
economic downturn, the USPTO has faced difficult budget issues for the past two
years. In fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the USPTO had to significantly cut
spending plans and this slowed the progress in reducing the backlog of
pending patent applications and toward a higher quality patent examination
process. And, the Office is currently challenged by the lack of clarity
with respect to their fiscal year 2011 budget. PPAC firmly believes the USPTO
should be able to access the full collection amount and be afforded more
certainty in their budget planning process in order to hire more, pay more,
improve the IT infrastructure and generally pursue other initiatives necessary
for quality and timely processing of patent applications.
The Committee strongly recommends enactment of
legislation to (1) permanently terminate fee diversion (unavailable funds), (2)
permit the USPTO to develop multi-year planning and maintain a reserve fund,
such as the proposed “Public Enterprise Fund,” and (3) with proper notice and
public input, provide the USPTO with authority to set and change fees to meet
the needs of our World-class 21st century patent system.
The PPAC takes note of the fact that the current
appropriations process does not work well for the USPTO, the appropriators, or
the IP community. The PPAC recommends that Congress develop an alternative
funding and budget process for the USPTO.
The PPAC recommends including “buffer” language in the
USPTO appropriations in order to permit a greater flexibility in utilizing fees
to improve USPTO operations and reduce the backlog of applications.
The USPTO operates solely with money it collects from
user fees and it receives no funds generated from taxes. Therefore, the USPTO
is unique and should be treated differently from other governmental programs
that are funded by general tax revenues. In view of the fact that the USPTO
does not utilize taxpayer funds, but rather offsets by fees, the money that is
appropriated to them, the PPAC recommends that the USPTO budget not be limited
in continuing resolutions to the level from the previous year.
The PPAC recommends that caution be exercised in any
changes to the fees or the fee structure which would dramatically increase
costs and discourage innovation. This is particularly true in the current
economic environment. Increases in fees must be closely linked to stated
objectives and validated over time with accomplishments. USPTO users will not
support any increase in fees if those fees are not directed solely to the USPTO.
Since the fees are back-end loaded, these fees do not align with the tasks
performed by the USPTO. The PPAC does not favor a system which aligns the fees
with a full aggregate cost for each activity, as this could discourage use of
the patent system and reduce innovation, particularly by small inventors. In
particular, we believe that the back-loaded fee structure made it easier for
innovators to enter the patent system, and the Committee recommends maintaining
this type of system.
The PPAC recommends that the USPTO ensure that their
mission is in alignment with the needs and desires of the stakeholders, public
and applicants when determining fee increases to provide funds to achieve the
USPTO’s mission or create a budgetary reserve.
PPAC continues to support an internal management
structure and process for addressing agency-wide issues such as information
technology, human resources and contracting, as well as critical patent
organization issues such as patent quality and pendency.
In our 2008 annual report, PPAC recognized the need
for a process improvement at the USPTO
and supported the Office’s creation of the Chief Process Improvement Office
(CPIO). We reiterated our support for the CPIO last year and asked for the
office to be adequately funded, staffed and supported by top USPTO leadership.
The USPTO is proposing to create a CPIO Council with representatives from the
Chief Financial Officer, the Patents organization and the Trademarks organization.
This Council would report to the Under Secretary.
We believe this alternative approach may serve the
USPTO’s strategic and process planning needs but PPAC is awaiting further
details on its implementation. However, as noted, an organized and efficient
management and process development structure is key to implementing agency-wide
and complex polices. The project below is a timely and important example of
such.
The goal of the process reengineering is to update the
USPTO’s patent automation systems that are a collection of systems that have
been implemented, and have evolved, independently. Consequently, they do not
work interactively and require additional human work and interaction. The
USPTO ultimately seeks to develop a system architecture which will incorporate
a re-design of the pre-examination, examination and post-examination process.
As described, the end-to-end reengineered patent
examination process development would be driven by employees, including the
Examiners, technical support and first line supervisors. Additionally, the
USPTO intends to gather information about the requirements and modifications
from stakeholders. We concur with the USPTO that a focus on developing changes
with those individuals who work most closely with the examination process ---
the Examiners, supervisors, technical support staff, and practitioners --- is
most likely to produce innovative and beneficial changes. The PPAC hopes to
work cooperatively with the USPTO development team to assist in gathering input
from users.
The stated goals of the initiative include improving
examination processing efficiency (Examiner time and examination cost);
improving the quality of the examination process in an employee and stakeholder
friendly manner; maximizing the usage of automation in all examination
processes; and leveraging the work sharing from other patent offices. The PPAC
considers these to be appropriate goals, both in scope and priorities, and
agrees that some efficiency improvements can be obtained from a redesign of the
process. These will be realized in reduced human handling of documents. Based
on the data generated from the Patent Prosecution Highway program, the goal of
reducing both actions per disposal and the pendency of applications through
work sharing seem to be achievable targets. However, the PPAC awaits more data
on impacts this might provide for reduction of the overall backlog of
applications.
The actions planned by the USPTO include a redesign of
the patent examination process with project due dates linked to those of the
end-to-end IT initiative and a projected 3% efficiency gain in the Patent
Examiner Corps each year of the strategic plan. Improvements in efficiency are
a necessary factor in the accomplishment of the stated objectives. The PPAC
awaits the details of the specific initiatives so that these objections may be
realized. The actions to date have focused on initiatives within the Patent
Examination process to improve interactions.
The reduction in the number of actions per
disposal made by the USPTO is a remarkable achievement, particularly in such a
short period of time. The reduction from 2.9 actions per disposal to 2.4
actions per disposal appears to represent a significant improvement in
efficiency. The Committee commends the USPTO for this achievement.
USPTO leaders have stated that in order to reach its
ambitious patent pendency reduction goals, the patents organization must
realize an overall three percent improvement in operational efficiency --- in
addition to large gains in productivity through increased hiring and examiner
output. The USPTO’s FY 2010-2015 Strategic Plan revealed to the public in July
does not specifically quantify the efficiency gain or the precise “gain” from
each individual initiative the USPTO is seeking to implement. Rather, the
USPTO believes an overall three percent operation efficiency gain will be
achieved through the cumulative implementation of various initiatives outlined
in strategic goal number one of the Strategic Plan, entitled “Optimize Patent
Quality and Timeliness.” These initiatives include the “patent process
reengineering” outlined above as well as initiatives described in strategic
goal one as “re-engineer the patent examiner production (count) system,”
“prioritize incoming work,” “re-engineer the classification system,”
“re-engineer the MPEP,” “institutionalize compact prosecution of applications,”
and “improve the patent examination process.” It is the combination of these
initiatives and process changes that the USPTO believes will result in a three
percent efficiency gain.
PPAC commends the USPTO for undertaking these
initiatives, is encouraged by the progress to date, and supports the USPTO in
efforts to further increase efficiency. The Committee firmly believes that
clear and objective metrics are needed to document these efficiency gains, and
encourages the USPTO to continue to develop and refine clear and objective
metrics. Although the USPTO and the Committee desire to increase efficiency on
a year over year basis yearly achievement of these efficiency gains represents
a significant challenge
The Office of Chief Information Officer (OCIO) has
been engaged in redesigning an IT system for the 21st century. One
of the disadvantages of the current, image-based IT system is that all
documents are ultimately stored, retrieved, used, and transmitted as image
files (e.g., in .tif or .pdf format). These properties of image-based systems
renders them suitable for storing and using graphic information, but makes it
difficult to search, annotate, modify, or replace portions of text embedded
within a text file of these types.
As the USPTO continues to improve efficiencies in
operation, reduce ineffective use of USPTO personnel’s time, and to provide
improved service to users of the patent system, it will be of continued
importance to identify those areas where efficiencies can be improved. The
effort by the Office to develop a text-based, HTML IT system represents a major
advance, which will improve all aspects of the patent process. The PPAC fully
supports the USPTO’s efforts to develop the new IT system, and its efforts on
“Process Reengineering.”
In addition to providing a text-based system, another
goal of the OCIO is to provide an “end-to-end” electronic processing capability
for patent application filing, search, examination, prosecution, allowance and
issue. The OCIO intends to introduce hardware and broadband upgrades, upgrade
collaboration tools, and telecommunications abilities. The PPAC applauds the
USPTO for this initiative, and is willing to assist in any feasible way to keep
this process moving.
To implement the change from image-based system to a
text-based system, nine essential teams have been identified. Their
responsibilities include collaboration and delivery of products for the
system. The teams are organized into an integrated whole, with each team
having its own responsibilities. The PPAC believes that the initial structure
is suited to attaining the USPTO’s IT goals, and understands that changes in
the team organization may be needed.
The USPTO is in the process of modernizing the tools
used for revision, publication of, and access to the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP). The primary goal of the project is to replace
the current revision and publication processes with an xml-based system (the
Reference Document Management System (RDMS)). This system will obviate the
current need for multiple publishing systems by providing a single publication
that can be rendered in different formats, and will provide a streamlined
revision and publication process, thereby enabling more frequent and timely
revisions to the MPEP. Stakeholders will access the MPEP via a web-based
application that provides robust features for displaying and searching
content. In conjunction with this effort, the Office is developing a web-based
collaboration tool that will enable stakeholders to readily provide feedback,
comments, and suggestions pertaining to MPEP content.
The strategic plan calls for establishing a
cost-effective, transparent system for patent office operations. The PPAC
applauds this effort and agrees that the current plans for establishing such a
system are going to be very useful to USPTO personnel and users. The new
system will accommodate internal and external users’ abilities to rapidly gain
access to information about patents, the patenting process, and to effectively
communicate with each other.
The PPAC appreciates the Office of Chief Information
Officer (OCIO) and the USPTO’s assessment that the current image-based IT
system is in need of replacement. The OCIO and the USPTO also appreciate that a
text-based system (e.g., .xml) has many desirable features that render it a
good choice for replacing the current system. Personnel engaged in this effort
are working in a collaborative fashion with others at the USPTO to identify and
implement a new IT structure.
As a result of these initial efforts, the OCIO and the
USPTO have embarked upon several new initiatives to introduce a new IT
infrastructure. The concept of the new IT system is based on an “agile”
structure, wherein the USPTO provides basic structure, including overall IT
architecture, portals for access by users, and other attendant hardware and
software. We recognize that the USPTO is using best industry practices wherein
a system is developed iteratively allowing for immediate benefits of the system
and the ability to adapt to rapidly changing needs of the user base. In
addition to providing a basic IT framework, such an agile system will
incorporate separate applications that are integrated into the system. Such a
system would be free from constraints of legacy systems, would be flexible,
scalable, and leverage modern technologies, would use open standards, and be
well documented and readily supported.
The OCIO contemplates that such applications can be
more easily acquired from outside vendors, as distinct from USPTO-produced
applications. Acquiring software solutions from outside vendors is more cost
effective, and does not require that USPTO personnel develop and maintain the
degrees of needed expertise in particular applications. As a result of such a
“modular” system design, it will be easier to monitor, evaluate, modify, or
replace a particular application, if and when modifications or replacements are
needed.
To meet these aims, a solicitation has been released
that will select multiple vendors to build a prototype of the core
infrastructure. Based on the results of the prototypes, the USPTO will select
a single integrator to build out version 1.0 of the core infrastructure.
Through a series of agile iterations, additional functionality will be
delivered and examiners are expected to begin using the new tools in FY 2012.
Although these are ambitious goals, the PPAC is pleased that such substantial
progress has already been made.
The OCIO is considering storing information in the
“cloud.” The PPAC believes that having crucial information stored off-site on
servers controlled by others may result in problems, and encourages the USPTO
to develop and maintain its own data-storage capabilities. The Committee
believes that security of the IT system is important, and urges the USPTO to
provide security against hacking and other forms of cyber crime, and also to
provide protection against electronic disruptions and extraneous electrical
interference.
The OCIO and USPTO have been working with PPAC to
identify and develop ideas for improving the experience of users and to develop
IT tools that will further the goals of developing efficient, cost-effective
operations. The PPAC thanks the OCIO and USPTO for these efforts, and we are
willing to provide any assistance.
There are two on-going activities. One focuses on
internal stakeholders (Examiners and other USPTO personnel). This effort has
resulted in formation of an IT re-engineering team that provides input on
designs and tools that will be useful for USPTO personnel. The Committee
believes that internal aspects of the reengineering project are likely to have
significant impacts on external stakeholders. For example, the PPAC recommends
that the USPTO investigate and implement procedures that would reduce the number
of individuals that must “touch” a patent application during processing.
Reducing the number of transfers of applications between individuals and
working groups will reduce delays in processing applications.
Another focuses on needs of external stakeholders
(Applicants and members of the public). The PPAC has provided initial
suggestions for tools useful for external stakeholders. In one effort, the
PPAC in coordination with external stakeholders developed a survey that could
be used to identify and gauge potential improvements. PPAC also proposes to
work with the USPTO to obtain input from external stakeholders through a series
of roundtable discussions and solicitations of ideas through Federal Register
Notices.
During the recent public session of the PPAC, it was
noted that the USPTO has accepted desktop collaboration as a tool for enhancing
telephonic interviews and for reducing the need for hoteling Examiners to
travel to the Office for interviews. It was reported at a recent meeting that
several collaboration tools are being evaluated and that they permit Examiners
to follow a presentation visually, during a telephonic interview. It was
reported that Examiners will appreciate this tool as an effective adjunct in
the interview process, particularly when crafting amended claim language.
The PPAC believes that the efforts so far have
produced valuable results, and encourages the OCIO and USPTO in the following
areas.
| |
1. |
Continue to upgrade the IT infrastructure |
| |
a. |
Stabilize and consolidate data centers |
| |
b. |
Continue migration to XML |
| |
c. |
Expand network capabilities |
| |
d. |
Provide strategic desktops |
| |
e. |
Improve cyber-security |
| |
2. |
Continue to upgrade and expand links with stakeholders |
| |
a. |
Expand access to USPTO data and knowledge through the web (Data.gov) |
| |
b. |
Establish partnerships with stakeholders, industry and other Intellectual Property Organizations. |
| |
c. |
Improve website with Web 2.0 assistance technologies |
| |
d. |
Expand use of collaboration tools |
| |
e. |
Expand e-learning |
In 2007, an Outreach Program was initiated by the
USPTO and PPAC to poll stakeholders on the most pressing issues facing the
Office. The Office hoped to aggregate the concerns of the intellectual property
community in order to focus on the areas in the most critical need for
improvement. The results of the Outreach Program were first reported in the
2008 Annual Report and then tracked in the 2009 Report as well.
The 5 most critical issues identified in by
stakeholders were:
| |
1. |
Innovative hiring and retention programs |
| |
2. |
Enhanced search systems |
| |
3. |
Revised fee structures and deferred examination |
| |
4. |
Examination practices |
| |
5. |
Reduction in pendency |
| |
|
|
While the Office has consistently stated it
"cannot hire its way out of this problem," with reference to the
practical limitations on the hiring and training of examiners, examiners must
nonetheless be hired and trained. To preserve the investment in that effort,
experienced, productive examiners must be retained. Improvements in hiring and
retention would produce corresponding improvements in both quality and
timeliness. Therefore, the USTPO should continue to create and improve
innovative hiring and retention programs, including: expanding the hoteling
program, creating a distributed workforce, establishing regional offices.
In addition, the Office should continue recruiting
experienced industry professionals looking for a second career, and/or hire
part-time, semi-retired professionals. The USPTO began a new hiring program in
FY10 entitled “IP Experienced Hires”. The purpose of the program was to target
potential job candidates who have had previous IP experience. A shortened
training program was developed and candidates were trained and released to the
TCs sooner than in the traditional Patent Academy program, thus providing
skilled examiners in a shorter timeframe.
To assist in the Office’s retention efforts, as well
as provide a variety of other benefits, the Office undertook a major revision
to the count system, which, inter alia, gives all examiners more time
per case. This addresses a frequently-cited cause of attrition among
examiners.
Currently Office search systems are based
predominantly on systems developed many years ago. While these systems have
proven over time, stakeholders frequently cited the need for improvements. The
Committee recommends that the Office develop and deploy its next generation of
search tools as soon as possible. The Committee recommends that existing
commercial search knowledge be leveraged as much as feasible to take advantage
of ongoing advancements in search engines. The Committee believes that
significant improvements in available search tools would lead to commensurate
improvements in the quality of issued patents.
While large-scale improvements to the Office’s search
systems were unfeasible due to budgetary constraints, several smaller enhancements
were made. The USPTO started an “end to end” evaluation of the current IT
system, which includes a review of all patent examining search tools. New
interfaces and new search methodologies (such as faceted classification
searching) began the development process and beta testing started during FY10.
As is widely known, stakeholders were generally
opposed to the Office’s proposed rules on claims and continuations. Under
Secretary Kappos, rescinded the controversial claims and continuations rules
package originally proposed in 2007.
Given the budget issues faced in 2010 and the dire
need to better match fees with actual costs, the Office asked for a 15%
increase in fees, along with fee setting authority. In addition, the Office
proposed a new examination process “Three Track Examination” which provides for
three different time frames for examination including: accelerated,
traditional and delayed.
Stakeholders overwhelmingly favored examiner
interviews as one of the more effective means of advancing prosecution. Stakeholders
also expressed considerable interest in changes to certain Office examination
practices, notably restriction practice and final rejection practice. The
Office has seen positive results from the interviews and the feedback from the
Applicants has also been favorable. Further use of Examiner interviews should
lead to a more transparent and collaborative process of examination. The
Office should look at ways to increase this practice and monitor the results.
The Office continued to make significant headway in
improving examination practices, despite its well-documented budget challenges.
New examining programs were proposed and adopted during FY10 including an
accelerated program for Green Tech applications and a program where applicants
can abandon an application in favor of accelerating another one (Project
Exchange). Two training initiatives were completed by the USPTO in FY10;
compact prosecution training and training on conducting effective interviews. Also,
the Office commissioned a Patents Reengineering effort which is designed to
systematically identify areas in the examination process where efficiency
improvements can be made.
Stakeholders expressed concerns over the current time
before a first office action. While total pendency is a major issue that is
also addressed in this report, pendency for first office action is also a
public concern that the current administration has identified as a major
initiative for FY 2010 and beyond. The USPTO announced a goal of reducing the
patent application backlog to 699,000 applications by the end of FY10 and
developed a team to work with patent management and examiners to achieve this
goal.
Considerable progress in these defined areas has been
made, and the results of these efforts have helped the Office in its attempts
to be more proactive in the way it addresses the concerns of the patent
community.
2010 brought unique challenges to the Office that
impacted the progress of key initiatives. A refocusing of efforts was
necessary given the budgetary restrictions imposed. While the Office continued
to make progress, or at the very least, maintain its commitments to the
Outreach issues, the Office also began to look at other areas that were
critical to be addressed.
The new administration created an environment of
collaboration and transparency from the start. Negotiating a revised count system
to better manage work flow and efficiency was quickly followed by an open
dialogue with the patent community to gauge major pain points and discuss
potential solutions.
A new form of outreach emerged in a more literal sense
of the term. This program involved reaching out to the IP community in various
formats such as town hall meetings, roundtable discussions, social media
efforts, and blogging. Roundtable discussions and public meetings were held on
topics such as worksharing for patent applications, interferences, ex parte
appeals rules, patent quality & metrics, and a proposed “three track”
examination system. In addition, five roundtable discussions were held by
Undersecretary Kappos with the Independent Inventor community.
