PTO Press Release: Deputy Peterlin Leaving PTO

Margaret Peterlin has announced that she will be leaving the PTO in August.  She has sparked resistance from the patent community ever since her appointment as deputy director of the USPTO in May 2007. She is considered an expert at legislative tactics at a time when the PTO was asking for legislation opposed by many patent practitioners.  In late 2007, a DC District dismissed a lawsuit against the USPTO requesting that Peterlin be removed from office. The complaint alleged that she lacked the intellectual property law experience required by statute for her position.  In many ways, the negative reaction to Peterlin was simply a reflection of frustrations felt by many patent practitioners.  In an internal message to PTO employees, Director Jon Dudas indicated that Peterlin is also expecting her first child later this year.  Congratulations and Good Luck!!

Washington, D.C. – Margaret J.A. Peterlin, deputy under secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and deputy director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), has announced that she will be leaving the USPTO in August with plans to pursue employment opportunities in the private sector.

“While at the USPTO, my goals have included helping the organization reach a new level of excellence through effective delegation, continuous process improvement, transparency of operations and increased employee engagement,” said Deputy Under Secretary Peterlin. “I am proud of the strides the agency has made and, for the first time in the USPTO’s history, we are on track to meet 100% of our goals. This is a testament to the combined efforts of our more than 9,000 employees. Such dedication is one of the reasons I believe the USPTO is poised for continued success as the world’s leader in IP.”

In addition to enhancing operational efficiencies, Deputy Under Secretary Peterlin strategically positioned the USPTO as a leader in such important policy debates as patent modernization legislation, in which the USPTO played a lead role in forming and communicating the Administration’s position.

“Margaret Peterlin has been instrumental to the success of the USPTO over the past year,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO Jon Dudas. “First, her operational leadership and insistence on data-driven decision-making greatly improved the USPTO’s business operations. But Margaret also has tremendous understanding of IP issues and helped the Administration promote smart IP policies both on Capitol Hill and with IP offices around the world. Her dedication to the agency and to the U.S. intellectual property system has earned her the respect of members of Congress, IP leaders around the world and her fellow USPTO colleagues. We thank Margaret for her service and commend her on her many achievements.”

Secretary Gutierrez appointed Ms. Peterlin to the position of Deputy Under Secretary in early 2007. As a leader in intellectual property (IP) policy, she has helped develop and articulate Administration positions on all patent, trademark and copyright issues, both domestic and foreign. She also has promoted strong IP policy globally, including strategies to thwart the theft of U.S. IP around the world. She oversaw numerous agency outreach efforts, including national multimedia communications campaigns. As an agency leader, she implemented policies and initiatives to enhance the agency’s delivery of timely and high-quality patent and trademark examinations.

Before joining the USPTO, Ms. Peterlin was Counsel for Legal Policy and National Security Advisor for the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, J. Dennis Hastert. In this role, she advised the Speaker, House and Senate leadership, and senior staff on legislative policy and strategy, including judiciary issues such as intellectual property protection, and international relations issues.

Ms. Peterlin previously was General Counsel to Richard Armey, Majority Leader of the U.S. House. She clerked on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for Judge Jerry E. Smith. She also served as an officer in the U.S. Navy for four years, working in the communications field.

77 thoughts on “PTO Press Release: Deputy Peterlin Leaving PTO

  1. This is my personal opinion.

    1. The upper management (director level and higher) are often filled by old time examiners who has very little knowledge beyond the patent examination process like how the patent process effecting the economy and the business world in general. Generally they take a dim view of patentability. They progress through the system by means of doing the numbers on productions . It is very difficult for them to change their views. This group is generally insulated from outside ideas.

    2. The political appointees are often the means to do the bidding of the upper management level in congress, to push through legislation and serve as their collective mouth piece. The problem with patent examination is a very complex integrated system. What I means is that it takes time to learn examination. At one time, an examiner asked Dudas whether he has ever look at and try to examine at least an application (he already been here for more than 4 years during Rogan). I remembered his answer were very defensive.

