On November 14th, the PTO hosted a roundtable discussion in Alexandria on s. 101 issues in which both industry reps and practitioners were invited to dissect the current Office guidelines. The structure was unique as there were 33 invited speakers [I was one of them] compressed into 3.75 hours. We each had about 6 minutes to address three PTO representatives, including Robert W. Bahr, Deputy Director for Examination Policy, who has been signing off on the recent memorandums on examination policy. There was a representative from the solicitor’s office and another gentleman whose name was not audible from where I was sitting [seats were assigned based on the order of the presentations, and I was in the bleachers.] The speakers addressed all areas of technology affected by the rise of section 101.
Archive for the ‘USPTO Practice and Policy’ Category
At 81 Fed. Reg. 71485, The PTO has scheduled two roundtables at the PTO to receive feedback from the IP community, particularly on the Examples that were promulgated in May. The first roundtable will be on November 14th from 1:00-5:00 PM in the Madison Auditorium. I will be doing a brief presentation along with just about everyone else who has been caught up in the patent subject matter eligibility debate/analysis, particularly in the life sciences.
On November 2nd, Robert Bahr released a concise but informative memorandum that could be entitled “What We Learned From McRO and BASCOM.” I have posted on McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandi Namco Games America Inc. et al., 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), most recently on Sept. 16th, and I refer you to that post for details of the animation software in question. BASCOM Global Internet Services v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 Fed. Cir. 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) involved software claims for filtering content received from an Internet computer network. In McRO, the Fed. Cir. found that the claims in question were not directed to an abstract idea. In BASCOM, the Fed. Cir. discussed the requirements for the elusive “inventive concept” required by the Mayo/Alice test.
A guest post from Edward Sandor, attorney at Schwegman.
The Post-Prosecution Pilot Program (P3) launched at the USPTO Monday, combining features of the AFCP 2.0 and Pre-Appeal Brief Conference Pilot programs, with the notable addition of Applicant participation in the process.
Once a P3 request is received, the SPE will coordinate a panel experienced in the relevant field of technology to conduct a conference with the Applicant in person, by phone, or via WebEx video conference, where the final rejection will either be upheld, the application allowed, or prosecution reopened.