Reactions to these were very positive and there was an
immediate inflow and outflow of information that allowed the Office to better
assess the current needs. Not surprising, reducing pendency became a topic
that quickly rose to the top and became a major area of focus.
The efforts of the Office should be applauded. By
creating greater transparency in the operations, and a consistent willingness
to be proactive, rather than reactive to the concerns of stakeholders, the
Office has created trust, support, and true collaboration.
Congress has been working through many initiatives to
address issues of importance to the patent system. Some of these initiatives
have met with delays, but others have met with success.
Congress continues to consider legislation to modify
several aspects of our nation’s patent laws. The Senate Judiciary Committee
approved its version of patent reform legislation, S. 515, in April 2009 and is
currently working to resolve concerns from other Senators in order to proceed
to consideration of the bill by the full Senate. The USPTO/Obama
Administration expressed support for much of the Senate bill in a “views”
letter transmitted to Congress in October 2009. The House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary is considering parallel patent reform legislation,
H.R. 1260, but has not “marked-up” such legislation during this session of
Congress.
PPAC would like to comment on the following issues
that are subject to consideration as part of the patent reform legislative
debate and are particularly important to USPTO operations.
Congress is considering moving to a “first inventor to
file” (FITF) system. This is motivated in part by a desire to reform the complex
interference process and to harmonize U.S. law with the law of other patent
granting jurisdictions. The Committee acknowledges widely divergent views
among the IP community.
Some members of the Committee question the
appropriateness of moving to a FITF system. They point out that adopting the
proposed “first inventor to file” hybrid standard, which allows for various
exceptions, will not create harmonization with the “first to file” standard of
many other jurisdictions, but may create significant uncertainty until the new
hybrid standard has been fully litigated. Further, certain members voiced
concerns that, because U.S. law requires a standard of enablement and written
description that is higher than some other jurisdictions, harmonization may be
impractical under any standard due to differences in substantive patent law.
Additionally, certain members expressed concern that
moving to a FITF system would encourage a “rush to the Patent Office” that may
result in the filing of applications with specifications that do not provide
sufficient support under 35 U.S.C. §112. They believe that the first inventor
to file system may not obviate the need for interference-type proceedings,
because the FITF system leaves unanswered the question of who is the first to
invent “what” and thus a determination that the two applications are actually
drawn to the same invention may still be necessary. Finally, these members
note that of the approximately 200 interferences filed each year, 80 to 90% are
now resolved prior to a determination of the first to invent and thus any
advantages of the proposed FITF system do not outweigh these concerns.
Other members of the Committee strongly supported the
need for the U.S. to move to a FITF system. They pointed to the study by the
National Academies of Science in 2004 that the U.S. should conform its law “to
that of every other country . . . .” These members believe that the
elimination of a complex and costly procedure such as an interference, wherein
95% of the first to file inventors already prevail, would reduce complexity,
costs, and uncertainty in the process for both applicants and the public.
Additionally, they believe that the incentive for early filing is mitigated by
provisional applications and the already significant incentives to file
applications early for those inventors who seek protection outside the United
States in first-to-file systems. These members believe that a first inventor to
file system will eliminate a major subjective element in the patenting process,
thereby increasing certainty, simplifying validity determinations, and lowering
litigation costs.
Thus, the Committee has not reached consensus on this
matter.
The PPAC believes there should be effective and
efficient "post-grant review" procedures. These procedures include
litigation as well as various procedures that take place within the USPTO (ex
parte reexamination, inter parties reexamination and reissue). We understand
there are various proposals under consideration including a new
"post-grant review" process within the USPTO. Changes to both
inter parties and ex parte re-examination are also being
discussed. We believe a holistic approach should be taken so there are
efficient procedures to challenge the validity of an issued patent without
being overly duplicative or creating "gaming" opportunities that
leave the validity of an issued patent constantly in doubt. In so doing,
it is vitally important to keep in mind the USPTO resource requirements for any
new post-grant review mechanism. It is PPAC’s view that the Office not be
given authority to conduct substantive rulemaking or legal interpretations nor
that its decisions be given enhanced deference beyond the present approach
under the body of administrative law. PPAC continues to support the present
presumption of validity of issued patents.
The Committee notes that Post-Grant Review would
constitute a fourth mechanism for non-litigation review. The PPAC recommends
that ex parte reexamination, inter partes reexamination, reissue
and Post-Grant be considered in context, and avoid conflicts between their
provisions.
The USPTO is seeking the authority to set and
adjust patent fees to more accurately reflect the actual costs of providing
services to applicants, and to institute structural incentives. As discussed
earlier in this report, PPAC believes there is a need for greater and more
predictable levels of funding for the USPTO. Appropriate fee setting authority
would provide the USPTO with flexibility and control that will enhance the
effective operation of the Office on a day-to-day basis and enable the Office
to undertake and adequately fund necessary long-term strategies for improvement
in a financially reasonable way. The PPAC supports the USPTO having
fee-setting authority in which the fees would be established in conjunction
with advice from the public and the PPAC.
PPAC believes that a greater opportunity for
submissions of prior art by third parties could improve the quality of patent
examination. The opportunity for the submitter to briefly describe the nature
of the art and how it is relevant to the pending application should make such
submissions more useful. Furthermore, the inclusion of proposed safeguards,
such as restricting the timing of the submissions, are necessary to prevent the
process from adversely affecting applicant rights and their ability to move the
examination process further along.
On January 22, 2010, the Department
of Commerce submitted to the Congress a draft bill titled “The United States
Patent and Trademark Office Technical Adjustments Act of 2010.” The draft bill
is a compilation of five rather uncontroversial legislative changes needed to
comply with treaty commitments the U.S. has made over the last decade, improve
the abilities of the USPTO to maximize its ability to train and improve foreign
patent and trademark examination practices, and ensure that administrative
patent and trademark judges are properly compensated. PPAC supports complete
enactment of this proposed legislation.
One title of the draft bill, the
“Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010,” was introduced
separately as S. 2968, enacted by Congress and signed into law (P.L. 111-146)
on March 17, 2010. The law facilitates consistency
within the Lanham Act, codifies USPTO practice, and makes amendments to correct
the Madrid Protocol implementation.
The following provisions of the draft bill
have not been enacted:
The draft bill makes conforming changes
that comport with the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration
of Industrial Designs. This Agreement promotes the ability of U.S. design owners
to protect their industrial designs by allowing them to obtain
multinational design protection through a single deposit procedure.
Further, the draft bill implements the
Patent Law Treaty and makes limited changes to patent law to simplify and
streamline patent law and practice. Amendments to provisions of title 35,
United States Code, concern patent application filing dates, relief in respect
of time limits and reinstatement of rights, and the restoration of the priority
right.
The
draft bill also addresses a recent decision by the Office of Legal Counsel of
the Department of Justice which interpreted 31 U.S.C. § 1345 as prohibiting the
USPTO from funding the travel-related expenses of non-federal participants in
the USPTO's Global Intellectual Property Academy training and USPTO's
international intellectual property seminars. The bill would permit the USPTO
to provide funding for these expenses.
Lastly, in 1999, the authority to pay administrative
judges at USPTO was inadvertently dropped from the American Inventors
Protection Act. The proposed change would clarify USPTO's authority to set
basic pay for administrative judges.
The PPAC is supportive of the USPTO’s
efforts to improve its telework programs and make progress toward a nationwide
workforce, thereby providing the USPTO with access to the broadest possible
pool of qualified patent examiners. Accordingly, PPAC supports the telework
legislation currently pending before Congress that would provide more
flexibility regarding employee travel requirements.
In particular, PPAC supports telework legislation,
H.R. 1722, as amended, that passed the Senate on September 29th.
Included within this bill is a provision that would allow for flexibility within
the federal employee travel regulations. This provision would permit the USPTO
to submit to the General Services Administration (GSA) a proposal for a test
program of up to 7 years in length that would allow more USPTO employees to
voluntarily locate outside of the Capitol metro area by lifting the current
requirement that teleworkers residing outside of the 50-mile radius of the
USPTO must report to the USPTO on a biweekly basis. The provision would
authorize the Agency to establish a reasonable number of occasional visits to
headquarters. The test program must be designed to enhance cost savings and
the USPTO must prepare an analysis for GSA and Congress detailing the expected
costs and benefits of the program and a set of criteria for evaluating the
effectiveness of the program. PPAC is hopeful that the House of Representatives
will pass this legislation before the end of 2010.
The PPAC supports expansion of the USPTO’s
Attaché Program that places intellectual property experts in diplomatic roles
at select U.S. embassies such as China, India, Brazil and Russia. These attachés
promote the value and importance of strong IP protection and enforcement in
high-profile countries and regions where U.S. IP challenges are greatest. The
PPAC recommends enactment of legislation that provides authority and funding
for expansion of this important program and elevates the diplomatic rank and
stature of the attachés at their respective embassy postings.
Human capital remains a significant area of concern
for the Committee this year. Although there has been continued improvement in
a number of areas compared to last year, the total number of examiners
decreased slightly from the end of Fiscal Year 2009 to the end of Fiscal Year
2010. During FY 2010, due in significant part to budget constraints, only 276 new
examiners were hired, representing a significant decrease from the
approximately 600 new examiners hired during FY 2009. Fortunately, a number of
initiatives by the Office, combined with the weak economy, resulted in an
extremely low attrition rate among examiners. Thus, despite the low number of
examiner hires, the net loss of examiners during FY 2010 was limited.
Moreover, on-going funding concerns make it uncertain how many new hires can be
made by the Office in FY 2011.
In light of the current hiring situation, the Office
focused on hiring examiners with previous IP experience. The Office
anticipated that such experienced IP professionals would require less training
and thus would have the ability to start examining patent applications sooner.
Of the approximately 276 new examiners hired, 98 are experienced IP
professionals and 44 are former patent examiners.
As a result, the Committee strongly recommends that
the Office be given sufficient funding as soon as possible to allow for the
hiring of at least 1000 new examiners in each of FY 2011 and 2012. Further,
the Committee recommends continuing to target experienced IP professionals for
the available new examiner positions and to advance distributed work force
initiatives to attract a larger pool of well qualified candidates and further
enhance retention of experienced examiners for an entire career.
The Office set an initial goal of hiring 250
IP-experienced examiners in FY 2010. A later supplemental appropriation
allowed for 100 additional examiner hires, bringing the total hiring goal to
350 examiners. Due in significant part to budget constraints early in the fiscal
year (as discussed in further detail below), only 276 new examiners were hired;
of which 98 were experienced IP hires and 44 former patent examiners. Thanks
to an extremely low attrition rate of 4.27%, the result was a net loss of only five
examiners for FY 2010. Thus, at the end of FY 2010, the total number of UPR examiners
was 6,128.
For comparison, the goal for FY 2009 had been to hire
1200 new examiners toward the goal of having 8400 examiners in place by 2014.
However, due to the partial year hiring freeze, only 588 UPR examiners were hired,
which resulted in a net gain of slightly more than 170 examiners for FY 2009.
Fortunately, retention continued to increase in FY
2010 from the already low attrition rates observed in FY 2009. Particularly in
light of the funding limitations on hiring additional examiners, a low
attrition rate is critical for the Office to maintain a qualified and
experienced work force. A number of initiatives by the Office, combined with the
effects of a weak economy, resulted in an extremely low attrition rate of 4.27%
(3.75% excluding transfer and retirees). By comparison, the attrition rate for
FY 2009 was 6.3% (5.6% excluding transfers and retirees). The attrition rate
for FY 2009 and particularly for FY 2010 compare very favorably with an
industry attrition rate of approximately 7.9%. While the Office focused on a
number of initiatives to increase retention and employee satisfaction this
year, it is also important to note that the attrition rate is historically
lower during more challenging economic conditions. Accordingly, the Committee
recommends that the Office continue to focus on initiatives to further reduce
attrition and keep experienced, productive examiners.
The following chart depicts Utility Plant and Reissue
(UPR) examiner staffing; the number of new examiner hires, examiner attrition,
total number of examiners by the end of FY 2010, and the net change
(year-over-year):
| Fiscal Year |
New Hire Goal |
Actual New Hires |
Examiner AttritionNote 1 |
Total Number of Examiners |
Net Change (Year-Over-Year) |
| 2007 |
1200 |
1215 |
543 |
5376 |
- |
| 2008 |
1200 |
1211 |
583 |
5955 |
579/111% |
| 2009Note 2 |
1200 |
588 |
415 |
6145 |
190/103% |
| 2010 |
350 Note 3 |
276 |
281 |
6128 |
-17/99.7% |
Note 1: Including transfers and retirement.
Note 2: Before the partial-year hiring freeze was instituted.
Note 3: 250 Experienced IP Professionals, plus 100 additional hires based on
Supplemental Appropriation.
While it has been frequently said that the Office
cannot hire its way out of the significant backlog of patent applications, the
Committee believes that it is imperative to increase the number of examiners
hired and to continue to maintain the low attrition rates to allow the examiner
ranks to grow to appropriate levels. The Office has set a goal of hiring 1000
examiners in each of FY 2011 and FY 2012, if sufficient funding is available.
The Committee strongly recommends that the Office be
provided sufficient funding to allow for the hiring of at least 1000 new
examiners in each of FY 2011 and 2012.
Funding has had a substantial impact in hiring during
the past two fiscal years.
During FY 2009, due to a decline in revenue caused in
significant part by a downturn in applications filing and maintenance fee
payments, the Office was forced to institute a hiring freeze. As a result,
only 588 new examiners were hired in FY 2009, falling far short of the original
goal of hiring 1200 new examiners.
During the early part of FY 2010, funding constraints again
caused a limitation on the number of new examiners that could be hired. On August
10, 2010, a supplemental appropriation was passed that allowed for a number of
human capital initiatives, including increased and accelerated examiner hires.
Despite the Supplemental Appropriation, only approximately 276 examiners were
hired, still falling short of the supplemental goal of hiring 350 new
examiners.
As discussed elsewhere in this report, the United
States Government is currently operating pursuant to a “Continuing Resolution”
that limits current FY 2011 spending by government agencies to FY 2010 levels.
Specifically for the USPTO, the Continuing Resolution limits current spending
to the amount appropriated for FY 2010 (i.e. the USPTO’s original FY 2010
appropriation plus the Supplemental Appropriation enacted on August 10, 2010).
The longer this Continuing Resolution lasts, and thus, the longer that spending
by the Office is limited to the level appropriated in FY 2010, the more significant
the impact on the Office’s hiring initiatives and the number of examiners
available to help reduce pendency.
The Committee strongly recommends that the Office be
provided some relief from the originally appropriated FY 2010 levels during the
pendency of any additional Continuing Resolutions and that the Office be
appropriated sufficient funding to allow for the hiring of at least 1000 new
examiners in FY 2011 and 2012. The Committee believes that the current trend
of insufficient hiring due to funding will have a significant and lasting
impact on the Office if not remedied immediately.
In light of the recent budget constraints, the Office
has instituted and furthered a number of initiatives to make the most of its
current Examiner Corps. Several of these initiatives are described below:
During FY 2010, the Office initiated a new hiring
model to encourage individuals with previous IP experience to apply for a
position as a patent examiner. This new model is intended to place more
emphasis on recruiting candidates with significant IP experience while previous
hiring focused more on technical background/experience. The hope is that
experienced IP professionals would require less training and thus would have
the ability to start examining patent applications sooner, although experienced
IP professionals may need to be brought into the Office at a higher level and
thus at a higher salary.
Of the approximately 276 new examiners hired, 98 are
experienced IP professionals and 44 are former patent examiners. Many of the
experienced IP hires were made later in FY 2010, many as the result of the
Supplemental Appropriation, so it is too early for statistics on the success of
the project. Nevertheless, initial results are encouraging and the Committee
recommends continuing this program in FY 2011.
The Office has used overtime as an efficient way to
manage its workload and reduce the backlog of applications in the absence of
additional examiner hires. During FY 2010, the Office prioritized the use of
overtime to target areas with the highest backlogs first. In light of the
Supplemental Appropriation, the Office was able to further expand the use of
overtime to reduce pendency. The PPAC believes that judicious use of overtime
and incentives can be helpful in reduce the backlog of applications.
As the USPTO continues to attack the application
pendency problem, the Committee recommends that the USPTO continue to negotiate
with POPA regarding changes to the examiner count system to provide incentives
to work through cases rapidly with high examination quality. The Committee
further recommends considering suggestions included in the section of this
Report relating to Pendency.
The Committee believes that geographical expansion of
the Office’s work force could potentially allow for a number of strategic
benefits to the Office and applicants: improved recruiting and expansion of
exceptionally well qualified applicants, enhanced employee retention
(potentially allowing the Office to retain its trained and experienced
examiners for an entire career), reduced real estate and infrastructure costs,
and improved outreach to applicants. To realize these potential benefits, the
Committee recommends that the Office continue, and, to the extent permitted by
funding considerations, increase, programs for the geographical expansion of
the work force.
The Office has been conducting a detailed analysis of
the various alternatives for developing a nationwide workforce, including
developing plans with cost estimates for potentially establishing and
sustaining additional facilities, analyzing the potential cost of overhead, IT
connectivity, out-year sustainability, personnel moves, examining other
alternatives for providing outreach to applicants, and reviewing the ability to
support any increased IT load. The Committee recommends that the Office continue
to work to expeditiously conclude its analysis and implement its recommended
plan for geographical expansion of the work force as soon as possible.
Additionally, the Committee recommends that the Office
continue to support, promote, and expand the Patents Hoteling Program (PHP),
which permits examiners to work from remote locations and only return to the
Alexandria campus twice a bi-week.
Further, the Committee supports
the telework legislation currently pending before Congress that would provide
more flexibility regarding employee travel requirements. In particular,
as discussed in more detail in the Legislative Section of this Report, the
Committee supports telework legislation, S. 707, that passed the Senate on
September 29th, which would support a test program to allow
employees to live outside of the 50-mile radius of the USPTO with only a
reasonable number of occasional visits to the Office.
As an International Searching Authority
(ISA) under Chapter 1 of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), the Office
receives international applications, each of which requires the preparation of
an international search report and a written opinion of the ISA under the
provisions of the PCT. By outsourcing this function, contractors, rather than
examiners, would prepare the search report and written opinion of the ISA,
allowing examiners to have more time to examine the backlogged U.S. national applications.
As with many issues relating to Human
Capital, outsourcing of PCT searches is dependent on the availability of
funding. The Supplemental Appropriation allowed the outsourcing of PCT
searching through the end of FY 2010, but, in light of the Continuing
Resolution and funding uncertainties for FY 2011, the continuation of PCT
search outsourcing is in doubt.
The Committee supports the outsourcing of
PCT searches while attempting to reduce the backlog of pending applications and
recommends that the Office be given
sufficient funding to permit continued outsourcing of PCT searches.
The Committee urgently recommends that the Office be
given sufficient funding as soon as possible to allow for the hiring of at
least 1000 new examiners in each of FY 2011 and 2012. The Committee believes
that the current trend of insufficient hiring due to funding will have a
significant and lasting impact on the Office if not remedied immediately.