    3. The bar is not entirely blameless from this fiasco. It was the bar who endorsed the increase the USPTO budget to implement the quality initiative. Low and behold, the PTO did not use the money to improve the examining condition, but rather flush out the old timers, and used most of the money (along with the elimination of the FTEs -full time employment- in the old classification unit) to put an entire layer of middle management called TQAS, and 2nd eyes, and used most of the money to train new examiners. It was management’s wishful thinking this transfusion of new blood would enhance PTO. but it turns out that the patent academy has turned into a black hole of spending because of high attrition rate of new examiners. Some new hires even use this as a temporary source of income while looking for other jobs.

    4. The only redeeming program from the USPTO from the last few years was the homeworking initiative, from an examiner perspective. I

  2. “Someone really needs to know how things really operate inside AND outside to have any chance of making real and effective change. And the only way to “know” them is to have actually personally experienced them.”
    —————
    Prosecution experience is more relevant to that job, and the existing problems. Your man sounds like me. I was there long enough to become a primary, know that crazy system well, and have been out here a little more time than I was on the inside.

    But I am not an attorney.

  3. Malcolm,

    I don’t know if this provides a gauge of KSR, but I just performed a few quick-and-dirty queries on the Final Decisions stored in the BPAI database between 5/1/2007 and 7/31/2008. (Please note that this was my first visit to this web page link to des.uspto.gov and first attempt to derive numbers from any database of the PTO):

    The BPAI has issued a total of 4526 opinions, wherein 1525 of them have the term “reversed” appearing (33.69%).

    Within the total number of decisions, 2162 of them have the term “KSR” appearing, wherein 661 have been reversed (30.57%).

    Although the “Final Decisions” database appears to include “Decisions,” “Judgments,” “Orders,” and other categories stored in the database, the use of KSR appears to result with fewer BPAI rejections.

    DISCLAIMER: This analysis is likely worth the amount you paid for it and the hour or so playing around with the queries.

  4. johng,

    Actually I said prosecution OR litigation. Way I figure, they more experience with the system, as well as what does & does not work, the better chance of them having some ideas that might actually work.

    What we have up there now, does not have any experience outside the office. So they see only half the picture. Just like if (when) we have (had) someone that has experience outside the office but not in. They again only know half the picture and did things to make things worse internally.

    Someone really needs to know how things really operate inside AND outside to have any chance of making real and effective change. And the only way to “know” them is to have actually personally experienced them.

  5. querty, there is nothing wrong with being an attorney and director, just like there is nothing wrong with being an agent and a director. You don’t have to stand before a court as a practicing litigator to be an effective director. However, I agree you should understand what would be relevant to the agency regarding patent litigation.

    An attorney may be better suited for the overall director position (for both patents and trademarks), but not necessarily so, and certainly not for Commissioner of Patents. Unfortunately, the top director position has been politicized to the extreme.

  6. Just curious if anyone knows how Dudas got the job. Did he come from within the PTO? What’s his background?

  7. JimH,

    You missed my point. I DO believe (agree?) that the PTO director (aka commissioner) should have patent experience, preferably BOTH inside AND outside the office. What I was pointing out is that he surrounded himself (for better or worse) with people that did know patent business (at least from the inside) that he did not. And this seemed to be the procedure that you were advocating. That was all.

    As for the statute requirements, I would love to see them require the director to have been an examiner (patent or trademark, though preferably patent since that is by far the bigger operation) AND is (was?) a registered patent attorney with actual experience in either prosecution or litigation. Now just Congress to agree & do away with the use of such positions as political patronage and we will all be better off.

  8. qwerty123456,

    I just read Dudas’ bio, and he is a lawyer. Unfortunately for those of us professionals engaged in the practice of patent prosecution or patent law or those students studying patent law, his undergraduate degree in finance strongly suggests that he cannot qualify to be a “patent” attorney, agent, or examiner. Dudas provides a good example of why the professional qualifications needed to be a director under the statute should be revised to make the individual be, at minimum, a “patent” attorney, agent, or examiner.

    Dudas is not qualified to be director in my happy, little world of happy little clouds, trees, and little meandering creeks flowing here and there (may Bob Ross rest in peace).

  9. Then, Rodrigo, we are at one. Amongst the Examiners at the trilingual EPO, there are enough with first language French, respectively German, to handle the (5%?) French and (25%?) German cases. However, as to the (70%?) English cases, they are going to be handled (almost exclusively) by Examiners who are using English as a foreign language. I say that it makes a difference, to the way the EPO handles 123(2), in English language cases.

  10. “Jim H”,

    You said “To me, however, a director could can surround himself/herself with staff to make up for any weakness he/she may possess.”

    Isn’t this basically what Dudas did & what you all complained about? Seems to be the same thing to me. Just that he may have had more “weaknesses” than you all consider as acceptable.

  11. for what it is worth,

    I agree that it is more the examining or prosecuting patents and invovles those areas you have identified. To me, however, a director could can surround himself/herself with staff to make up for any weakness he/she may possess.

    I would include experienced Patent Examiners, too.

  12. Patent Office should be run by an experienced patent attorney, not patent agent, IMHO

    Patent Office is more than examining patents, as it includes litigation, legislation, treaties

  13. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME?

    The Atomic Energy Commission is run by people with expertise, background and training in atomic energy.

    The FDA is run by people with expertise, background and training in food and drug science.

    WHY is it so difficult a concept for our Congress to have the US Patent Office run by an experienced Patent Attorney?

  14. MaxDrei, what I can agree with you in any case is that there are more native French (never mind German) than English speakers in the EPO, because there are very few native English speakers.
    Sufficiently multilingual British or Irish scientists and engineers are apparently too rare and sought-after for many to consider moving to Munich, The Hague or Berlin for a relatively small wage differential. On the other hand, I’d estimate that English is the best second language of about 95% of examiners, and about a third of them may have neither French, nor German or English as a native language.

  15. Rodrigo, I stand corrected. You will maybe correct me again if I provocatively write that, when the language of the proceedings is French, and there are opposition proceedings, one discovers that the EPO is blessed with many French native speakers, who can confidently decide whether the non-verbatim prosecution amendment did or did not add subject matter. When English is the language of the proceedings English native speakers on the OD and TBA is not a “given”. It is instructive to compare what the EPO thinks is “added matter” with what the English courts think. The English courts are routinely more severe than the EPO (Palmaz?) But often the EPO finds that matter was added, where the English court would see only a clarification of something that was already directly and unambiguously “derivable” from the WO. The public benefits, when the EPO prosecution clarifies an ambiguous WO, right? And I do very much agree with you, that both England and the EPO are correct to be ruthlessly strict, in our FtF landscape, to be fair to all the rival filers.

  16. “Maybe better to file at the EPO in French. 5% of applications are in French. At least then it will get examined by native speakers, who will be more confident about allowing entry of non-verbatim text.”

    MaxDrei, I can guarantee you that the filing language of the application has no bearing in the native language of the Examiner. Filing in French does not in any way result in the Examiner being a native French speaker. On the contrary, often it will result in it being examined by somebody who is less fluent in French than in English. (Sure, I’ve known EPO Examiners who tried to shirk any examination work in French and/or German, because they didn’t feel confident enough in those languages. They rarely succeeded.)

    Anyway, the EPO’s stringent approach to added subject matter is not founded on a lack of fluency of the Examiners. Nor is added subject matter such a common ground for invalidation because they follow the EPO’s lead. On the contrary: the EPO is stringent because that is the case law, and there are good reasons to it. In my opinion, it’s a simple consequence of the “first-to-file” system. In “first-to-file”, allowing amendments that aren’t very clearly supported by the original filing would open the door to all sorts of abuse. Just remember, to the EPO and to the courts, what matters is what you filed. If your actual invention isn’t accurately reflected in the application, then tough sh*t: you should have drafted your application better.

  17. Lowly: imagine you’re an Examiner in the JPO. You have some knowledge of Japanese as a foreign language. One Applicant puts in an amendment with re-worded claims, using only wording found verbatim elsewhere in the original filing. You must decide if the amendment “adds matter”. Another Applicant puts in wholesale new wording, and assures you there is no new matter in it. Do you object? Now imagine yourself at the EPO, again with Applicant’s language as a foreign one (English). Same difficulty, no? Still surprised that EPO Exrs want verbatim text. Maybe better to file at the EPO in French. 5% of applications are in French. At least then it will get examined by native speakers, who will be more confident about allowing entry of non-verbatim text.