Additionally, the Committee recommends continuing to target experienced IP
professionals for the available new examiner positions and to advance
geographical expansion of the work force and telework initiatives to attract a
larger pool of well qualified candidates and further enhance retention of
experienced examiners for an entire career. Finally, the Committee recommends
that the Office be given sufficient funding to permit targeted overtime and
continued outsourcing of PCT searches to allow for further productivity with
the existing Examiner Corps.
International cooperation between the Office and
foreign intellectual property offices can have a significant global economic
impact. The goals of these international cooperation efforts are to reduce duplication
of effort, leverage scale, and decrease the delay in ascertaining patent
rights. Tools for achieving these results include standardizing/harmonizing
processes among the various offices and allowing work sharing between the
offices. The Office has been involved in, and in many instances, has led
international cooperation and work sharing efforts with encouraging results.
The PPH system allows work sharing between the Office
and other national intellectual property offices in which corresponding
applications are being prosecuted. The PPH allows the national intellectual
property offices to leverage fast-track examination procedures already
available in those countries to allow applicants to obtain corresponding
patents in a second participating country faster and more efficiently, and to
allow the national intellectual property offices to grant corresponding patents
that are more consistent and that utilize less resources.
SHARE is a proposed U.S. program wherein, when
applications would be filed in multiple offices, the office of first filing
would prioritize work on that application so as to make the work available in a
timely fashion to the other offices. Additionally, offices of second filing
would await results from the office of first filing before they begin their
work. This initiative would enable the office of first filing to make
available the search and examination results for use in the other offices.
The "IP5" – the European Patent Office
("EPO"), the Japan Patent Office ("JPO"), the State
Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China
("SIPO"), the Korean Intellectual Property Office ("KIPO")
and the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") announced
a cooperative framework in the form of ten Foundation Projects. These projects
were devised to harmonize the search and examination environment of each office
and to standardize the information-sharing process. The projects are expected
to facilitate the work-sharing initiative by enhancing the quality of patent
searches and examinations and building mutual trust in each other's work.
The work-sharing among the five offices will increase
the efficiency of the patent system and minimize the cost and effort of patent
applicants with regard to the acquisition and management of patent rights. Consistency
in the patent process will ensure the predictability of patent results when
applicants file applications at multiple offices. Greater simplicity will
increase the convenience and savings of applicants.
Other work sharing initiatives are taking place within
the cooperation framework of the USPTO, EPO, and JPO. The USPTO is exploring
ways to use the PCT application and search in its work sharing efforts. A PCT
Task Force was formed to study the Office’s own PCT processes with the aim of
reducing processing time and improving quality. A collaborative PCT Search and
PPH-PCT processing is also being explored.
The Office continued to focus on expanding the
implementation of the Patent Prosecution Highway ("PPH") system. In
particular, the Office increased the number of PPH work sharing partnerships
with other intellectual property offices. (See below for PCT-PPH initiatives
in 2010.)
The PPH framework is an important step toward the goal
of maximizing reutilization of work done by other offices. The results of the
PPH programs have continued to be promising:
- An overall U.S. grant rate for the PPH applications of approximately 95%
(by comparison the overall grant rate
for non-PPH applications is approximately 44%);
- An overall first action allowance
rate of approximately 22% (by comparison a non-PPH first action allowance rate
is approximately 10%);
- Average number of actions per PPH
application is approximately half that of other patent applications (1.7 for
PPH applications and 2.3 for non-PPH applications);
- Faster processing for PPH cases
(PPH requests are generally decided within 2 months from the filing date of the
request and the application is generally examined within 2 to 3 months from the
grant of the request); and
- A decrease of approximately 20% in
the number of claims to be examined in the USPTO as compared to average non-PPH
cases.
The JPO continues to be the largest office of first
filing for PPH applications with Technical Center 2600 being the leader on PPH
cases. Korea is the second highest filer of PPH cases.
The USPTO has established a SHARE pilot with Korea, and depending on the results,
will decide whether to take the program to a larger
scale. SHARE may also become a component of multi-track examination. The
USPTO is also planning to launch a pilot program called FLASH with the EPO and
JPO. This pilot program will test the feasibility of certain aspects of
SHARE. The USPTO is also exploring other options to test SHARE and to
determine whether to expand the program to other international efforts.
The Office continued meeting with the world’s five
largest patent offices to advance progress on cooperative work sharing
initiatives and to develop foundation tools to support work sharing.
In January 2010, a Deputy Heads level meeting was held
in Beijing, China. The Deputy Heads reviewed and approved the progress of the
working groups and prepared the foundation for the Heads of Offices meeting
which took place in Guilin, China in April 2010.
In Guilin, the Heads of Office confirmed the progress
of the three working groups and overall progress of the IP5, reconfirmed the
importance of work sharing, invited the working groups to review and put forth
their suggestions for accelerating certain parts of the Foundation Projects,
and agreed upon the important roles of the PCT and the PPH in work sharing.
During the WIPO General Assembly meeting in Geneva in September, the IP5 Deputy
Heads met for an afternoon, and the Heads of Offices
had a dinner meeting. These meetings focused on reviewing progress and
planning for continuing to advance the Foundation Projects in 2011.
In 2011, the JPO will be hosting a Deputy Heads and
Heads of Offices meeting in April in Japan. The 10 Foundation Projects
continue to move forward based on the mandates and timelines agreed to by all
the Offices. Where a project or part of project can be accelerated to show
near-term progress, the IP5 Offices will evaluate the possibilities and advance
those projects as appropriate.
There is no doubt that achieving the goals of the
foundation projects represents a great challenge to the Office, and full
implementation of this integrated set of initiatives will take some time.
However, the Offices have developed a phased approach for the projects, where
goals and anticipated outcomes will be defined for each phase. With this
approach, the Offices will see benefits delivered early in the process instead
of waiting until full implementation for tangible results. The commitment of
this group to continue to work together in finding solutions that will maintain
the integrity of the patent system is critical in meeting the needs of a
changing world.
On January 13, 2010, a public meeting was held by the
PCT Task Force to solicit public input on the issue of how the Office could
utilize the PCT more effectively.
On January 29, 2010, the Trilateral Offices agreed to
pilot a PCT-PPH project that includes using PCT work products. PCT applicants
are now able to benefit from the PPH, obtain faster examination, and obtain a
patent earlier. An applicant receiving a written opinion or an international
preliminary examination report from either the EPO or the USPTO that at least
one claim in a PCT application has novelty, inventive step, and industrial
applicability may request that the other office fast track the examination of
the corresponding claim in the corresponding application. The PCT-PPH will
leverage fast-track examination procedures already available in both offices to
allow applicants in both countries to obtain corresponding claims faster and
more efficiently.
On June 1, 2010, the Office also started a
unidirectional PCT-PPH pilot with KIPO where it would accept KIPO work product
as ISA. However, due to institutional barriers, KIPO is unable to accept USPTO
PCT work product in the PPH program at this time.
The Office is encouraged by the pilot results so far. As
of August 1, 2010, it has received 263 total requests. The numbers are greater
than the initial pilot, when compared at the same stage. Moreover, the overall
allowance rate is 100% for the PCT-PPH applications. PPH has demonstrated that
it complements the PCT system and only enhances its value.
In the summer of 2010, another pilot program was
initiated on a Collaborative PCT Search (KIPO, USPTO, EPO). The EPO, KIPO, and
USPTO examiners will work together on PCT applications to create International
Search Reports (ISRs) and Written Opinions of the ISA (WO-ISA). The Office
acting as ISA will develop a search strategy and prepare a provisional ISR and
WO-ISA. This Office will then transmit the search strategy and the provisional
ISR and WO-ISA to the peer examiners in other Offices. The peer examiners will
comment/supplement the materials and may consult with the first examiner in the
Office acting as ISA. After receiving feedback, the first examiner will
establish a final ISR and WO-ISA to be transmitted to applicant.
On September 8-9, 2010, the Office also hosted a
Collaborative Search and Examination (CS&E) Workshop for EPO, KIPO, and
USPTO participants in order to assess pilot project results, facilitate deeper
discussion among program participants, develop conclusions, and recommend next
steps. Participants included examiners and project managers from each office.
- Receiving Office (RO/US)
| |
Timeliness - Transmission of record copy to IB is averaging 13 days – WIPO
stats indicate transmission of 88% of record copies within 4 weeks
|
- International Searching Authority (ISA/US)
- Timeliness
| |
In 2010, 81% of international search reports and
written opinions are mailed within 16 months from priority – 91% mailed within
18 months
|
| |
|
1. Mapped Chapter I process and eliminated delays within control of USPTO |
| |
|
2. Require 30 day turn around from PCT contractors |
- Quality
| |
i. |
Performed 160 case re-use study – Contractor prepared ISR/WO to U.S. national phase application |
| |
ii. |
No-cost modification of quality elements in contracts to be more in line with quality required of examiners in U.S. national applications |
| |
iii. |
Provided training to contractors on classification, claim interpretation and search strategy |
| |
iv. |
Contractors are now using standardized search recordation form |
- International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA/US)
- Timeliness
| |
Currently, only 14% of international preliminary examination reports issued with 28 months of priority
|
| |
|
1. In process of revising Chapter II work flow to eliminate areas of delay |
| |
|
2. New examiner PAP (October 1) will improve timeliness of Chapter II work |
- Designated/Elected Office (DO/EO/US)
- Timeliness
| |
In FY2010, improved from 379 days average processing time to 265 days average processing time
|
| |
|
1. Maintain overtime for PCT Operations
- Allow international division employees to work overtime on national stage applications
|
| |
|
2. Shift staff from international division to national stage division |
| |
|
3. Retrieve documents from WIPO via direct download – currently testing system – implementation in November/December 2010 |
The Office has indentified the following key goals for international cooperation:
- Make More Effective Use of Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH);
- Make More Effective Use of Patent
Cooperation Treaty (PCT);
- Strategic Handling of Applications for Rapid Examination (SHARE);
- Work with Patent Tri-Lateral and IP5 to Determine and Implement Ways to Create
Efficiencies and Reduce Rework, and Improve Quality Across Offices;
The Office has set forth the following Performance Measures:
| | Number of PPH Petitions |
| | Actions per Disposal in PPH Cases |
| | Number of PPH patents issued |
| | Additional Country Participants in PPH |
| | Number of SHARE petitions |
| | Actions per Disposal |
| | Progress of IP5 Foundation Projects |
| | Allowable rate in PPH compared to general allowance rate |
| | |
The Committee commends the Office for its efforts on
these international cooperation and work sharing initiatives and recommends
that the Office continue its expansion and improvement of these programs. Additionally,
the Committee recommends that the Office review these on-going efforts,
particularly in conjunction with the Office’s renewed efforts to improve
accuracy and reduce pendency, to ensure that the Office is pursuing those
international work sharing programs that best meet the overall objectives of
international work sharing – increase consistency between the various offices,
reduce workload for any given national intellectual property office by allowing
work sharing between the offices, and to share best practices to improve
accuracy and efficiency within each national intellectual property office.
On PPH, the Committee recommends the Office to study
statistics from the Office of Second Filing to insure cases allowed from U.S. patent
examiners be given the same deference the Office is giving to foreign office
allowances. Evidence suggests that the allowance rate for U.S. allowed cases is
significantly lower than the 95% of foreign cases allowed in the U.S. This discrepancy
in allowance rates may work to the disadvantage of U.S. first filers.
On the SHARE program, the Committee commends the
Office on attempting to accelerate certain programs where possible, and
recommends that the Office diligently work on common application formats and
forms to accelerate the process.
On PCT work sharing/PPH, the Committee believes that
real progress has been made with the Trilateral offices and KIPO on using PCT
documents for PPH. The Committee recommends that the Office accelerate these
programs where possible and work with the Committee and the public to identify
areas of further improvement of these systems. As noted by the Office’s statistics,
IPEA and process times need to be significantly reduced to meet the Office’s
goals. The PCT Task Force is to be commended for its work to look at the
process fixes necessary to meet these goals; however, more needs to be done and
the Committee is willing to offer its services to identify and assist in
speeding up of the process.
As to the Strategic Plan, the Committee believes that
the goals are properly identified. However, we believe that more work needs to
be done on identifying the proper measures to insure the goals are met. The
Office should consider adopting a measure that will track whether work sharing
efforts are reducing the workload and backlog of applications. The Committee
stands ready to work with the Office to help indentify milestones and measures
that would show success.
Overall, the Committee commends the Office on its
proactive actions this fiscal year to expand/improve the PPH, SHARE, IP5, and
PCT programs. Continued expansion and improvement of these programs are critical
to the success of quality patents and reduced backlog.
The Committee appreciates the USPTO’s efforts to
improve patent examination quality and the recent establishment of new
composite quality guidelines “Adoption of Metrics for the Enhancement of Patent
Quality Fiscal Year 2011.”. This represents a good first step. However, the
Committee believes that this process should continue. The Committee recommends
that the USPTO continue to focus efforts on producing clear and objective
metrics for examination quality. We also believe that this effort should
include input from stakeholders in an ongoing, reiterative process.
| |
A. |
Summary |
| |
In our 2009 Report, we identified features of a Quality
Initiative, highlights of which include: |
- Agreeing on a proposed definition of a quality patent;
- Agreeing to a process for identifying indicia of patent quality and the need for metrics;
- Formation of a PPAC/USPTO task force to analyze data and obtain public comments;
- Preparation of a Federal Register Notice for public comment;
- Process for holding public fora to discuss comments; and
- The need for a Pendency Reduction Plan.
Last year’s report set forth a plan for achieving
these aims. Here, we report on progress during the past year. There has been
substantial progress in each of the above areas, and some initial aspects of
some of them have been completed. In particular, a PPAC/USPTO Task Force was
formed, a Federal Register Notice was prepared and submitted to the public,
public fora were held and numerous comments from the public were received and
analyzed, and a preliminary report was submitted to the USPTO, summarizing
comments and providing additional comments from the PPAC.
As a result, the USPTO prepared a Draft Report on
Patent Quality, “Adoption of Metrics for the Enhancement of Patent Quality
Fiscal Year 2011.” The PPAC was asked to comment on the Draft, and we
submitted comments in August 2010.
Some aspects are still under development, including
agreeing on a definition of patent quality. The PPAC believes that patent
quality is a direct result of patent examination quality. Therefore, we
applaud the USPTO’s efforts in identifying useful indicia of patent examination
quality. We encourage the USPTO to continue its efforts. With the recent
passage of legislation permitting the USPTO to retain more of its
self-generated revenue in fiscal year 2010, the PPAC encourages the USPTO to
invest in improving patent examination quality. Examiners are under significant
time and production pressure to meet production goals, and we are very pleased
that the USPTO may now move ahead with its new hiring initiatives. We also
recommend that Examiners be provided with enhanced training, including
opportunities training in new technologies as they develop.
The Committee also recommends that new managers be
provided with specific management training. As the duties of personnel change
from examination to supervision, the skills and abilities to work effectively
with employees need to be developed.
It is critical to innovation in the U.S. that examination of patent applications
be of very high quality, so that any patent that is
issued contains claims of the proper scope and are valid and enforceable.
Erroneously issued claims are also known as “Type I” or “false positive”
errors. These errors represent patent claims that were granted improperly.
The USPTO is now paying attention to another type of
error, sometimes referred to as “Type II”, or “false negative” errors. These
errors represent patent applications having claims that meet all requirements
for patentability and should have issued, but for some reason, were rejected.
Implications of false negative errors are often more difficult to identify than
those resulting from false positive errors. In some cases, an Applicant faced
with an erroneous rejection may decide not to continue to pursue the
application. In other cases, an Applicant may have to expend substantial
resources in overcoming improper rejections. In some instances, an improperly
rejected patent application may result in failure of a new industry to
develop. These errors can result in the stifling of innovation.
The PPAC shares the USPTO’s goal to provide
high-quality patents granted in a timely way, with proper claim scope. In this
Report the PPAC focuses on “Patent Examination Quality.” This term was chosen
to reflect the PPAC’s belief that the outcomes of high-quality patent
examinations will lead to decreased incidences of both false positive errors
and false negative errors, and will lead to the issuance of valid and
enforceable patents having claims of proper scope (maximum scope of protection)
that provide clear notice to others. We present some specific metrics of
examination quality that are intended to complement those currently in use or
contemplated by the USPTO.
The PPAC recommends that Quality metrics be used for
positive purposes, including development of “best practices,” providing
training guidance and providing positive feedback to art units and Technology
Centers (TCs).
The USPTO is also engaged in efforts to simplify and
improve the Appeals process. The PPAC recognizes the efforts of the USPTO to
simplify procedural rules for Appeal and looks forward to their implementation.
By improving the Appeals process, there will be greater and timely feedback
from the BPAI to the Examination Corps, which we believe will improve
examination quality and consistency of examination across technology areas.
The PPAC also encourages the USPTO to correct errors
in patent examination, including both false positive errors and false negative
errors. By identifying and correcting errors in the patent examination
process, needs of patent applicants and the public are better met. The
combination objective metrics, subjective metrics, and the timely correction of
all types of examination errors can be a model for other jurisdictions, and
enhance the leadership that the U.S. has held for generations. Through the
ongoing efforts of all in the innovation community, we are hopeful that a
series of “best practices” will be developed, communicated and refined.
In addition to quantifying examination quality, the
PPAC encourages the USPTO to continue to develop practical ways of decreasing
patent pendency. Refining the current “Three-Track” proposal and other
initiatives can decrease overall pendency and afford applicants meaningful
choices.
The PPAC encourages the USPTO to produce simple, easy to
quantify metrics as well as those requiring in-depth analysis of samples of
applications from different technologies. We agree with the USPTO’s strategy
of addressing examination quality at every stage of the patenting process,
including intake, classification, search, examination, and issue. Within each
of these categories, we encourage the USPTO to develop metrics that can
identify those factors that contribute to efficient, compact prosecution, with
a minimum of both false positive and false negative errors.
The major purposes of using objective, quantifiable
metrics of patent examination quality are to aid in the long-term analysis of
trends in the patenting process, and to develop “best practices” that can be
used for Examiner training. A key feature of an objective metric is that the
standards for its quantification do not change with time or with changes in
Office personnel. Underlying any such metric are several factors, including
analyses and opinions of Examiners, Supervisory Patent Examiner(s) (SPEs),
Quality Assurance Specialists (QASs), the Petitions Branch, the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences, and the courts. Decisions by these individuals and
groups are captured in file histories of patent applications or court reports.
Because this information is available to the public through Public PAIR and
Court Reporters, to Applicants’ representatives through Private PAIR, and to
Office Personnel through PALM, the PPAC encourages the Office to use search
tools to extract from the existing records, details related to objective
metrics.
Examples of objective metrics are: (1) in how many
cases are non-final rejections presented; (2) in how many cases are final
rejections reversed at least in part by a SPE, QAS, the BPAI, or a court; (3)
in how many applications are restriction or election of species requirements
made after a first substantive office action; and (4) in how many cases is
prosecution opened after a final rejection? These metrics and others can be
easily produced using computerized methods, which PPAC believes can be produced
by applying a simple search program to identify items listed on PALM, PAIR or
the new IT system under development.