    Questions: think of a “peripheral” claim as defining a boundary fence around the protected area. Think of a “central” claim as a “Keep Off THe Grass” sign in the middle of the protected area (or a recitation of the technical features of the best mode embodiment).

    SmallFry: you think European maintenance is expensive? Hah. Just wait till you need to enforce a European patent. Some of the US criticism of the European patent landscape is ill-informed and malicious. But a lot is on point, and some of it is well-informed too. That helps, because it is stimulating European efforts to improve, especially in the area of enforcement.

  18. There needs to be some kind of accountability for Examiner’s time – or else you might wind up with Examiners who hide the case files in the ceiling. The “count” system may not be the best, but what would replace it? Just curious, and, no, I’m not PTO management.

  19. Dudas is the one who ran Kepplinger (no great loss) et al. out of the office for Doll et al. So Dudas should receive all of the blame for their nonsense. RCE’s are not the problem they are made out to be on this board. I don’t get very many. The problem is that there is not nearly enough time to do the job properly the first time around, it’s not laziness. I generaly have to go with the first relevant reference I find as there is insufficient time to search the prior art for the very best reference. Right now I have to treat searching as an iterative process wherein I search for an hour or two every go around which results in more 2nd action non-finals and RCE’s. In short the problem is the production system which needs to be scraped but management will hang on to it like a dog to a bone.

  20. “Hank Rearden”

    You are 100% right in that it is not Dudas that is the problem. He didn’t/doesn’t have enough experience to know what is or is not good. It is the ideas of those below him. Specifically Doll & Rolla that are the “creative minds” behind most, if not all, of these proposals (CON rules, IDS rules, app. submissions, etc.). They are the ones that need to be replaced with someone with some different ideas. Dudas is more of a figurehead than the ev1l destroyer of the patent system most IP attorneys like to portray him as. Think of him as an old-tyme (or current English?) king that is letting/needing his advisers to rule things instead.

  21. “I can only hope he will experience some negative blow back which will limit his influence going forward.”

    Mr. Doll’s influence was based on nothing more than having a boss (i.e. Dudas) who didn’t know his ar$e from his elbow when it came to practice before the PTO.

    So when Dudas asked Mr. Doll, “Golly John, why is the backlog so high?” and Mr. Doll answered, “It’s all the applicants’ and patent bar’s fault” Mr. Dudas didn’t have any reason not to believe him. Because he doesn’t know anything.

    If the Director of the PTO had any actual experience, as is required, he/she could have responded to Mr. Doll, “Well, could our backlog problem be the result of our production system that encouranges, and actually rewards, examiners for issuing garbage Office Actions and endlessly churning old applicaitons in the hopes of getting easy RCE counts, and bonuses, instead of examining new applications?”

    To which, I’m sure, Mr. Doll would have responded that it’s still all the fault of applicants and the patent bar.

    Second pair of eyes, the idi0tic claim examination/continuation rules, etc. are the efforts of John Doll, John Love, and Joe Rolla. Dudas just happened to be the political appointee flunky in charge when these travesties were perpetrated. He didn’t have anything to do with them. Except mindlessly endorsing them with his creepy smile.

  22. “From the press release (and from the lack of news after she was installed), she seems to have been a behind-the-scenes legislative type.”

    I don’t know if this is true, but if she is involved primarily with legislation, isn’t this a pretty opportune time to leave if you aren’t betting on hanging around for the next administration.

    Now that the BPAI judge legislation is done, is any PTO-centered legislation likely to happen before the next batch of Congress critters gets elected? It’s probably time to scoot unless you absolutely have to go down with the ship.

  23. I love EPO. We are getting allowances (grant) for applications in EPO where the corresponding U.S. application is mired in si lly rejections. Although getting a grant in EPO is not all its cracked up to be due to the expense of maintaining them.

    I wish there was some way to get Doll out of there. I saw him speak in Denver in the run up to the roll out of the new rules on claims and continuations and he came across as a well spoken and intelligent individual with deep insight from his years as an examiner and was very persuasive. But he was just dead on wrong and misguided on these new rules. I can only hope he will experience some negative blow back which will limit his influence going forward.

  24. I love EPO. We are getting allowances (grant) for applications in EPO where the corresponding U.S. application is mired in si lly rejections. Although getting a grant in EPO is not all its cracked up to be due to the expense of maintaining them.

    I wish there was some way to get Doll out of there. I saw him speak in Denver in the run up to the roll out of the new rules on claims and continuations and he came across as a well spoken and intelligent individual with deep insight from his years as an examiner and was very persuasive. But he was just dead on wrong and misguided on these new rules. I can only hope he will experience some negative blow back which will limit his influence going forward.

  25. Dickinson was universaly loved by the examining core but loathed by spe’s. He was very pro examiner. On the other hand Dudas is loved by most spe’s because he is very pro management and anti examiner.

  26. How was Dickinson perceived by Examiners? He seems to be the one guy nearly uiniversally liked by the patent bar. I thought he did a good job as Director.

  27. “Thanks Lowly: there’s of course a good local reason for the ridiculous clarity objections and insistence on verbatim support. It has to do with the fact that 1) any litigation on the mainland will be done in gobbledegook (after translation out of English) 2)the EPC is a blend of the former English “peripheral” claiming and the former German “central” claiming (think of the old German claim as a “Keep Off the Grass” sign) 3) no deference after issue to EPO work pre-issue 4) the tastiest, most lethal validity attack after issue is “added subject matter”. As to PSA, just you wait. There’ll come a time, not so far away these days, when people outside Munich will at last catch on, and it will sweep the world (Don’t worry. Only joking).”

    When the patent is written in english and prosecuted in english, I don’t see the huge issue with allowing amendments more liberally out of a fear that things may be poorly translated later.

    With respect to your point 4 about validity attacks based upon added subject matter, that doesn’t surprise me with how the EPO is about amendments. Similarly, the USPTO is fairly liberal in allowing amendments and, unsurprisingly, few patents are invalidated based upon violations of 112.

  28. And there was me, looking in from outside, and supposing that the problem was something to do with the uniquely American forces that drive rational and clear-thinking lawyers in the USA, hard-pressed and putting the interests of their clients first, nevertheless to hurt the common good (sort of “Prisoner’s Dilemma problem). My prediction: the problems with the US patent system (to the extent that there are any) will still be there long after you upthread have got over your hang-overs, and long after any new administration (whether at the PTO or in Congress or in the Oval Office) is sworn into office.

  29. Peterlin is a symptom a generic problem with the entire Bush administration. Qualifications are secondary to political goals.

  30. The departure of Peterlin, and eventually Dudas, will do little to improve things at the PTO.

    It will take the departure of the lifers Doll, Love, Focarino, etc. to improve things.

    They are the true problem.

    So, if you’re one of those firms/corporations that likes to hire these useless PTO-lifer-types as window dressing, please do us all a favor and extend them an invitation to join you as a new cost center.

    The rest of us will be grateful.

    Thanks.

  31. Thanks Lowly: there’s of course a good local reason for the ridiculous clarity objections and insistence on verbatim support. It has to do with the fact that 1) any litigation on the mainland will be done in gobbledegook (after translation out of English) 2)the EPC is a blend of the former English “peripheral” claiming and the former German “central” claiming (think of the old German claim as a “Keep Off the Grass” sign) 3) no deference after issue to EPO work pre-issue 4) the tastiest, most lethal validity attack after issue is “added subject matter”. As to PSA, just you wait. There’ll come a time, not so far away these days, when people outside Munich will at last catch on, and it will sweep the world (Don’t worry. Only joking).

  32. Examanonym and others,

    I will not only hit the bar, but I will buy every single one of you a drink for a massive toast! Those that know me, know I’m serious. DC area, of course!

  33. “Does anyone have a particular pub in mind?”

    Anywhere that serves jager bombs sounds good to me.

    “BTW, dear EPO Examiners, long term readers will know that on this blog I am constantly attracting criticism because of my enthusiastic advocacy of the EPO. Nobody’s perfect though.”