Examples of other useful metrics are: (1) in how many
cases are substantive rejections overcome without a claim amendment or
narrowing remark; (2) in how many cases do Examiners not follow the MPEP; (3)
in how many cases are rejections made based upon cumulative art, or art not
originally identified by the Examiner; (4) in how many cases did an Examiner
change a primary reference; (5) in how many cases was an RCE allowed without
substantive claim amendments or narrowing remarks; (6) in how many cases was a
final office action premature; (7) in how many cases is a positive PTA allowed;
(8) in how many cases was PTA improperly calculated (see Wyeth v. Kappos);
and (9) in how many cases are rejections under 35 U.S.C. Section 112 improper?
These metrics and others can be developed by analyzing a sufficient number of
cases drawn at random. With the implementation of the new “text-based” IT
system, many of these metrics can be automated and decrease the time needed for
their collection, leaving more time for analysis.
Such analyses of cases should be based on objective
criteria for quality. Although there is a need for subjective evaluation of
certain steps in examination, the PPAC encourages the USPTO to develop and use,
to the best reasonable extent, objective metrics. Objective metrics can be
used as benchmarks for further improvement of patent examination quality.
Objective metrics are less prone to bias and subjective “result driven”
analysis. The PPAC understands the additional need for other types of
metrics. The PPAC thanks the USPTO for consideration of the use of surveys of
Applicants and Examiners. Such surveys can provide important information to
the USPTO about the substance of examination as well as the interactions
between USPTO personnel and members of the public.
Certain other metrics should be developed further.
The In Process Review (IPR) and Quality Index Report (QIR) should be prepared
using objective metrics to the maximum practical extent, and if not possible in
all areas, features of examination quality that can be objectively quantified
should be separated from those that cannot be objectively quantified. This
will help ensure that the objective metrics can be used as baseline data to
quantify changes in examination quality over time. An important benefit of the
Quality Initiative is to provide information on the effects on examination
quality of various changes to examination. By comparing incidences of
different types of examination errors over time, the USPTO will be able to
alter training and examination processes to continue to improve quality into
the future. Such sustained benefits are highly desirable, and lead to
development of “best practices.”
The PPAC also encourages the USPTO to obtain, present,
and use data in its simplest forms, without unnecessary use of complex
algorithms or calculation methods. Increasing the complexity of data reduction
invariably loses important information, making the conclusions derived from the
data less reliable. The PPAC also believes that it is important for any
variables to be measured to be independent of each other. It is always
possible to observe correlations between two variables that have a common
factor. However, such correlations may be, in themselves, false positive
errors.
Quality metrics should be obtained for different art
units, different Technology Centers and across the entire examiner Corps. It
is well known that the patent statute may be applied in different ways to
different technology areas. Some of these differences in application of the
statute are very appropriate, yet other facts should be treated similarly,
regardless of technology area. Therefore, the PPAC encourages the USPTO to
separately analyze examination quality across art units, TCs and only then to
combine properly combinable metrics into Corps-wide results. Metrics that are
not properly combinable, such as “the number of non-final office actions in an
application” and “the degree to which Examiners meet objectives of “best
practices” are not properly combinable, in that the former is an objective
metric and the latter is a subjective metric.
The USPTO has revised its Patent Quality 2011
proposals, and the PPAC thanks the Office for consideration of our comments.
We note however, that some of the quality metrics to be used involve subjective
analysis or highly complex calculations. The Committee approves of the USPTO’s
inclusion of survey information into its metrics. We also applaud the USPTO’s
decision to separate quality analyses under this program from examiner review
and Performance Appraisal Plans. The focus upon developing and implementing
best practices and monitoring methods to provide baselines for future quality
analysis are particularly valuable.
The Committee notes that the USPTO intends to use
special algorithms to provide a dashboard display of the effectiveness of their
initiatives to reach stretch goals for quality. Although this aim is to
provide easily noted “snapshots” of quality, we are concerned that the methods
used and especially the methods for validating the results require further
work. The Committee recommends that standard, statistical methods be employed
wherever possible, and if not possible, to describe the methods with
particularity. We also highly recommend that all information to be presented in
any quality metric be acquired, analyzed and collated before any metric is
calculated.
Results of quality analyses should be made readily
available. The USPTO is considering a “dashboard” display of trends in
quality. The PPAC agrees in principle with this proposal, but encourages the
USPTO to present complete information in a simple fashion. By presenting
complete information, the pubic will have opportunities to provide further
input to the continuing efforts to improve examination quality.
The USPTO implemented two programs for
training new examiners: a 20-day training program for IP experienced new
examiners and a 2-phased 12-month program for entry level examiners.
Implemented on May 24, 2010, 93 examiners have been trained under the IP
Experienced training program that provides high level legal training with
emphasis on automation tools and search techniques. The 2-phased 12-month
program was implemented on August 30, 2010 and 133 new examiners hired in
FY 10 and 167 examiners hired in FY 11 are attending the program.
Refresher training was provided to over
1800 examiners in FY 2010 to enhance their knowledge and skills on procedural
and legal topics pertaining to patent examination. Courses include Gaining
Efficiency, Search Strategy and Claim Interpretation, along with a host of
other topics.
The Patent Examiner Technical Training
Program (PETTP) was announced on September 15, 2010 in the Federal Register to
have scientists and subject matter experts as lecturers to patent examiners
to update them on technical developments, the state of the art, emerging
trends, maturing technologies, and recent innovations in their fields. The
Technology Centers are currently coordinating with a number of requesters to
deliver the training.
The training for newly selected SPEs has
been revised to a 2 phase program. Phase 1 consists of a three day workshop of
fundamental tools and information which is presented within the first week of
the New SPE’s selection. Phase 2 occurs in the next four months, with a
variety of additional learning opportunities to further the development of
their management and leadership skills. 52 new SPEs in FY 10 have received the
Phase 1 training and are currently attending the phase 2 training.
Training modules have also been developed
for mid-level and senior level SPEs for implementation in FY 11. Additional
legal training, such as the year end case review, is provided to examiners and
supervisors.
The Committee believes that these training
initiatives are valuable, and recommends that these and other initiatives
continue to be developed and implemented, particularly with regard to the
ongoing efforts at improving examination quality and timeliness. As best
practices and other improvements in examination are identified and developed,
the PPAC looks forward to their implementation.
One of the most important uses of quality metrics is
in the development of improved examination. Proper Quality metrics are
important in determining whether Examiner training is needed in a particular
area. Quality metrics can identify areas of particular strength in an art
area, and these successes can be adopted by other areas. Similarly, any
identified areas of weakness can be used to develop specific training
materials. By sharing information corps-wide on both good practices and weaker
practices, there will be greater uniformity in patent examination and its
quality.
The committee recommends that any training materials
or methods developed to be transmitted first to upper-level examiners (SPEs)
and when the training has been accomplished, the materials should be presented
to Examiners. This would ensure that those persons responsible for reviewing
Examiners’ work are current. It would also be desirable for the USPTO to
develop ways of determining whether newly presented material has been
understood. The USPTO may wish to consider simple tests or interviews with
SPEs and Examiners.
When useful training materials are produced, we
recommend that they be incorporated into the MPEP. We believe that the MPEP
should have an expanded staff, well trained and experienced in handling very
complex documents. This suggestion is to ensure that there is accuracy and
consistency in the major tool used by Examiners and Applicants. We also
recommend that “best practices” be described in the MPEP as a training guide
for Applicants and their representatives. We also recommend that the MPEP be
kept up to date in real time with the changing policies, rules, case law and
practices.
The Committee thanks the USPTO for its commitment to
inclusion in its quality analysis, the degree to which Examiners follow the
MPEP. Because the MPEP is the major source of information on the patent
examination process, we believe that Examiners should use the MPEP as a guiding
document in Examination. Under circumstances in which an Examiner does not
wish to follow the guidance in the MPEP, we recommend that any such deviation
be fully explained to the applicants.
The PPAC endorses the USPTO’s efforts to provide
technical training to Examiners. As technology develops, it is important for
Examiners to understand the current state of a given technology. The committee
recommends that the USPTO engage in efforts to train Examiners, SPEs and QASs
in the law as well as the overall purposes of the patent system, “to promote
science and the useful arts.” We encourage the USPTO to develop fora such as
used in TC 1600 (Biotechnology, Chemical and Pharmaceutical Partnership, the
“BCP” program). We encourage other TCs to consider such types of programs.
We also encourage the
USPTO to develop similar programs across different technologies. This will
foster greater understanding of issues facing other examination groups, and
will lead to more consistent application of the law.
We believe that in the near term, indicia of quality
be used to develop best practices, training materials, and evaluative tools.
These positive uses should be stressed to the maximum extent possible.
Once a series of relevant, objective Quality metrics
are implemented, “best practices” identified, and sufficient data becomes
available, we recommend using standards for quality examination to be part of
every PAP. It would be premature to hold Examiners and SPEs to changed
standards without providing sufficient notice (training). Ultimately, a PAP
should include indicia of progress made in best practices as well as
production, with annual improvement being an important goal. The PPAC
encourages the USPTO to work with POPA to develop improved PAPs as an ongoing
endeavor. As PAPs are developed further, we urge the USPTO to analyze
performance in light of each PAP, and to hold Office personnel accountable for
their actions.
The Committee applauds the USPTO for its efforts to
refine the Examiner count. It represents a good step toward separating
production from quality. Given the demands placed on Examiners, there may be a
tendency to focus on production goals to the detriment of quality goals. The
Committee believes that the increase in time made available for examination has
increased examination quality. We encourage the USPTO to continue to identify
ways of reducing incentives for inefficient examination, and to provide
incentives for providing quality examination.
We recommend that the USPTO consider providing
Examiners extra time to consider after-final amendments or citations of prior
art.
The PPAC enthusiastically endorses the USPTO’s idea to
provide ombudsman services to Applicants. Ombudsmen are experienced Examiners,
typically SPEs or QASs to assist Applicants in filing, administration or
examination procedures. Although this process is new, anecdotal evidence
supports the utility of this program. This pilot program demonstrates the
USPTO’s commitment to improving customer service, transparency, to increasing
examination quality by providing open lines of communication between applicants
and the Office. During a period of transition to a more effective approach to
examination quality, it is important for Applicants to work with an experienced
ombudsman to identify and address disagreements about Office procedures. The
PPAC encourages expansion of the pilot program into other areas within the
Office.
The PPAC believes that any Patent Office Rules changes
should be carefully evaluated for any impacts that they may have on patent
examination quality. The PPAC encourages the Office to take comments provided
by all members of the public into account. The PPAC is interested in the
status of pending rulemaking for Appeals, Markush practice, Three-Track,
Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs).
One of the most significant problems in many
technology areas is the length of time for a patent to be examined and issued.
The USPTO and other readers of this Report are very aware of the Secretary of
Commerce’s stated goals to dramatically reduce pendency. The PPAC believes
that overcoming long pendency will keep the U.S. at the forefront of innovative
societies. With passage of legislation restoring additional fee collections to
the USPTO in fiscal year 2010, the PPAC expects that the USPTO will hire and
train additional Examiners.
The Committee congratulates the USPTO for its efforts
during the past year to reduce pendency. A key indicator of patent examination
efficiency, the number of office actions per disposal, has decreased
noticeably. We believe that this trend is very promising, but are concerned
that a simple increase in allowances may reflect a tendency for the USPTO to
allow unnecessarily narrow claims. We encourage the USPTO to continue to
decrease pendency without decreasing the legitimate and supported scope of
claims.
There is a tension between a desire to decrease
pendency and providing claims of fully entitled scope. To decrease application
pendency, an Examiner may identify a subset of patentable subject matter early
in prosecution and offer to allow a set of claims that would produce a patent
narrower than the full scope of the invention. This tension leads to the
filing of RCEs and Continuation applications, that can help Examiners meet
production goals, but at the increased cost to Applicants of filing,
prosecution, issue and maintenance fees. As a partial remedy, the PPAC
recommends use of the quality metrics proposed above. In particular, we
suggest reviewing cases for improper rejections for overbreadth. If an
application properly supports a generic claim, and other requirements of the
statute are met, the full scope of that claim should be allowed.
The PPAC also believes that pendency will decrease as
fewer type I and type II errors occur during examination. The PPAC
wholeheartedly approves of the initiative to train Examiners on Compact
Prosecution, wherein all rejections are presented early in examination. The
PPAC recognizes the focus on Compact Prosecution and the resulting decrease in
the number of actions per disposal. We encourage the Office to continue to
develop and refine guidance on Compact Prosecution.
The Committee also recommends that the USPTO explore
ways of decreasing the number of transfers of an application. Decreasing the
number of transfers reduces the likelihood of errors and delays.
The USPTO has proposed a program wherein an Applicant
can abandon one patent application in exchange for accelerating action on a
second application. The PPAC notes the creative efforts of the Office in
offering such an option. However, the Committee suggests that an unintended
consequence be that large entities may have an advantage over smaller entities.
The PPAC agrees with the desire to increase
flexibility in timing of Examination. There are several mechanisms in place
currently to accommodate such flexibility. The USPTO has proposed a
“Three-Track” or “3-Track” system, whereby Applicants would be permitted
increased flexibility in the timing of examination. The PPAC supports the
goals of 3-Track, but is concerned about possible duplication of flexibility
offered by the PCT and Paris conventions processes. Additionally, there may be
International implications of implementation of the Three-Track proposal,
particularly if it would violate the TRIPS agreement or other treaties. This
proposal requires further study, and the PPAC does not recommend its
implementation until further analysis has been provided.
The Committee recommends that the USPTO revisit
Restriction and Election of Species practice. Applicants have expressed
opinions that with the pressures of production, Examiners may meet an action
deadline by submitting a Restriction requirement. There is an ongoing debate
about the relative merits of Restriction practice and Unity of Invention, as
applied in most of the rest of the World. In certain technology areas,
application of a Unity of Invention standard can improve the overall scope of a
patent, and thereby decrease incentives for Applicants to file Divisional
applications. Similarly, application of a Unity of Invention or other standard
can reduce incentives to file Continuation applications based on election of
species requirements.
Under current practice, restriction may be imposed
for: (1) different inventions, and (2) Examiner burden. The PPAC invites the
USPTO to revisit both the “different inventions” and the “Examiner burden”
criterion. The different inventions standard seems to be inconsistent with
Federal Circuit law. Both criteria are highly subjective, the standards are
not well defined, and they are not consistently applied. This produces a
degree of unpredictability in the preparation and prosecution of applications.
The PPAC welcomes the opportunities to assist the USPTO in developing standards
for restriction.
The Committee agrees with the USPTO’s desire to
clarify restriction practice in the MPEP. We encourage the USPTO to provide
clear guidance to Examiners and Applicants. In addition to clear guidelines,
the Office should focus upon improved training of Examiners on procedures,
uniform application thereof, and supervisory oversight. This would increase
consistency, which is an important overall objective in enhancing patent
examination quality.
The PPAC invites the USPTO to focus attention on
Petitions practice in the Office. Petitions are often an important aspect of
the patent process, and the lack of swift resolution of petitionable matter causes
delays, extra expense, and frustration among Applicants. In some unfortunate
cases, an Applicant may lose faith in the system, and permit an otherwise
innovative application to become abandoned.
In particular, Petitions in Reexamination are
especially problematic, in that Applicants are often required to file replies
prior to receiving notification about the status of the Petition. We suggest
that the USPTO address this area soon.
The Committee recommends that the USPTO consider ways
of increasing the timeliness of review of petitions.
The Committee also recommends making available online
by topic, a compilation of petition decisions.
The Committee notes that reexamination (both ex
parte and inter partes) can significantly add to uncertainty and
delays in patenting. The Committee also is aware that reexamination can be
used as a tactic in patent litigation. The PPAC believes that reexamination
has been an important and useful tool in providing a degree of certainty about
validity of patent claims. However, we are concerned that reexamination can
take a very long time, and we recommend that the BPAI and the Office consider
ways of reducing the time needed to reexamine applications.
We suggest that the Office consider ways of docketing
reexaminations to decrease delays in processing. We also believe that one
reason for the delays in ex parte proceedings is the chronic need for
increased numbers of qualified and experienced Examiners. We hope that
providing stable and predictable revenue will permit the Office to hire
additional Examiners, and in this way, decreased the backlog of un-reexamined
applications.
The Committee also suggests exploring ways of
increasing efficiency in inter partes reexamination. The USPTO has
rulemaking authority for procedural matters affecting examination, and the PPAC
suggests that the Office revisit the rules governing inter partes
reexamination.
A recent Federal Register Notice (Vol. 75
No.181/Monday, September 20, 2010; 57261-57262) announced a proposed program entitled
“Request for Comments on Incentivizing Humanitarian Technologies and
Licensing Through the Intellectual Property System.” “Under the proposed pilot
program, a fast-track ex parte reexamination voucher would be offered to
patent holders demonstrating humanitarian uses of patented technologies. This
voucher could then be used on any patent owned by the patent holder or
transferred on the open market.”
“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently
has a similar voucher program for fast-track review in place. Under this
program, the FDA awards priority review vouchers to entities that develop drugs
to treat neglected tropical diseases. Recent legislative proposals such as the
Creating Hope Act, S. 3697 (2010), on rare childhood diseases shows a desire on
the part of Congress to expand such efforts.” Under the proposal, the USPTO
would accelerate the time for handling by Examiners and the BPAI to six (6)
months. Applicants would be provided the usual time periods for responding.
Proposed standards include four areas that would be
evaluated in deciding to offer a voucher: (1) subject matter, (2)
effectiveness, (3) availability, and (4) access.
The subject matter must “address a recognized
humanitarian need.”
Effectiveness judges “whether the technology can be
used or is being used to address that issue.”
Availability determines “whether the technology is available
to an affected impoverished population.”
Access evaluates “whether the applicant has made
significant efforts to increase access to the technology among such
populations.”
“Humanitarian research” are efforts that: (1) would
“provide a significant contribution to research on a problem that predominantly
affects an impoverished population,” and (2) the “patented technology was made
available to researchers on generous terms.”
The USPTO seeks to develop a workable test to apply
these principles that is clear, concise, administratively efficient, and
resistant to abuse.
The deadline for comments is set to expire November
19, 2010, and no public hearing is to be held.
While the Committee recognizes the
desirability and creativity of the various proposals to expedite reexamination
based on certain classes of patents/applications, given the uncertain
classifications and the burden of fairly administering these programs, the
Committee believes that it is premature to implement the programs. It may make
more sense to stay focused on improving examination/reexamination for all. The
Committee is concerned that if a large number of vouchers is authorized under
this program, it will further extend the already lengthy time period for
reexamination.
Additionally, the Committee is concerned
that sale on the open market could provide incentives for abuse and unintended
consequences. Because the issues are complex, the tests are yet to be
developed, and unintended consequences are likely and unknown, we recommend
that the USPTO provide greater opportunities for input from the public, and
delay implementing any final proposal until the issues have been more fully
studied.
The PPAC understands that the workload of the Board of
Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) has increased substantially in recent
years. The USPTO has proposed reorganizing the BPAI to address this and other
issues. Although comments on the entirety of the proposal are beyond the scope
of this Section of the Report, the PPAC believes that one aspect of the
proposal is related to improving examination quality.
With implementation of the initiatives addressing
patent examination quality, the occurrence of improper rejections can be
decreased (false negatives or Type II errors). Cases are appealed primarily by
an Applicant who believes that a false negative error occurred in patent
examination, leading to an improper final rejection. Thus, the BPAI is tasked
with identifying Type II errors, and if found, providing a remedy to an
applicant in the form of a partial or complete reversal of a decision adverse
to the applicant. In other cases, no Type II error is identified, and the
decision by the Examiner is upheld on appeal.
In particular, the PPAC believes that guidance on
patentability determinations by the BPAI are important in developing best
practices in the examination process, and that rapid review of cases on appeal
and clear statements of patentability will be of great value. Therefore, the
PPAC believes that the proposal to have the BPAI report directly to the Under
Secretary of Commerce and Director of the USPTO will help the appeals process
become more consistent.
The Committee recommends that all BPAI opinions be
published and available to the public and examiners. The PPAC also encourages
the USPTO to provide increased education of examiners about updates of the case
law from the BPAI, the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court. We also recommend
that a greater percentage of opinions addressing fundamental patentability
issues be made precedential.
The PPAC believes that to the degree possible,
needlessly formalistic papers should not be required. Requiring that appeals
be prepared to meet unnecessarily complex criteria will provide a disincentive
for an Applicant to challenge what is perceived to be a false negative result
in examination. The Committee recommends providing a flexible system for
filing and pursing appeals. With the implementation of the new text-based IT system,
BPAI personnel should have immediate access to the current status of all
pending claims, recent proposed amendments and the history of the case to
date. We believe that filing an Appeal should be a simple, rapid process,
wherein the applicant presents a concise description of the alleged examination
error.
The Committee recommends that the USPTO provide
information on the dashboard, for example, of the time from filing of an Appeal
brief to final Board decision.
We expect that a simplified appeals process will
permit more rapid resolution of appealed issues, decrease the backlog of
appeals, and provide more rapid feedback to the examining corps for development
of best practices, all of which are expected to improve the quality of
examination.
The Committee looks forward to hearing proposals from
the Office to implement any changes to rules that will increase efficiency,
reduce time delays, and lead to accurate, consistent application of the law.
The USPTO’s initiative to implement Pre-Appeal
Conferences was introduced to help ensure that applicants and examiners clearly
communicate with each other to resolve disputes during examination that lead to
a final rejection. The PPAC believes that this process has great merit, and we
would like to see it continue.
The Pre-Appeal review team has traditionally consisted
of the Examiner, the Examiner’s SPE, and one other SPE level person. The PPAC
believes that this traditional approach has a drawback, namely that with two
voting members of the Pre-Appeal team already having expressed their view that
the claims are not patentable, those views may become entrenched, and unlikely
to be altered by review by the third member of the team. The PPAC suggests
that the USPTO consider altering the makeup of a Pre-Appeal team to include the
primary Examiner or SPE to whom the Examiner normally reports, and two SPE
level personnel who are not in the direct line of responsibility for
examination of the application under appeal. We believe that this will provide
a more dispassionate review, and will lead to improved patent examination
quality.
The Committee believes that with improved access to
and processing appeals, applicants, examiners, and policy makers can better
understand the examination process, whether proper examination is being carried
out, and if not, to suggest potential remedies. The PPAC believes that
guidance from the BPAI can be very valuable in ensuring that the examining
corps is coordinating with the BPAI.
The PPAC thanks the USPTO and Congress for the
opportunity to assist the U.S. in promoting innovation in our country and
throughout the World. We submit these remarks in the spirit of cooperation and
collaboration. The PPAC is ready and willing to work with the USPTO, the IP
community, and the public to further develop ideas contained in this Report.
| |
Respectfully submitted, |
| |
Damon Matteo, Chair |
PPAC Authorizing Statute and Charter
35 U.S.C. §5 – Patent & Trademark Office Public Advisory Committee
(a) Establishment of Public Advisory Committees
(1) Appointment – The United States
Patent and Trademark Office shall have a Patent Public Advisory Committee and a
Trademark Public Advisory Committee, each of which shall have nine voting
members who shall be appointed by the Secretary of Commerce and serve at the
pleasure of the Secretary of Commerce. Members of each Public Advisory
Committee shall be appointed for a term of 1 year, and three shall be appointed
for a term of 2 years. In making appointments to each Committee, the Secretary
of Commerce shall consider the risk of loss of competitive advantage in
international commerce or other harm to United States companies as a result of
such appointments.
(2) Chair – The Secretary shall designate
a chair of each Advisory Committee, whose term as chair shall be for 3 years.
(3) Timing of Appointments – Initial
appointments to each Advisory Committee shall be made within 3 months after the
effective date of the Patent and Trademark Office Efficiency Act. Vacancies
shall be filled within 3 months after they occur.
(b) Basis for Appointments – Members of each Advisory Committee
(1) shall be citizens of the United States who shall be chosen so
as to represent the interests of diverse users of the United
States Patent and Trademark Office with respect to patents, in the case of the
Patent Public Advisory Committee, and with respect to trademarks, in the case
of the Trademark Public Advisory Committee;
(2) shall include members who represent small
and large entity applicants located in the United States in proportion to the
number of applications filed by such applicants, but in no case shall members
who represent small entity patent applications, including small business
concerns, independent inventors, and nonprofit organizations, constitute less
than 25 percent of the members of the Patent Public Advisory Committee, and
such members shall include at least one independent inventor; and
(3) shall include individuals with substantial
background and achievement in finance, management, labor relations, science,
technology, and office automation. In addition to the voting members, each
Advisory Committee shall include a representative of each labor organization
recognized by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Such
representatives shall be nonvoting members of the Advisory Committee to which
they are appointed.
(c) Meetings – Each Advisory Committee shall
meet at the call of the chair to consider an agenda set by the chair.
(d) Duties – Each Advisory Committee shall
(1) review the policies, goals, performance,
budget, and user fees of the United States Patent and Trademark Office with
respect to patents, in the case of the Patent Public Advisory Committee, and
with respect to Trademarks, in the case of the Trademark Public Advisory
Committee, and advise the Director on these matters.
(2) within 60 days after the end of each fiscal year
| |
(A) |
prepare an annual report on the matters referred to in paragraph (1); |
| |
(B) |
transmit the report to the Secretary of Commerce, the President, and the
Committees on the Judiciary of the Senate and the House of Representatives; and |
| |
(C) |
publish the report in the Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. |
(e) Compensation – Each member of each
Advisory Committee shall be compensated for each day (including travel time)
during which such member is attending meetings or conferences of that Advisory
Committee or otherwise engaged in the business of that Advisory Committee, at
the rate which is the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in
effect for level III of the Executive Schedule under section 5314 of title 5.
While away from such member’s home or regular place of business such member shall
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as
authorized by section 5703 of title 5.
(f) Access To Information – Members of each
Advisory Committee shall be provided access to records and information in the
United States Patent and Trademark Office, except for personal or other
privileged information and information concerning patent applications required
to be kept in confidence by section 122.
(g) Applicability of Certain Ethics Laws –
Members of each Advisory Committee shall be special Government employees within
the meaning of section 202 of title 18.
(h) Inapplicability of Federal Advisory Committee
– The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to each
Advisory Committee.
(i) Open Meetings – The meetings of each
Advisory Committee shall be open to the public, except that each Advisory
Committee may by majority vote meet in executive session when considering
personnel, privileged, or other confidential information.
(j) Inapplicability Of Patent Prohibition –
Section 4 shall not apply to voting members of the Advisory Committees.
Biographies of PPAC Members
Damon C. Matteo
Damon C. Matteo (Chairman Of PPAC) is Vice President
& Chief Intellectual Property Officer of the Palo Alto Research Center
(PARC). Mr. Matteo's career spans twenty years in the strategic creation,
management and commercialization of high-value intellectual capital assets. On
the creation side, these efforts align research targeting with the creation of
intellectual capital assets that secure advantaged technology positions in the
marketplace, and realize broader corporate objectives. In optimizing returns
from these assets, Mr. Matteo regularly employs new business creation,
start-ups, venture funding, M&A, licensing, assertion as well as
direct-to-product vehicles – all in an international context.
Dedicated to developing new theory and best-practice
in realizing value from intellectual capital assets, Mr. Matteo is also an
author, by-line columnist and frequent lecturer at universities and
professional organizations worldwide. In addition to his service as Chairman
of the US Patent & Trademark Office's Public Advisory Committee, Mr.
Matteo's other Board affiliations include the European Center For Intellectual
Property Studies and Chair of the Silicon Valley Licensing Executive Society.
In recognition of this professional standing, Mr.
Matteo's awards and distinctions include being named one of the "Fifty
Most Influential People in Intellectual Property" by Managing Intellectual
Property Magazine, the National Technology Transfer Excellence Award given by
the U.S. Federal Government, NewsLink's "Profile In Excellence" for
technology transactions and Senior Distinguished Fellow for the Center For Advanced
Technology. A recognized thought leader, Mr. Matteo has served as an expert
for corporations, universities, government agencies and at trial.
Marc Adler
Marc Adler recently started a
private intellectual property strategy consulting practice (Marc Adler LLC).
For the past 26 years he worked for Rohm and Haas Company and since 1993 served
as the Company’s Chief Intellectual Property Counsel and Associate General
Counsel. Marc had worldwide responsibility for intellectual property matters
for the company including patent preparation and prosecution, intellectual
property strategies, licensing and litigation, and managed a group of 25
attorneys and agents in the US, Europe, Japan and China.
Mr. Adler is the immediate past President of the Intellectual Property Owners
Association and Association of Corporate patent Counsel. He was also on the
Executive Committee of the US AIPPI. He is also currently on the Board of the
National Inventor’s Hall of Fame, the IP Advisory Board of Franklin Pierce School
of Law and Lexis/Nexis.
Mr. Adler received his BS ChE
from the City College of New York, his MS ChE from the University of Florida, and his
law degree (JD) from St. John’s University in New York. He started his career
as a Chemical Engineer for 8 years with Esso Research and Engineering and Union
Carbide Corporation before becoming an associate with a patent law firm in New York City.
D. Benjamin Borson, M.A., J.D., Ph.D.
Dr. Ben Borson is Founder and President of the Borson Law Group, PC in Lafayette,
California. He is a patent attorney representing individual inventors and
small- and mid-sized companies that create and exploit intellectual property
assets. His clients are in the biological arts (biotechnology, chemistry, and
pharmaceutical sciences), scientific and medical instrumentation, materials
science, semiconductor processing, software, video technology, and mechanical
arts. He has 15 years of experience as a practitioner, and focuses on patent
preparation, prosecution, opinions and licensing. Additionally, he assists
clients in trademark, copyright, and scientific counseling.
Dr. Borson is an active lecturer and author in intellectual property law, and
prepared and prosecuted over 90 issued patents. He was recently appointed
Adjunct Professor of Law at Golden Gate University, where he teaches
biotechnology law in the J.D. program. Dr. Borson is a member of the AIPLA
patent and biotechnology committees, and is co-chair of the Section 101
sub-committee. He is active in the IP Law and International Law Sections of
the State Bar of California, is a past member of the IP Section Executive
Committee, and currently Chairs the Legislation Committee. He is past co-chair
of the Council of State Bar Sections, and served on the Board of Governor’s
Task Force on Sections. Ben was appointed to the PPAC in 2009 by Secretary
Locke.
Dr. Borson earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from San Francisco State College, a
Masters of Arts degree in Biology from the University of California, Riverside,
a Ph.D. degree in Physiology from the University of California, San Francisco,
and a J.D. degree from the University of San Francisco School of Law.
He is licensed to practice law in California, District Court in California and to
practice before the USPTO.
Prior
to entering law, Dr. Borson was a member of the faculty at the University of California,
San Francisco, Cardiovascular Research institute, where he ran a
research program in basic biomedical science, and trained post-doctoral fellows
and staff in research methods. He also was a member of the faculty of the
Department of Physiology. He is author of over 70 peer-reviewed articles,
reviews and abstracts in physiology, biochemistry and molecular biology. He
was the recipient of research grants from the National Institutes of Health,
Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, American Lung Association, the Parker B. Francis
Foundation and other groups.
Dr. Borson is founder and Past President of the BioScience Forum, a non-profit
educational organization. He is a past member of the Federated Association of
Societies for Experimental Biology, American Lung Association, American
Physiology Society, American Association of Cell Biologists, American Chemical
Society, and the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists. Prior to
entering science, he was a Certified Flight Instructor and holds a Commercial
Pilot License.
Louis J. Foreman
Louis Foreman is founder and Chief Executive of Enventys (www.enventys.com) , an integrated product
design and engineering firm with offices in Charlotte, NC and Taiwan. Louis graduated
from The University of Illinois with a Bachelors of Science degree in Economics.
His interest in starting businesses and developing innovative products began
while a sophomore with his first company founded in his fraternity room. Over
the past 20 years Louis has created 9 successful start-ups and has been
directly responsible for the creation of over 20 others. A prolific inventor,
he is the inventor of 10 registered US Patents, and his firm is responsible for
the development and filing of well over 400 more.
The recipient of numerous
awards for entrepreneurial achievement, his passion for small business extends
beyond his own companies. Louis volunteers his time teaching small business
classes at various Colleges and Universities. He received the 2007 Instructor
Achievement Award for his teaching at Central Piedmont Community College, and
in 2009 was recognized by the National Museum of Education for his Distinguished
Contributions to Education. In 2009, Louis was named Entrepreneur in
Residence at The McColl School of Business at Queens University. He is a
frequent lecturer and radio / TV guest on the topics of small business creation
and innovation, and is frequently invited by the United States Patent and
Trademark Office and national trade associations to be a featured speaker on
the topic of innovation.
In addition to being an inventor, Louis is also committed to
inspiring others to be innovative. Louis is the creator of the Emmy® Award
winning PBS TV show, Everyday Edisons and serves as the Executive
Producer and lead judge. The show is in its third season and appears nationally
on PBS. In 2007, Louis became the publisher of Inventors Digest, a 20
year old publication devoted to the topic of American Innovation. In 2009, his
first book, The Independent Inventor’s Handbook, was published by
Workman Publishing.
Louis was a founding member of
The Inventors Network of the Carolinas, a non-profit organization that empowers
inventors through education. In 2010, he was elected to the boards of the
Intellectual Property Owners Education Foundation (IPO) and The United
Inventors Association (UIA). He also serves as a board member for the
Entrepreneurial Leadership Council at Queens University.
Esther M. Kepplinger
Esther Kepplinger is Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati’s Chief Patent Counselor. She serves as a
liaison with the PTO enhancing the firm's practice before the PTO, she provides
client strategic patent counseling and serves as an expert witness on patent
examination procedures.
Prior to joining the firm in
2005, Ms. Kepplinger served as the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations
for five years (2000-2005) at the USPTO. In this capacity, she oversaw the
day-to-day operations of the Examining Corps, was responsible the achievement
of the quality, pendency and productivity goals and helped in the development
of patent policy.
She played an active role in the
Trilateral activities and led the drafting of WIPO PCT Search and Examination
Guidelines and WIPO Standards for submitting nucleic acid and/or amino acid
sequences in international patent applications. She spent 32 years at the
USPTO in various positions, including examine
F. Scott Kieff
F. Scott Kieff became a Professor at the George Washington University Law School
in Washington, DC, in the summer of 2009 after serving as a Professor at the Washington
University in Saint Louis School of Law with a secondary appointment in the School of
Medicine’s Department of Neurological Surgery. He is the Ray and Louis Knowles
Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, where he directs the Project on
Commercializing Innovation, which studies the law, economics, and politics of
innovation, including entrepreneurship, corporate governance, finance, economic
development, intellectual property, antitrust, and bankruptcy, and where he
serves on Hoover’s Property Rights Task Force.
Kieff is a
faculty member of the Munich Intellectual Property Law Center at Germany’s Max Planck
Institute; and previously has been a visiting professor in the law schools at
Northwestern, Chicago, and Stanford, as well as a faculty fellow in the Olin
Program on Law and Economics at Harvard.
Before
attending law school at the University of Pennsylvania, he studied molecular
biology and microeconomics at MIT and conducted research in molecular genetics
at the Whitehead Institute. Having practiced law for over six years as a trial
lawyer and patent lawyer for Pennie & Edmonds in New York and Jenner &
Block Chicago and as law clerk to U.S. Circuit
Judge Giles S. Rich, he regularly serves as a testifying and consulting expert, mediator,
and arbitrator to law firms, businesses, government agencies, and courts.
He served for
the first two years of the Federal Circuit’s Appellate Mediation Panel until
November 2007 and that December was appointed by Secretary of Commerce
Gutierrez to serve a three year term on the nine-person Patent Public Advisory
Committee of the Patent and Trademark Office, which was created by Congress to
advise the government on the policies, goals, performance, budget, and user
fees of the patent operation. He was recognized as one of the Nation’s “Top 50
under 45” by the magazine IP Law & Business.
STEVEN W. MILLER
Vice President and General Counsel-Intellectual Property
| RESIDENCE: |
West Chester , Ohio |
|
| DATE OF BIRTH: |
September 9, 1959 |
PLACE: Columbus, Ohio |
| EDUCATION: |
The Ohio State University, B.S., 1981, cum laude |
| |
The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, J.D., 1984, honors |
BUSINESS AFFILIATIONS PRIOR TO JOINING PROCTER & GAMBLE: None
DATE JOINED PROCTER & GAMBLE: August, 1984
POSITIONS HELD AND DATES:
| August, 1984 |
Attorney in the Paper Division, Diapers, Catamenials and Surgical Products |
| June, 1989 |
Patent Counsel, Diapers and Catamenials |
| December, 1994 |
Associate General Counsel - Patents for Diapers, Feminine Protection, and Adult Incontinent Products |
| July, 1999 |
Vice President & Associate General Counsel-Patents for the Baby Care Global Business Unit |
| July, 2000 |
Vice President & Associate General Counsel-Patents for the Baby Care & Feminine Care Global Business Unit |
| August, 2000 |
Chief Patent Counsel |
| July, 2001 |
Vice President & General Counsel- Intellectual Property. |
LOCAL AND NATIONAL ACTIVITIES:
| - | Member of the Bar, Supreme Court of Ohio, 1984-present |
| - | U.S. Supreme Court; Court of Appeals for Federal and Sixth Circuits; U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 1985 |
| - | American Intellectual Property Law Association |
| - | American Bar Association – Intellectual Property Committee |
| - | Cincinnati Bar Association and Cincy IP Law |
| - | Dean’s National Council for The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law |
| - | Executive Committee for the Association of Corporate Patent Counsels |
| - | Steering Committee for the Coalition for 21st Century Patent Reform |
| - | Board of Directors for the National Inventors Hall of Fame |
| - | Advisory Council for Intellectual Property at the Franklin Pierce Law Center |
| - | Board of Directors and President of the Intellectual Property Owners Association Education Foundation |
| - | Board of Directors and Past President of the Intellectual Property Owners Association |
| - | Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC) for the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office |
Stephen M. Pinkos
Stephen M. Pinkos is a Partner with the American Continental Group, a Washington,
DC based firm that provides a full spectrum of bi-partisan, federal, state and
international public policy advisory services. Mr. Pinkos previously managed
the daily operations of the USPTO as the Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for
Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO from 2004-2007. In this capacity,
he played an integral role in launching the largest-ever USPTO
hiring, training and retention effort and supervised quality control, pendency
reduction and IT initiatives. He also was instrumental in the development and
implementation of the Bush Administration’s STOP! (Strategy Targeting Organized
Piracy) program. Prior to the USPTO, Mr. Pinkos served on Capitol Hill as the
Staff Director and Deputy General Counsel for the House Committee on the
Judiciary.