    You at least do it intelligently and articulate your self well… and unfortunately, half of the time, I agree with you. :o Neither the USPTO nor the EPO is perfect, but I think that right now the EPO is better, even if I don’t quite like PSA. (and even if I can’t stand your ridiculous clarity objections and hatred of allowing amendments containing anything other than direct quotes from the spec)

    At least when I get an EPO office action, I feel like I’m dealing with a professional who takes some pride in his job.

  34. “Rogan wanted annual registration fees and annual re-examination for all patent agents/attorneys. Not a very popular proposal.”

    I’ve often wondered why this is not in place.

    Figure 20,000 agents times 200 bucks a year, is about 4 mill a year.

    Then you have all of the BS courses for which you collect fees, and so on. Could make it into a 10 million dollar a year racket.

  35. Sorry about that Rodrigo. One thing’s for sure, I lack the tact to be successful, in a job like EPO President. I agree with you; it’s not a good idea to upset EPO Examiners, unless it’s for the greater good.

  36. MaxDrei, as it happens, I am not an examiner, and I don’t know why you thought so. I used to be one, but left before Alison’s time.
    Some evidence that Ms. Brimelow is sorting out the EPO, as you say, or even “banging heads together”, would nevertheless be welcome, because I haven’t seen any, and I’ve been looking hard. That certainly doesn’t mean that she’s inept (she certainly isn’t), just that the power of the EPO President, any EPO President, is extremely limited. Moreover, you appear to believe that upsetting the examiners is a first step to sorting out the EPO. I don’t think so, especially at a time when the EPO already has a lot of trouble recruiting enough examiners.

  37. “Does anyone have a particular pub in mind?”

    Take your pick, Alun.

    From DC to Silicon Valley, London to Berlin, Tokyo to Seoul; they’re all gonna’ be packed. Full.

  38. “her operational leadership and insistence on data-driven decision-making greatly improved the USPTO’s business operations…”

    While I appreciate the use of data to drive decision-making, I wish the data had been better used. “A large percentage of newly filed applications are continuations and RCEs, so the USPTO should restrict the number of continuations and RCEs that can be filed” is not a good use of data. “BPAI appeals are taking too long, so we should strictly limit the number of pages / lines / words the judges have to read” is not a good use of data.

  39. Rogan wanted annual registration fees and annual re-examination for all patent agents/attorneys. Not a very popular proposal.

    Some credit Dickinson with being the beginning of the slide. Others say dilution of the Fed Circuit as the original members from ’82 were replaced caused the ripples.

    Probably no single person or factor.

    MHO, YMMV, etc.

    In any case, I wish Ms. Peterlin the best in her future endeavors.

  40. Nice to see EPO Examiners tuning in. I rather think that those last two offerings constitute evidence tending to support my assertions. But then I would, wouldn’t I? Anyway, I don’t say that President Brimelow is anywhere near finishing the job. After all, she’s only just arrived at the EPO and what’s needed is a bit more than just a touch on the tiller. Omelettes and eggs come to mind. Metaphorically banging heads together is another motif for painful processes of modernisation (and “Managing the Workload” as the EPO calls it). BTW, dear EPO Examiners, long term readers will know that on this blog I am constantly attracting criticism because of my enthusiastic advocacy of the EPO. Nobody’s perfect though.

  41. Alison Brimelow is sorting out the EPO? Now, that is news to me, MaxDrei. In fact, it must be news to her too!

    Agreed !

  42. Alison Brimelow is sorting out the EPO? Now, that is news to me, MaxDrei. In fact, it must be news to her too!

  43. Given that EPO President Alison Brimelow has not one day of practice as a patent examiner or as an attorney, and never studied to be a lawyer, yet has sorted out the UK Patent Office and is now sorting out the European Patent Office, I would say that Dennis is right about the reasons for the “negative reactions” to Margaret Peterlin. You could say that Pompidou/Brimelow was also an intensely “political” appointment, as EPO President. My hunch is that it’s unfair to lay all the problems of the USPTO at the door of Dudas/Peterlin. (You really think a new appointment who IS an examiner or attorney will magic all the problems away? You can’t be serious). Joff Wild would say the same, I think. But, hey, what do non-lawyers know.