Maureen K. Toohey
Maureen K. Toohey is the founding member of Toohey Law Group LLC, which has
offices in Boston, Massachusetts and Manchester, New Hampshire. She counsels
clients regarding the strategic protection and transfer of intellectual
property rights, supervises the prosecution of patent portfolios, and litigates
intellectual property disputes for technology companies. Her practice involves
a wide variety of technologies, with a particular emphasis in the medical device
and green technology fields.
Prior to founding the Toohey Law Group in 2007, Maureen served
as General Counsel for DEKA Research & Development Corporation, a dynamic
research and development company founded by prolific inventor Dean Kamen. Dean
Kamen and DEKA have been responsible for the development of a wide range of
medical devices, such as the first wearable infusion pump, the Baxter
HomeChoice™ Dialysis System, the IBOT™ Mobility System, and the Luke prosthetic
arm, as well as the development of the Segway™ Human Transporter (HT).
Prior to joining DEKA, Maureen practiced in the Silicon Valley
Office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, where she specialized in patent
litigation involving technologies such as semiconductors and medical devices.
Maureen also served as a clerk to the Honorable Randall R. Rader of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Maureen received a B.S. in Chemistry from the United States Naval Academy at
Annapolis, MD. After serving on active duty in the United States
Navy as an environment scientist for almost six years, Maureen attended law
school at the University of Virginia School of Law and received her J.D. in
1996. She is admitted to practice before Courts of California, Massachusetts, and New
Hampshire, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Additionally, Maureen is active in the Federal Circuit Bar
Association, AIPLA, and IP Law Section of the ABA, and serves as an advisor to
FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology), a non-profit
organization dedicated to inspiring young people to pursue a career in science
and engineering. For more information, please see www.usfirst.org.
Disclaimer
6,107,213 - Hiroshi Tayanaka, Kanagawa, (JP). METHOD FOR MAKING THIN
FILM SEMICONDUCTOR. Patent dated Aug. 22, 2000. Disclaimer filed Oct. 5,
2010, by the assignee, Sony Corporation.
Hereby enters this disclaimer to claim 1 of said patent.
Disclaimer
6,326,280 - Hiroshi Tayanaka, Kanagawa, (JP). THIN FILM SEMICONDUCTOR
AND METHOD FOR MAKING THIN FILM SEMICONDUCTOR. Patent dated Dec. 4, 2001.
Disclaimer filed Oct. 5, 2010, by the assignee, Sony Corporation.
Hereby enter this disclaimer to claim 1 and 2 of said patent.
Disclaimer
7,128,639 - Thomas Riedle, Aitrach (DE); and Hermann Sauter, Tannheim
(DE). PROCESS AND APPARATUS FOR THE ARTIFICIAL AGING OF STONES. Patent
dated Oct. 31, 2006. Disclaimer filed May 10, 2010, by the inventors.
Hereby enters this disclaimer to claim all of the claims 1-22 of said
patent.
Disclaimer
7,809,096 - Arkady Molev-Shteiman, Bnei Barak (IL); Nelson R.
Sollenberger, Farmingdale, NJ (US); and Huaiyu (Hanks) Zeng, Red Bank, NJ
(US). ADAPTIVE INTERFERENCE CANCELLATION ALGORITHM USING SPEECH MODE
DEPENDENT THRESHOLDS. Patent dated Oct. 5, 2010. Disclaimer filed Oct. 8,
2010, by the assignee, Broadcom Corporation.
Hereby disclaims all of the claims for the entire term of said patent.
Errata
"All reference to Patent No. 7,819,089 to Sharon E. Bennett, et al of
Midlothian, VA for DOG HARNESS appearing in the Official Gazette of October
26, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,819,314 to Jim Ostrowski, et al of South
Pasadena, CA for SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MERCHANDISE CHECKOUT appearing in
the Official Gazette of October 26, 2010 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,819,854 to Takao Koyama, et al of
Haga-gun, Japan for DISPOSABLE DIAPER appearing in the Official Gazette of
October 26, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,819,913 to JOOST J. Fierens, et al of
Dworp, Belgium for METHODS AND APPARATUS FOR STENTING COMPRISING ENHANCED
EMBOLIC PROTECTION COUPLED WITH IMPROVED PROTECTIONS AGAINST RESTENOSIS AND
THROMBUS FORMATION appearing in the Official Gazette of October 26, 2010
should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,820,173 to Klaus Pfizenmaier, et al of
Tiefenbronn, Germany for CD40-FAS LIGAND FUSION PROTEINS appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 26, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,820,450 to Brian Cunningham, et al of
Champaign, IL for LABEL-FREE HIGH-THROUGHPUT OPTICAL TECHNIQUE FOR
DETECTING BIO-MOLECULAR INTERACTIONS appearing in the Official Gazette of
October 26, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,820,522 to Anton Mauder, et al of
Kolbermoor, Germany for METHOD FOR PRODUCING A SEMICONDUCTOR INCLUDING A
FOREIGN MATERIAL LAYER appearing in the Official Gazette of October 26,
2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted,"
"All reference to Patent No. 7,820,710 to Robert Yongxin Zhao, et al of
Watertown, MA for PRODRUGS OF CC-1065 ANALOGS appearing in the Official
Gazatte of October 26, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,820,955 to Christopher William Slinger of
Ledbury, United Kingdom for CODED APERTURE COMPRISING A CODED DIFFRACTIVE
MASK appearing in the Official Gazette of October 26, 2010 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,821,004 to Shunpei Yamazaki, et al of
Tokyo, Japan for SEMI-CONDUCTOR DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
appearing in the Official Gazette of October 26, 2010 should be deleted
since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,821,137 to Kenichi Watanabe of Kawasaki,
Japan for SEMI-CONDUCTOR DEVICE HAVING GROOVE-SHAPED VIA-HOLE appearing in
the Official Gazette of October 26, 2010 should be deleted since no patent
was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,821,181 to Burhanettin Koc, et al of
Kyungki-Do Korea, Republic of for PIEZOELECTRIC VIBRATOR, MANUFACTURING
METHOD THEREOF AND LINEAR ACTUATOR HAVING THE SAME appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 26, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,821,314 to Lipeng Cao, et al of Austin,
TX for MULTIPLE-STAGE, SIGNAL EDGE ALIGNMENT APPARATUS AND METHODS
appearing in the Official Gazette of October 26, 2010 should be deleted
since no patent was granted."
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 257 |
"All reference to Patent No. 7,821,492 to Andrew D. Wilson, et al of
Redmond, WA for VIRTUAL CONTROLLER FOR VISUAL DISPLAYS appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 26, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,821,615 to Thomas W. Novak, et al of
Hillsborough, CA for LIQUID JET AND RECOVERY SYSTEM FOR IMMERSION
LITHOGRAPHY appearing in the Official Gazette of October 26, 2010 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,821,811 to Naoharu Shimomura, et al of
Sagamihara-shi, Japan for RESISTANCE CHANGE TYPE MEMORY appearing in the
Official Gazette of October 26, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was
granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,821,934 to Warren V. Barkley, et al of
Redmond, WA for TECHNIQUES TO PERFORM RATE MATCHING FOR MULTIMEDIA
CONFERENCE CALLS appearing in the Official Gazette of October 26, 2010
should be deleted since no patent was granted,"
"All reference to Patent No. 7,821,960 to Jayesh H. Kotecha of Austin,
TX for CHANNEL RANK UPDATES IN MULTIPLE-INPUT MULTIPLE-OUTPUT COMMUNICATION
SYSTEMS appearing in the Official Gazette of October 26, 2010 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,822,031 to Peter Ashwood Smith, et al of
Hull, Canada for MULTICAST IMPLEMENTATION IN A LINK STATE PROTOCOL
CONTROLLED ETHERNET NETWORK appearing in the Official Gazette of October
26, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,822,506 to Steffen Gutmann, et al of
Tokyo, Japan for ENVIRONMENT MAP BUILDING METHOD, ENVIRONMENT MAP BUILDING
APPARATUS AND MOBILE ROBOT APPARATUS appearing in the Official Gazette of
October 26, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,822,518 to Hiroaki Sugiura, et al of
Okazaki-shi, Japan for PARKING ASSIST METHOD AND A PARKING ASSIST APPARATUS
appearing in the Official Gazette of October 26, 2010 should be deleted
since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,822,737 to Roberto Warren Fisher, et al
of Los Angeles, CA for TEXT ENHANCEMENT MECHANISM appearing in the Official
Gaztte of October 26, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,822,919 to Kenji Yoshida, et al of
Akishima-shi, Japan for STORAGE DEVICE USING NONVOLATILE CACHE MEMORY AND
CONTROL METHOD THEREOF appearing in the Official Gazette of October 26,
2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,822,956 to Sterling Du, et al of Palo
Alto, CA for LOW POWER DIGITAL AUDIO DECODING/PLAYING SYSTEM FOR COMPUTING
DEVICES appearing in the Official Gazette of October 26, 2010 should be
deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,823,095 to Eitan Cadouri, et al of
Cupertino, CA for METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IMPLEMENTING PARALLEL PROCESSING OF
ELECTRONIC DESIGN AUTOMATION TOOLS appearing in the Official Gazette of
October 26, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,823,109 to Anwar Iramatov, et al of
Moscow, Russian Federation for METHOD AND MECHANISM FOR EXTRACTION AND
RECOGNITION OF POLYGONS IN AN IC DESIGN appearing in the Official Gazette
of October 26, 2010 should be deleted since no patent was granted."
"All reference to Patent No. 7,823,184 to Ajith N. Nair, et al of
Lawrenceville, GA for RESOURCE-ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OF VIDEO STORAGE
appearing in the Official Gazette of October 26, 2010 should be deleted
since no patent was granted."
Erratum
In the notice of Certificate of Correction appearing in May 18, 2010,
delete all reference to Patent No. 7,589,713, issue of April 27, 2010. The
decision dated April 21, 2010, which corrects the patent term adjustment
"by 1,344 days" was issued in error. The decision dated March 29, 2010,
correctly determined the patent term adjustment "by 1,065". The certificate
of correction is vacated.
| Certificates of Correction |
Certificates of Correction
for November 2, 2010
5,773,016 7,627,234 7,629,950 7,632,481
5,922,695C1 7,627,245 7,629,956 7,632,485
6,163,355 7,627,248 7,629,963 7,632,491
6,247,090C1 7,627,251 7,629,966 7,632,496
6,709,610 7,627,252 7,629,967 7,632,498
6,814,152 7,627,259 7,629,972 7,632,506
6,916,936 7,627,264 7,629,980 7,632,508
7,002,771 7,627,286 7,629,993 7,632,510
7,011,861 7,627,289 7,629,996 7,632,513
7,019,027 7,627,291 7,630,001 7,632,517
7,083,337 7,627,296 7,630,003 7,632,530
7,091,008 7,627,312 7,630,006 7,632,541
7,093,002 7,627,331 7,630,024 7,632,550
7,094,874 7,627,334 7,630,029 7,632,556
7,095,756 7,627,352 7,630,033 7,632,571
7,108,984 7,627,357 7,630,040 7,632,576
7,109,759 7,627,361 7,630,057 7,632,583
7,110,962 7,627,362 7,630,063 7,632,595
7,112,206 7,627,363 7,630,075 7,632,605
7,142,342 7,627,366 7,630,085 7,632,616
7,145,371 7,627,367 7,630,104 7,632,631
7,155,714 7,627,370 7,630,123 7,632,636
7,160,323 7,627,373 7,630,183 7,632,640
7,184,607 7,627,374 7,630,196 7,632,644
7,203,378 7,627,376 7,630,204 7,632,652
7,218,485 7,627,379 7,630,206 7,632,653
7,233,215 7,627,384 7,630,212 7,632,654
7,242,502 7,627,386 7,630,215 7,632,665
7,269,283 7,627,388 7,630,225 7,632,671
7,271,918 7,627,398 7,630,287 7,632,672
7,275,081 7,627,403 7,630,293 7,632,674
7,280,251 7,627,419 7,630,295 7,632,678
7,301,541 7,627,420 7,630,301 7,632,680
7,304,294 7,627,427 7,630,303 7,632,683
7,308,170 7,627,449 7,630,305 7,632,687
7,309,170 7,627,458 7,630,316 7,632,713
7,311,420 7,627,459 7,630,319 7,632,747
7,315,048 7,627,463 7,630,320 7,632,748
7,327,192 7,627,464 7,630,326 7,632,760
7,340,167 7,627,472 7,630,330 7,632,770
7,340,422 7,627,476 7,630,333 7,632,774
7,346,059 7,627,481 7,630,336 7,632,775
7,350,986 7,627,484 7,630,337 7,632,782
7,355,966 7,627,486 7,630,342 7,632,783
7,356,672 7,627,490 7,630,350 7,632,788
7,359,754 7,627,496 7,630,358 7,632,790
7,369,013 7,627,498 7,630,368 7,632,799
7,372,886 7,627,506 7,630,374 7,632,802
7,374,326 7,627,508 7,630,380 7,632,809
7,382,504 7,627,516 7,630,382 7,632,811
7,384,967 7,627,530 7,630,383 7,632,827
7,411,958 7,627,531 7,630,384 7,632,845
7,417,349 7,627,533 7,630,385 7,632,846
7,419,999 7,627,543 7,630,390 7,632,847
7,424,317 7,627,559 7,630,393 7,632,850
7,424,506 7,627,566 7,630,397 7,632,857
7,427,555 7,627,571 7,630,400 7,632,870
7,428,437 7,627,578 7,630,401 7,632,872
7,450,221 7,627,583 7,630,403 7,632,882
7,453,002 7,627,585 7,630,405 7,632,886
7,463,092 7,627,593 7,630,406 7,632,901
7,468,153 7,627,596 7,630,408 7,632,916
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 260 |
7,473,151 7,627,597 7,630,414 7,632,918
7,478,999 7,627,609 7,630,420 7,632,935
7,486,324 7,627,613 7,630,438 7,632,952
7,488,343 7,627,620 7,630,440 7,632,959
7,492,709 7,627,622 7,630,461 7,632,964
7,496,519 7,627,635 7,630,464 7,632,966
7,499,549 7,627,638 7,630,468 7,632,974
7,501,833 7,627,641 7,630,479 7,632,978
7,503,784 7,627,645 7,630,486 7,632,981
7,508,376 7,627,650 7,630,487 7,633,023
7,516,173 7,627,651 7,630,497 7,633,033
7,516,732 7,627,654 7,630,501 7,633,040
7,523,893 7,627,655 7,630,504 7,633,066
7,524,222 7,627,656 7,630,505 7,633,076
7,529,002 7,627,662 7,630,511 7,633,082
7,544,096 7,627,665 7,630,514 7,633,087
7,544,714 7,627,667 7,630,518 7,633,114
7,544,961 7,627,668 7,630,525 7,633,115
7,545,771 7,627,669 7,630,531 7,633,159
7,546,584 7,627,670 7,630,534 7,633,192
7,555,441 7,627,680 7,630,536 7,633,233
7,562,020 7,627,682 7,630,548 7,633,250
7,562,198 7,627,693 7,630,549 7,633,269
7,563,785 7,627,694 7,630,567 7,633,273
7,564,789 7,627,695 7,630,569 7,633,874
7,565,302 7,627,710 7,630,577 7,635,699
7,566,458 7,627,715 7,630,579 7,637,400
7,566,795 7,627,720 7,630,581 7,638,262
7,573,909 7,627,729 7,630,586 7,638,792
7,574,049 7,627,733 7,630,592 7,639,839
7,574,464 7,627,740 7,630,613 7,640,026
7,575,917 7,627,747 7,630,624 7,641,737
7,576,263 7,627,762 7,630,634 7,643,715
7,579,439 7,627,785 7,630,640 7,647,363
7,580,876 7,627,791 7,630,647 7,647,516
7,583,947 7,627,805 7,630,666 7,651,355
7,586,915 7,627,806 7,630,690 7,651,797
7,587,244 7,627,810 7,630,693 7,652,025
7,588,927 7,627,816 7,630,694 7,653,860
7,589,249 7,627,818 7,630,707 7,655,791
7,590,522 7,627,821 7,630,710 7,656,012
7,591,030 7,627,822 7,630,732 7,657,060
7,591,211 7,627,823 7,630,742 7,657,432
7,593,546 7,627,829 7,630,745 7,658,954
7,593,638 7,627,830 7,630,748 7,659,308
7,593,790 7,627,833 7,630,751 7,659,522
7,595,395 7,627,842 7,630,752 7,661,942
7,595,917 7,627,843 7,630,753 7,662,330
7,596,115 7,627,851 7,630,758 7,662,505
7,596,669 7,627,852 7,630,759 7,662,577
7,600,122 7,627,853 7,630,767 7,663,021
7,603,519 7,627,854 7,630,775 7,663,239
7,604,997 7,627,857 7,630,778 7,666,198
7,606,366 7,627,858 7,630,790 7,666,988
7,607,041 7,627,860 7,630,796 7,670,099
7,607,571 7,627,861 7,630,798 7,672,107
7,608,127 7,627,862 7,630,813 7,672,425
7,610,072 7,627,867 7,630,817 7,676,401
7,610,842 7,627,868 7,630,829 7,676,507
7,611,826 7,627,872 7,630,851 7,676,651
7,613,110 7,627,877 7,630,854 7,677,125
7,615,710 7,627,892 7,630,867 7,678,249
7,618,270 7,627,893 7,630,870 7,680,974
7,619,321 7,627,896 7,630,881 7,680,993
7,620,408 7,627,898 7,630,900 7,682,437
7,620,476 7,627,899 7,630,902 7,685,220
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 261 |
7,621,930 7,627,902 7,630,905 7,686,890
7,622,296 7,627,907 7,630,920 7,687,494
7,622,564 7,627,920 7,630,923 7,687,508
7,622,571 7,627,926 7,630,928 7,687,744
7,622,772 7,627,929 7,630,935 7,691,201
7,623,130 7,627,930 7,630,938 7,691,637
7,623,264 7,627,931 7,630,941 7,691,804
7,625,434 7,627,932 7,630,943 7,691,808
7,625,438 7,627,933 7,630,945 7,692,779
7,625,441 7,627,940 7,630,967 7,692,907
7,625,442 7,628,021 7,630,973 7,694,419
7,625,447 7,628,022 7,630,976 7,702,603
7,625,453 7,628,027 7,630,984 7,704,363
7,625,461 7,628,029 7,630,986 7,705,029
7,625,462 7,628,030 7,630,990 7,705,135
7,625,467 7,628,043 7,630,994 7,705,311
7,625,468 7,628,044 7,630,999 7,705,579
7,625,470 7,628,049 7,631,000 7,705,762
7,625,475 7,628,050 7,631,007 7,706,046
7,625,482 7,628,067 7,631,008 7,706,090