  44. LL

    Not to rain on the parade but Dudas is the most hated commisioner by far by examiners. It was under Dudas that re-certification, rules changes, testing at every level, umpteen pair of eyes review came into being. None of these were instituted under Lehman. Lehman was bad but Rogan/Dudas has been far far worse. I personaly will hit the bar the second Dudas/Doll leave.

  45. “In many ways, the negative reaction to Peterlin was simply a reflection of frustrations felt by many patent practitioners. ”

    I’m not sure what the above statement means. I think the negative reaction was to the fact that a non-qualified person was going to be put in a position to affect the rights of applicants and the duties of their representatives in an area that requires a serious base of knowledge and not some free floating “frustration.”

    Last time I checked, competent patent attorneys are not exactly a “frustrated” bunch. Mooney, on the other hand…

  46. “left coast”,

    For most examiners, those two did more to kill the moral of the examiners as a whole than most anyone commissioner/director since I have been there. I do not remember specifics off-hand (though I think things like re-certification for primaries & testing of various sorts were under one or the other), but it seemed like they were always doing things to put down examiners at large and to make life more difficult for examiners. Remember when Rogan (I believe) had on-line “chats” for examiners (& the outside, also, I think)? They were ended largely because he was getting so much negative questions about things he was doing & he was not one that could handle any criticism.

    They really were hated by examiners & we were all glad to see them go.

    Please remember, I am discussing the “internal” perceptions of them & not the external. That is probably why Dudas is liked a lot more internally than externally (I am not saying he is good, bad or indifferent, just talking about perceptions & if liked or not).

    thanks,

    LL

  47. I guess IP is not as glamorous as she thought. To be good and effective, you have to actually enjoy getting down in to the boring details. Oh eeeyeah, and you actually have to know something about the boring details. To be in charge of the PTO, a registration number should be mandatory.

  48. Lowly said “A bunch of the guys from my firm and I have made a pact to go out and celebrate with some alcoholic beverages the day Dudas is gone :D”

    What do you think that examiners did when Rogan left :) We were very happy to see him go! Same thing with Lehman. Maybe even more so.
    thanks,

    LL

  49. Good.

    Next up to go bye bye: Dudas.

    A bunch of the guys from my firm and I have made a pact to go out and celebrate with some alcoholic beverages the day Dudas is gone :D

  50. Dennis; I sure hope your “Congratulations and Good Luck!” refers to her having a baby, and not her “work”/time at the PTO and future employment (which we all know will not–indeed legally cannot–be in the “doing actual patent work for others” profession/s)…

    She; along with Mr. Dudas; have been among the worst cases of filing positions based on politics and “loyalty” ; over the so badly needed knowledge and experience traits; the current administration has made.

    Next administration: Please fill posts–especially critical ones like the leadership positions of the PTO–with properly qualified individuals.

    Without regard to their politics.

    Please.

  51. Regardless of her lack of qualifications, does anyone have an idea of what she did exactly?

    From the press release (and from the lack of news after she was installed), she seems to have been a behind-the-scenes legislative type. If this is the case, it is difficult to evaluate how effective she has actually been in her position.

  52. Enjoy the new baby! Although you were not a great fit, largely because of Dudas lacking the same experience you did, we wish you well.

  53. I wonder if the timing of this announcedment/resignation is at all related to the hubbub following the release of the Justice Department’s report on Monica Goodling’s (and other DOJ officials’) politicization of the department.

  54. wow – this is a TREMENDOUS loss to the entire patent community.
    how will the USPTO be able to find a replacement to fill these giant shoes ???

  55. wow – this is a TREMENDOUS loss to the entire patent community.
    how will the USPTO be able to find a replacement to fill these giant shoes ???

  56. First to jump ship.

    At least she has a reasonable excuse.

    How long before the next one goes?

  57. Regardless of why you may believe practitioners opposed Peterlin, she did not have the REQUIRED intellectual property law experience for one in her position.

  58. “for the first time in the USPTO’s history, we are on track to meet 100% of our goals…”

    That’s good news! Isn’t it?

Comments are closed.