7,625,508 7,628,072 7,631,012 7,706,437
7,625,510 7,628,085 7,631,021 7,707,645
7,625,513 7,628,087 7,631,024 7,707,700
7,625,515 7,628,094 7,631,028 7,708,482
7,625,522 7,628,106 7,631,036 7,709,216
7,625,530 7,628,125 7,631,038 7,709,269
7,625,532 7,628,129 7,631,039 7,709,511
7,625,542 7,628,134 7,631,042 7,709,515
7,625,544 7,628,155 7,631,043 7,709,603
7,625,547 7,628,156 7,631,044 7,709,632
7,625,551 7,628,164 7,631,045 7,710,168
7,625,565 7,628,185 7,631,049 7,710,428
7,625,597 7,628,190 7,631,054 7,710,515
7,625,603 7,628,198 7,631,058 7,711,536
7,625,605 7,628,247 7,631,064 7,712,133
7,625,612 7,628,279 7,631,067 7,713,197
7,625,618 7,628,282 7,631,069 7,713,399
7,625,622 7,628,286 7,631,072 7,715,219
7,625,625 7,628,295 7,631,073 7,715,666
7,625,628 7,628,296 7,631,076 7,717,859
7,625,635 7,628,297 7,631,080 7,720,377
7,625,665 7,628,299 7,631,088 7,723,401
7,625,667 7,628,308 7,631,091 7,723,598
7,625,672 7,628,309 7,631,097 7,724,014
7,625,675 7,628,322 7,631,098 7,724,882
7,625,680 7,628,333 7,631,110 7,725,104
7,625,686 7,628,370 7,631,116 7,725,311
7,625,689 7,628,414 7,631,120 7,725,883
7,625,701 7,628,418 7,631,131 7,727,123
7,625,702 7,628,433 7,631,136 7,727,256
7,625,703 7,628,455 7,631,138 7,727,719
7,625,712 7,628,461 7,631,141 7,727,723
7,625,721 7,628,517 7,631,144 7,729,568
7,625,728 7,628,528 7,631,150 7,729,851
7,625,735 7,628,551 7,631,164 7,731,419
7,625,736 7,628,561 7,631,170 7,731,861
7,625,738 7,628,586 7,631,175 7,734,368
7,625,751 7,628,592 7,631,176 7,734,461
7,625,752 7,628,608 7,631,179 7,736,115
7,625,753 7,628,611 7,631,180 7,736,342
7,625,755 7,628,614 7,631,182 7,736,960
7,625,761 7,628,673 7,631,183 7,737,626
7,625,783 7,628,675 7,631,187 7,737,803
7,625,803 7,628,679 7,631,188 7,738,211
7,625,809 7,628,687 7,631,197 7,738,791
7,625,827 7,628,690 7,631,198 7,739,276
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 262 |
7,625,845 7,628,692 7,631,204 7,740,064
7,625,847 7,628,693 7,631,207 7,740,481
7,625,865 7,628,694 7,631,211 7,741,734
7,625,867 7,628,701 7,631,213 7,742,523
7,625,872 7,628,718 7,631,223 7,743,087
7,625,873 7,628,719 7,631,224 7,743,396
7,625,885 7,628,726 7,631,242 7,743,776
7,625,908 7,628,730 7,631,245 7,744,481
7,625,917 7,628,762 7,631,250 7,744,551
7,625,918 7,628,766 7,631,259 7,744,926
7,625,928 7,628,772 7,631,260 7,745,020
7,625,931 7,628,775 7,631,276 7,745,109
7,625,940 7,628,776 7,631,277 7,745,597
7,625,941 7,628,789 7,631,284 7,745,685
7,625,950 7,628,793 7,631,290 7,746,344
7,625,957 7,628,794 7,631,291 7,746,906
7,625,958 7,628,801 7,631,293 7,747,491
7,625,974 7,628,803 7,631,297 7,747,804
7,625,980 7,628,804 7,631,308 7,747,873
7,625,992 7,628,806 7,631,314 7,748,276
7,625,994 7,628,807 7,631,320 7,748,397
7,626,002 7,628,825 7,631,331 7,748,652
7,626,007 7,628,826 7,631,339 7,749,056
7,626,010 7,628,828 7,631,348 7,749,264
7,626,014 7,628,839 7,631,351 7,749,419
7,626,020 7,628,845 7,631,355 7,749,563
7,626,022 7,628,861 7,631,357 7,749,872
7,626,029 7,628,862 7,631,362 7,750,090
7,626,035 7,628,867 7,631,370 7,750,345
7,626,046 7,628,886 7,631,372 7,751,401
7,626,049 7,628,895 7,631,382 7,751,632
7,626,056 7,628,898 7,631,384 7,751,804
7,626,067 7,628,900 7,631,386 7,752,041
7,626,071 7,628,901 7,631,390 7,752,161
7,626,072 7,628,902 7,631,391 7,752,707
7,626,080 7,628,904 7,631,392 7,753,332
7,626,092 7,628,907 7,631,396 7,754,179
7,626,093 7,628,909 7,631,413 7,755,833
7,626,117 7,628,910 7,631,420 7,755,972
7,626,192 7,628,935 7,631,426 7,756,474
7,626,193 7,628,936 7,631,438 7,756,965
7,626,198 7,628,965 7,631,445 7,757,461
7,626,216 7,628,972 7,631,447 7,757,633
7,626,229 7,628,974 7,631,460 7,759,025
7,626,247 7,628,975 7,631,467 7,759,067
7,626,264 7,628,983 7,631,482 7,759,228
7,626,266 7,628,986 7,631,483 7,759,328
7,626,269 7,628,988 7,631,498 7,759,419
7,626,274 7,628,992 7,631,499 7,759,656
7,626,298 7,628,995 7,631,500 7,761,266
7,626,330 7,628,996 7,631,507 7,761,375
7,626,340 7,629,000 7,631,589 7,761,536
7,626,343 7,629,001 7,631,591 7,762,025
7,626,348 7,629,002 7,631,650 7,762,273
7,626,393 7,629,012 7,631,653 7,762,607
7,626,400 7,629,019 7,631,656 7,762,626
7,626,437 7,629,022 7,631,657 7,762,965
7,626,438 7,629,024 7,631,665 7,763,167
7,626,442 7,629,027 7,631,667 7,763,355
7,626,451 7,629,028 7,631,677 7,763,734
7,626,477 7,629,058 7,631,686 7,764,509
7,626,487 7,629,060 7,631,687 7,764,629
7,626,498 7,629,069 7,631,688 7,764,991
7,626,514 7,629,072 7,631,702 7,765,182
7,626,516 7,629,074 7,631,723 7,765,561
7,626,536 7,629,079 7,631,725 7,765,948
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 263 |
7,626,541 7,629,083 7,631,748 7,766,073
7,626,553 7,629,119 7,631,775 7,766,224
7,626,564 7,629,128 7,631,784 7,767,296
7,626,567 7,629,130 7,631,786 7,767,629
7,626,569 7,629,137 7,631,814 7,767,697
7,626,570 7,629,148 7,631,837 7,767,736
7,626,580 7,629,149 7,631,848 7,767,779
7,626,581 7,629,164 7,631,849 7,768,581
7,626,614 7,629,174 7,631,850 7,769,352
7,626,632 7,629,177 7,631,872 7,769,559
7,626,637 7,629,180 7,631,877 7,769,570
7,626,640 7,629,186 7,631,888 7,769,877
7,626,641 7,629,192 7,631,889 7,770,105
7,626,646 7,629,237 7,631,904 7,770,717
7,626,736 7,629,257 7,631,960 7,771,537
7,626,738 7,629,267 7,631,973 7,774,177
7,626,743 7,629,270 7,631,989 7,774,249
7,626,745 7,629,272 7,631,999 7,774,302
7,626,748 7,629,278 7,632,009 7,774,651
7,626,794 7,629,288 7,632,010 7,775,879
7,626,805 7,629,289 7,632,019 7,775,947
7,626,830 7,629,290 7,632,030 7,776,287
7,626,836 7,629,303 7,632,054 7,776,920
7,626,880 7,629,306 7,632,061 7,777,231
7,626,891 7,629,314 7,632,062 7,777,499
7,626,894 7,629,321 7,632,063 7,777,585
7,626,917 7,629,324 7,632,068 7,778,266
7,626,932 7,629,329 7,632,076 7,778,324
7,626,943 7,629,334 7,632,086 7,778,440
7,626,948 7,629,342 7,632,098 7,779,395
7,626,953 7,629,354 7,632,103 7,779,420
7,626,958 7,629,369 7,632,112 7,779,609
7,626,964 7,629,371 7,632,166 7,779,757
7,626,967 7,629,383 7,632,191 7,779,837
7,626,969 7,629,384 7,632,200 7,780,588
7,626,975 7,629,388 7,632,201 7,780,779
7,626,979 7,629,397 7,632,208 7,781,453
7,626,987 7,629,416 7,632,216 7,781,565
7,626,988 7,629,421 7,632,225 7,781,625
7,626,991 7,629,422 7,632,229 7,781,670
7,626,999 7,629,438 7,632,232 7,781,924
7,627,002 7,629,441 7,632,234 7,783,474
7,627,004 7,629,443 7,632,235 7,783,611
7,627,007 7,629,452 7,632,242 7,783,892
7,627,015 7,629,467 7,632,246 7,784,294
7,627,025 7,629,468 7,632,247 7,784,475
7,627,026 7,629,478 7,632,250 7,784,600
7,627,031 7,629,488 7,632,254 7,785,493
7,627,036 7,629,493 7,632,255 7,785,566
7,627,041 7,629,499 7,632,266 7,785,883
7,627,043 7,629,503 7,632,270 7,788,261
7,627,044 7,629,530 7,632,271 7,788,445
7,627,046 7,629,548 7,632,281 7,790,254
7,627,052 7,629,553 7,632,283 7,790,417
7,627,053 7,629,556 7,632,284 7,791,478
7,627,060 7,629,570 7,632,288 7,792,186
7,627,062 7,629,573 7,632,296 7,792,238
7,627,064 7,629,579 7,632,303 7,792,303
7,627,065 7,629,597 7,632,306 7,792,532
7,627,068 7,629,627 7,632,321 7,793,195
7,627,069 7,629,635 7,632,322 7,794,518
7,627,078 7,629,641 7,632,324 7,794,837
7,627,091 7,629,664 7,632,328 7,795,779
7,627,100 7,629,665 7,632,329 7,795,973
7,627,102 7,629,687 7,632,335 7,796,266
7,627,113 7,629,688 7,632,351 7,796,322
| November 23, 2010 |
US PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE |
1360 OG 264 |
7,627,114 7,629,693 7,632,361 7,797,194
7,627,115 7,629,707 7,632,365 7,799,204
7,627,120 7,629,709 7,632,367 7,799,917
7,627,125 7,629,715 7,632,374 7,801,545
7,627,129 7,629,716 7,632,380 7,804,557
7,627,152 7,629,747 7,632,385 D. 515,209
7,627,153 7,629,748 7,632,386 D. 515,772
7,627,155 7,629,766 7,632,391 D. 576,122
7,627,159 7,629,813 7,632,425 D. 606,652
7,627,160 7,629,819 7,632,431 D. 609,821
7,627,162 7,629,823 7,632,432 D. 612,055
7,627,175 7,629,873 7,632,435 D. 615,173
7,627,182 7,629,907 7,632,436 D. 619,482
7,627,187 7,629,918 7,632,455 D. 621,607
7,627,192 7,629,930 7,632,459 RE. 40,936
7,627,230 7,629,936 7,632,477 RE. 41,338
| Summary of Final Decisions Issued by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board |
SUMMARY OF FINAL DECISIONS ISSUED BY THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
October 18 – October 22, 2010
Date Issued
|
Type of Case(1) |
Proceeding or Appn. No. |
Party or Parties |
Issue |
TTAB Decision |
Opposer's or Petitioner's Mark and Goods or Services |
Applicant's or Respondent's Mark and Goods or Services |
Mark and Goods Cited by Examining Attorney |
Issued as Precedent of TTAB |
| 10-20 |
EX |
77467592 |
National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, Inc. |
2(e)(1), 2(f), 6(a) (disclaimers) |
Refusal Affirmed in the absence of disclaimers of REIT.COM and REIT |
|
"REIT.COM ALL THINGS REIT" (for goods and services in nine classes; refusal as to five) [Class 9: various electronic publications, indexes and educational videos in the field of real estate investment trusts] [Class 16: various printed publications on real estate investment trusts and companies] [Class 35: providing various types of information on stocks, bonds, and other financial instruments] [Class 36: providing information, and index, rules as to composition of the index, in the field of real estate investment trusts; licensing derivatives] [Class 41: various educational services and on-line periodicals, in the field of real estate investment trusts; publishing services in field of financial statistics, trade and market research] |
|
No |
| 10-20 |
EX |
77600833 77600844 |
Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed as to both applications |
|
"VIRTUAL CONCIERGE" and "ZURICH VIRTUAL CONCIERGE" [both for, providing financial risk management information and insurance information via emails, personalized websites and electronic press releases and announcements] |
"VIRTUAL CONCIERGE" [business management consulting services] |
No |
| 10-20 |
EX |
78967139 |
Torn & Glasser, Inc. |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
"ISLAND TROPICAL" [fruit-based snack food; snack mix consisting primarily of processed fruits, processed nuts and/or raisins] |
"TROPICAL ISLAND BLAST" [fruit based snack food, namely, dried fruit mix] |
No |
| 10-20 |
EX |
77309516 |
IOIP Holdings, LLC |
2(d) |
Refusal Affirmed |
|
"SUMMIT BRANDS" [Class 1: Chlorine compounds for maintaining drinking water supplies; Chemical compounds for use in cleaning and maintaining water softening units; Chemical compound for use in removing foreign matter from water softeners] [Class 3: a wide variety of cleaners, cleaning preparations, rust and stain removers, for use in a wide variety of applications, including on clothing, in appliances and plumbing, and bathrooms; drain openers] [Class 5: Sanitizers for water treatment equipment and appliances, namely, commercial and industrial water softening equipment and household appliances, namely, ice makers, coffee makers, dishwashers, humidifiers and distillers; Household deodorant and disinfectant for garbage disposals; Chemical preparations to prevent mold, mildew, deposit and corrosion in whirlpool baths, hot tubs and jetted bathtubs] |
"SUMMIT FRESH" [laundry bleach; fragrance sold as an integral component of laundry bleach] |
No |
(1) EX=Ex Parte Appeal; OPP=Opposition; CANC=Cancellation; CU=Concurrent Use; (SJ)=Summary Judgment; (MD)=Motion to Dismiss; (MS)=Motion for Sanctions; (ACR)=Accelerated Case Resolution (2) *=Opinion Writer; (D)=Dissenting Panel Member
| Mailing and Hand Carry Addresses for Mail to the United States Patent and Trademark Office |
MAILING AND HAND CARRY ADDRESSES FOR
MAIL TO THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
For most correspondence (e.g., new patent applications) no mail stop
is required because the processing of the correspondence is routine.
If NO mail stop is included on the list below, no mail stop is required
for the correspondence. See the listing under "Mail to be Directed to the
Director of the Patent And Trademark Office" for additional mail stops
for patent-related correspondence. Only the specified type of document
should be placed in an envelope addressed to one of these special mail
stops. If any documents other than the specified type identified for each
special mail stop are addressed to that mail stop, they will be
significantly delayed in reaching the appropriate area for which they are
intended. The mail stop should generally appear as the first line in
the address.
Most correspondence may be submitted electronically. See the USPTO's
Electronic Filing System (EFS-Web) internet page
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/index.jsp for additional
information.
Please address mail to be delivered by the United States Postal Service
(USPS) as follows:
Mail Stop _____
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
If no Mail Stop is indicated below, the line beginning Mail Stop should
be omitted from the address.
Except correspondence for Maintenance Fee payments, Deposit Account
Replenishments (see 37 CFR 1.25(c)(4)), and Licensing and Review (see 37 CFR
5.1(c) and 5.2(c)), please address patent-related correspondence to be
delivered by other delivery services (Federal Express (Fed Ex), UPS, DHL,
Laser, Action, Purolator, etc.) as follows:
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Customer Service Window, Mail Stop _____
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Mail Stop
Designations Explanation
Mail Stop 12 Contributions to the Examiner Education Program.
Mail Stop 313(c) Petitions under 37 CFR 1.313(c) to withdraw a
patent application from issue after payment of
the issue fee and any papers associated with the
petition, including papers necessary for a
continuing application or a request for
continued examination (RCE).
Mail Stop AF Amendments and other responses after final
rejection (e.g., a notice of appeal (and any
request for pre-appeal brief conference)),
other than an appeal brief.
Mail Stop Amendment Information disclosure statements, drawings, and
replies to Office actions in patent applications
with or without an amendment to the application or
a terminal disclaimer. (Use Mail Stop AF for
replies after final rejection.)
Mail Stop Appeal For appeal briefs or other briefs under
Brief-Patents part 41 of title 37 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (e.g., former 37 CFR 1.192).
Mail Stop Public comments regarding patent-related
Comments-Patent regulations and procedures.
Mail Stop Conversion Requests under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(2) to convert a
nonprovisional application to a provisional
application and requests under 37 CFR 1.53(c)(3)
to convert a provisional application to a
nonprovisional application.
Mail Stop EBC Mail for the Electronic Business Center including:
Certificate Action Forms, Request for Customer
Number, and Requests for Customer Number Data
Change (USPTO Forms PTO-2042, PTO/SB/124A and 125A,
respectively) and Customer Number Upload
Spreadsheets and Cover Letters.
Mail Stop Expedited Only to be used for the initial filing of
Design design applications accompanied by a
request for expedited examination under
37 CFR 1.155.
Mail Stop Express Requests for abandonment of a patent
Abandonment application pursuant to 37 CFR 1.138,
including any petitions under 37 CFR
1.138(c) to expressly abandon an
application to avoid publication of the
application.
Mail Stop Applications under 35 U.S.C. 156 for patent term
Hatch-Waxman PTE extension based on regulatory review of a product
subject to pre-market review by a regulating
agency. This mail stop is also to be used for
additional correspondence regarding the
application for patent term extension under
35 U.S.C. 156. It is preferred that such initial
requests be hand-carried to:
Office of Patent Legal Administration
Room MDW 7D55
600 Dulany Street (Madison Building)
Alexandria, VA 22314
Mail Stop ILS Correspondence relating to international patent
classification, exchanges and standards.
Mail Stop Issue Fee All communications following the receipt of a
PTOL-85, "Notice of Allowance and Fee(s)
Due," and prior to the issuance of a patent
should be addressed to Mail Stop Issue Fee,
unless advised to the contrary.
Assignments are the exception. Assignments
(with cover sheets) should be faxed to
571-273-0140, electronically submitted
(http://epas.uspto.gov), or submitted in a
separate envelope and sent to Mail Stop
Assignment Recordation Services,
Director - U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
as shown below.
Mail Stop L&R All documents pertaining to applications subject
to secrecy order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 181, or
national-security classified and required to be
processed accordingly. Such papers, petitions for
foreign filing license pursuant to 37 CFR 5.12(b)
for which expedited handling is requested, and
petitions for retroactive license under 37 CFR
5.25 may also be hand carried to Licensing and
Review:
Technology Center 3600, Office of the Director
Room 4B41
501 Dulany Street (Knox Building)
Alexandria, VA 22314
Mail Stop Missing Requests for a corrected filing receipt and
Parts replies to OPAP notices such as the Notice
of Omitted Items, Notice to File Corrected
Application Papers, Notice of Incomplete
Application, Notice to Comply with Nucleotide
Sequence Requirements, and Notice to File Missing
Parts of Application, and associated papers and
fees.
Mail Stop MPEP Submissions concerning the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure.
Mail Stop Patent Ext. Applications for patent term extension or
adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154 and any
communications relating thereto. This mail stop
is limited to petitions for patent term extension
under 35 U.S.C. 154 for applications filed
between June 8, 1995 and May 29, 2000, and patent
term adjustment (PTA) under 35 U.S.C. 154 for
applications filed on or after May 29, 2000.
For applications for patent term extension under
35 U.S.C. 156, use Mail Stop Hatch-Waxman PTE.
For applications for patent term extension or
adjustment under 35 U.S.C. 154 that are mailed
together with the payment of the issue fee, use
Mail Stop Issue Fee.
Mail Stop Patent Submission of comments regarding search templates.
Search Template
Comments
Mail Stop PCT Mail related to international applications filed
under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in the
international phase and in the national phase
under 35 U.S.C. 371 prior to mailing of a
Notification of Acceptance of Application Under
35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495 (Form
PCT/DO/EO/903).
Mail Stop Petition Petitions to be decided by the Office of Petitions,
including petitions to revive and petitions to
accept late payment of issue fees or maintenance
fees.
Mail Stop PGPUB Correspondence regarding publication of patent
applications not otherwise provided, including:
requests for early publication made after filing,
rescission of a non-publication request, corrected
patent application publication, and refund of
publication fee.
Mail Stop Post In patented files: requests for changes of
Issue correspondence address, powers of attorney,
revocations of powers of attorney, withdrawal as
attorney or agent and submissions under 37
CFR 1.501. Designation of, or changes to, a fee
address should be addressed to Mail Stop M
Correspondence. Requests for Certificate of
Correction need no special mail stop, but
should be mailed to the attention of Certificate
of Correction Branch.
Mail Stop RCE Requests for continued examination under
37 CFR 1.114.
Mail Stop Correspondence pertaining to the reconstruction
Reconstruction of lost patent files.
Mail Stop Ex Parte Original requests for Ex Parte Reexamination
Reexam and all subsequent corresponcence other
than correspondence to the Office of the Solicitor
(see 37 CFR 1.1(a)(3) and 1.302(c)).
Mail Stop Inter Original requests for Inter Partes Reexamination
Partes Reexam and all subsequent correspondence other than
correspondence to the Office of the Solicitor
(see 37 CFR 1.1(a)(3) and 1.302(c)).
Mail Stop Reissue All new and continuing reissue application filings.
Mail Stop Sequence Submission of the computer readable form (CRF) for
applications with sequence listings, when the CRF
is not being filed with the patent application.
Information for addressing trademark-related correspondence may also be found
on the USPTO's web site at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp.
MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRADEMARKS
Please address trademark-related correspondence to be delivered by the
United States Postal Service (USPS), except documents sent to the Assignment
Services Division for recordation, requests for copies of trademark
documents, and documents directed to the Madrid Processing Unit, as follows:
Commissioner for Trademarks
P.O. Box 1451
Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Office's Madrid Processing Unit,
must be mailed to:
Madrid Processing Unit
600 Dulany Street
MDE-7B87
Alexandria, VA 22314-5796
Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Office's Deputy Commissioner for
Trademark Policy regarding Letters of Protest must be mailed to:
Letter of Protest
ATTN: Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Policy
600 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-5796
Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Director regarding the Fastener
Quality Act (FQA) must be mailed to:
Director, USPTO
ATTN: FQA
600 Dulany Street, MDE-10A71
Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
Mail to be delivered by the USPS to the Commissioner regarding the
recordal of a Native American Tribal Insignia (NATI) must be mailed to:
Native American Tribal Insignia
ATTN: Commissioner for Trademarks
600 Dulany Street
MDE-10A71
Alexandria, VA 22314-5793
Do NOT send any of the following via USPS certified mail or with a
"signature required" option: submissions to the Madrid Processing Unit,
Letters of Protest, applications for recordal of insignia under the
Fastener Quality Act, notifications of Native American Tribal Insignia.
Trademark-related mail to be delivered by hand or other private courier
or delivery service (e.g., UPS, Federal Express) to the Trademark Operation,
the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or the Office's Madrid Processing Unit,
must be delivered to:
Trademark Assistance Center
Madison East, Concourse Level Room C 55
600 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Information for addressing trademark-related correspondence may also be found
on the USPTO's web site at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/mail.jsp.
MAIL TO BE DIRECTED TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
Please address mail to be directed to a mail stop identified below to
be delivered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) as follows (unless
otherwise instructed):
Mail Stop _____
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Mail Stop
Designations Explanation
Mail Stop 3 Mail for the Office of Personnel from NFC.
Mail Stop 6 Mail for the Office of Procurement.
Mail Stop 8 All papers for the Office of the Solicitor.
Mail Stop 11 Mail for the Electronic Ordering Service (EOS).
Mail Stop 13 Mail for the Employee and Labor Relations Division.
Mail Stop 16 Mail related to refund requests, other than
requests for refund of a patent application
publication fee. Such requests should be directed
to Mail Stop PGPub.
Mail Stop 17 Invoices directed to the Office of Finance.
Mail Stop 24 Mail for the Inventor's Assistance Program,
including complaints about Invention Promoters.
Mail Stop 171 Vacancy Announcement Applications.
Mail Stop Assignment All assignment documents, security interests,
Recordation Services and other documents to be recorded in the
Assignment records. Note that documents with
cover sheets that are faxed to 571-273-0140 or
submitted electronically (http://epas.uspto.gov)
are processed much more quickly than those
submitted by mail.
Mail Stop Document All requests for certified or uncertified
Services copies of patent or trademark documents.
Mail Stop EEO Mail for the Office of Civil Rights.
Mail Stop External Mail for the Office of External Affairs.
Affairs
Mail Stop Interference Communications relating to interferences and
applications and patents involved in interference.
Mail Stop M Mail to designate or change a fee
Correspondence address, or other correspondence related to
maintenance fees, except payments of
maintenance fees in patents. See below for
the address for maintenance fee payments.
Mail Stop OED Mail for the Office of Enrollment and Discipline.
Maintenance Fee Payments
Unless submitted electronically over the Internet at www.uspto.gov,
payments of maintenance fees in patents should be mailed through the
United States Postal Service to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 979070
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
Alternatively, payment of maintenance fees in patents (Attn:
Maintenance Fee) using hand-delivery and delivery by private courier
may be made to:
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Attn: Maintenance Fee
2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Deposit Account Replenishments
To send payment to replenish deposit accounts, send the payments through
the United States Postal Service to:
United States Patent and Trademark Office
P.O. Box 979065
St. Louis, MO 63197-9000
Alternatively, deposit account replenishments (Attn: Deposit Accounts)
using hand-delivery and delivery by private courier (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.)
may be delivered to:
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
Attn: Deposit Accounts
2051 Jamieson Avenue, Suite 300
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Top of Notices
| Reference Collections of U.S. Patents Available for Public Use in Patent Depository Libraries |
Reference Collections of U.S. Patents and Trademarks
Available for Public Use in Patent and Trademark Depository Libraries
The following libraries, designated as Patent and Trademark Depository
Libraries (PTDLs), provide public access to patent and trademark
information received from the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO). This information includes all issued patents, all registered
trademarks, the Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
search tools such as the Cassis CD-ROM suite of products and supplemental
information in a variety of formats including online, optical disc,
microfilm and paper. Each PTDL also offers access to USPTO resources on
the Internet and to PubWEST (Web based examiner search tool), a system
used by patent examiners that is not available on the Internet.
Staff assistance and training is provided in the use of this information.
All information is available free of charge. However, there may be charges
associated with the use of photocopying and related services. Hours of
service to the public vary, and anyone contemplating use of these
collections at a particular library is urged to contact that library in
advance about its services and hours to avoid inconvenience.
State Name of Library Telephone Contact
Alabama Auburn University Libraries (334) 844-1737
Birmingham Public Library (205) 226-3620
Alaska Fairbanks: Keith B. Mather Library,
Geophysical Institute,
University of Alaska, Fairbanks (907) 474-2636
Arkansas Little Rock: Arkansas State
Library (501) 682-2053
California Los Angeles Public Library (213) 228-7220
Riverside: University of
California, Riverside Libraries (951) 827-3316
Sacramento: California State
Library (916) 654-0069
San Diego Public Library (619) 236-5813
San Francisco Public Library (415) 557-4500
Sunnyvale Public Library (408) 730-7300
Colorado Denver Public Library (720) 865-1711
Connecticut Fairfield: Ryan-Matura Library
Sacred Heart University (203) 371-7726
Delaware Newark: University of Delaware
Library (302) 831-2965
Dist. of Columbia Washington: Howard University
Libraries (202) 806-7252
Florida Fort Lauderdale: Broward County
Main Library (954) 357-7444
Miami-Dade Public Library (305) 375-2665
Orlando: University of Central
Florida Libraries (407) 823-2562
Georgia Atlanta: Library and Information
Center, Georgia Institute of
Technology (404) 385-7185
Hawaii Honolulu: Hawaii State Public
Library System (808) 586-3477
Illinois Chicago Public Library (312) 747-4450
Indiana Indianapolis-Marion County Public
Library (317) 269-1741
West Lafayette Siegesmund
Engineering Library,
Purdue University (765) 494-2872
Kansas Wichita: Ablah Library, Wichita
State University 1 (800) 572-8368
Kentucky Louisville Free Public Library (502) 574-1611
Louisiana Baton Rouge: Troy H. Middleton
Library, Louisiana State University (225) 388-8875
Maine Orono: Raymond H. Fogler Library,
University of Maine (207) 581-1678
Maryland Baltimore: University of Baltimore
Law Library (410) 837-4554
College Park: Engineering and
Physical Sciences Library,
University of Maryland (301) 405-9157
Massachusetts Amherst: Physical Sciences Library,
University of Massachusetts (413) 545-2765
Boston Public Library (617) 536-5400
Ext. 4256
Michigan Ann Arbor: Art, Architecture &
Engineering Library,
University of Michigan (734) 647-5735
Big Rapids: Ferris Library for
Information, Technology &
Education, Ferris State
University (231) 592-3602
Detroit: Public Library (313) 481-1391
Minnesota Hennepin County Library
Minneapolis Central Library (952) 847-8000
Mississippi Jackson: Mississippi Library
Commission (601) 961-4111
Missouri Kansas City: Linda Hall Library (816) 363-4600
Ext. 724
St. Louis Public Library (314) 352-2900
Montana Butte: Montana College of Mineral
Science and Technology Library (406) 496-4281
Nebraska Lincoln: Engineering Library,
University of Nebraska-Lincoln (402) 472-3411
Nevada Las Vegas--Clark County Library
District (702) 507-3421
Reno: University of Nevada, Reno
Library (775) 784-6500
Ext. 257
New Jersey Newark Public Library (973) 733-7779
Piscataway: Library of Science and
Medicine, Rutgers University (732) 445-2895
New Mexico Albuquerque: University of
New Mexico General Library (505) 277-4412
New York Albany: New York State Library (518) 474-5355
Buffalo and Erie County Public
Library (716) 858-7101
Rochester Public Library (716) 428-8110
New York Library
(The Research Libraries) (212) 592-7000
Stony Brook: Engineering Library,
State University of New York (631) 632-7148
North Carolina Charlotte: J. Murrey Atkins
Library, (704) 687-2241
University of North Carolina at
Charlotte (919) 515-2935
North Dakota Grand Forks: Chester Fritz Library,
University of North Dakota (701) 777-4888
Ohio Akron - Summit County Public (330) 643-9075
Library
Cincinnati and Hamilton County,
Public Library of (513) 369-6932
Cleveland Public Library (216) 623-2870
Dayton: Paul Laurence Dunbar
Library, Wright State
University (937) 775-3521
Toledo/Lucas County Public Library (419) 259-5209
Oklahoma Stillwater: Oklahoma State
University
Edmon Low Library (405) 744-6546
Oregon Portland: Paul L. Boley Law Library,
Lewis & Clark College (503) 768-6786
Pennsylvania Philadelphia, The Free Library of (215) 686-5394
Pittsburgh, Carnegie Library of (412) 622-3138
University Park: Pattee Library,
Pennsylvania State University (814) 865-7617
Puerto Rico Mayaquez General Library,
University of Puerto Rico (787) 993-0000
Ext. 3244
Bayamon, Learning Resources Center,
University of Puerto Rico (787) 786-5225
Rhode Island Providence Public Library (401) 455-8027
South Carolina Clemson University Libraries (864) 656-3024
South Dakota Rapid City: Devereaux Library,
South Dakota School of Mines and
Technology (605) 394-1275
Tennessee Nashville: Stevenson Science
Library, Vanderbilt University (615) 322-2717
Texas Austin: McKinney Engineering
Library, University of Texas at
Austin (512) 495-4511
College Station: West Campus
Library, Texas A & M University (979) 845-2111
Dallas Public Library (214) 670-1468
Houston: The Fondren Library, Rice
University (713) 348-5483
Lubbock: Texas Tech University (806) 742-2282
San Antonio Public Library (210) 207-2500
Utah Salt Lake City: Marriott Library,
University of Utah (801) 581-8394
Vermont Burlington: Bailey/Howe Library,
University of Vermont (802) 656-2542
Washington Seattle: Engineering Library,
University of Washington (206) 543-0740
West Virginia Morgantown: Evansdale Library,
West Virginia University (304) 293-4695
Wisconsin Madison: Kurt F. Wendt Library,
University of Wisconsin Madison (608) 262-6845
Milwaukee Public Library (414) 286-3051
Wyoming Cheyenne: Wyoming State Library (307) 777-7281
Top of Notices
| Patent Technology Centers |
| PATENT TECHNOLOGY CENTERS |
| AVERAGE FILING DATE OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVING A FIRST OFFICE ACTION IN THE LAST 3 MONTHS1 |
Technology
Center |
GAU |
Avg Filing Date2 |
| 1600 |
BIOTECHNOLOGY, AND ORGANIC CHEMISTRY |
| |
1610 |
7/1/2007 |
| |
1620 |
1/18/2008 |
| |
1630 |
12/19/2007 |
| |
1640 |
4/5/2008 |
| |
1650 |
1/3/2008 |
| |
1660 |
10/26/2008 |
| |
TOTAL |
12/22/2007 |
| |
|
|
| 1700/2900 |
CHEMICAL AND MATERIALS ENGINEERING AND DESIGNS |
| |
1790 |
9/5/2007 |
| |
TOTAL |
9/5/2007 |
| |
|
|
| |
2910 |
1/30/2009 |
| |
TOTAL |
1/30/2009 |
| |
|
|
| 2100 |
COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE AND SOFTWARE |
| |
2110 |
8/27/2007 |
| |
2120 |
6/16/2007 |
| |
2150 |
8/30/2007 |
| |
2160 |
8/30/2007 |
| |
2170 |
2/22/2007 |
| |
2180 |
9/23/2007 |
| |
2190 |
3/29/2006 |
| |
TOTAL |
5/14/2007 |
| |
|
|
| 2400 |
NETWORKING, MULTIPLEXING, CABLE AND SECURITY |
| |
2420 |
5/29/2007 |
| |
2430 |
1/20/2007 |
| |
2440 |
8/3/2007 |
| |
2450 |
9/5/2007 |
| |
2460 |
10/11/2007 |
| |
2470 |
11/10/2007 |
| |
TOTAL |
6/10/2007 |
| |
|
|
| 2600 |
COMMUNICATIONS |
| |
2610 |
2/28/2007 |
| |
2620 |
2/4/2007 |
| |
TOTAL |
2/16/2007 |
| |
|
|
| 2800
|
SEMICONDUCTORS/MEMORY, CIRCUITS/MEASURING AND TESTING, OPTICS/PHOTOCOPYING |
| |
2810 |
3/21/2008 |
| |
2820 |
2/26/2008 |
| |
2830 |
3/21/2008 |
| |
2840 |
11/28/2007 |
| |
2850 |
11/7/2007 |
| |
2860 |
12/10/2007 |
| |
2870 |
1/12/2008 |
| |
2880 |
1/18/2008 |
| |
2890 |
3/24/2008 |
| |
TOTAL |
2/8/2008 |
| |
|
|
| 3600
|
TRANSPORTATION, CONSTRUCTION, ELECTRONIC COMMERCE, AGRICULTURE, NATIONAL SECURITY AND LICENSE AND REVIEW |
| |
3610 |
2/5/2008 |
| |
3620 |
12/18/2006 |
| |
3630 |
12/19/2007 |
| |
3640 |
1/9/2008 |
| |
3650 |
10/14/2007 |
| |
3660 |
9/23/2007 |
| |
3670 |
4/2/2008 |
| |
3680 |
12/27/2006 |
| |
3690 |
11/4/2007 |
| |
TOTAL |
10/14/2007 |
| |
|
|
| 3700
|
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING AND PRODUCTS |
| |
3710 |
8/12/2007 |
| |
3720 |
12/19/2007 |
| |
3730 |
6/4/2007 |
| |
3740 |
7/28/2007 |
| |
3750 |
7/16/2007 |
| |
3760 |
10/23/2007 |
| |
3770 |
5/20/2007 |
| |
3780 |
6/4/2007 |
| |
TOTAL |
8/21/2007 |
| |
|
|
| |
1 Report last updated on 12-08-09. |
| |
|
|
| |
2 Average Filing date of applications receiving a First Office action in the last 3 months. |
Top of Notices
| Subscription/Copy Information |
ELECTRONIC OFFICIAL GAZETTE
of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
PATENTS
(eOG:P)
The Electronic Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office - Patents (eOG:P) provides the information in electronic format on CD-ROM.
The eOG:P is published every Tuesday and includes bibliographic information, a representative claim, and a drawing (if applicable) of each patent
issued that week. Patents are accessible by type of patent (utility, plant, etc.), classification (class or class/subclass), patentee name, and
geographical location. Links enable users to "jump" to a specific patent from these various indexes. The eOG:P is sold as an annual subscription
or as single copies.
Subscriptions are $430.00 per year, with single copies available for $20.00. For single copy purchases, please specify date and volume/issue number. Order
forms are available in MS Word® or Adobe® Acrobat® format.
Get the MS Word® format
here.
or
Get the Acrobat® version
here.
Go here if you do not have
Adobe® Acrobat® Reader
installed.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Information Products Division
RSQ - 5A22
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
(571) 272-5600
or
email at
IPD@uspto.gov
Top of Notices
TO VIEW PDF FILES
This CD-ROM product includes PDF files which requires
a PDF file reader program. Adobe® Systems Inc. provides such
a reader at their web site. This
link requires connection to the internet.
If you do not have connection to the internet this
CD also contains version 5 of the Adobe® Acrobat® Reader.
Click to install Adobe Acrobat Reader
5. For the latest version of the reader please visit the
Adobe® web site.
Top of Notices
Top of Notices November 23, 2010