8 thoughts on “USPTO Quality Summit

  1. 2


    1. Patentable subject matter — need to eliminate patents where novelty is unrelated to technology.

    2. Functional claims — lack of written description/enablement for full scope.

    3. Indefinite terms — what does this claim cover?

  2. 1

    Perhaps “quality of a patent” can become a pseudo requirement of patentability, behind closed doors… applied to applications as if it were a substantive requirement, in a manner so as to avoid public scrutiny (e.g. SAWS) notwithstanding its being ultra vires the powers of the executive branch to create substantive law re. patentability.

    Bu we must all believe the talks will focus on the “quality of examination” and the due process, efficiency, and competence, of the USPTO to act intra vires in accordance with statute as interpreted by the courts, toward the grant of patent for inventions which meet all the substantive requirements or final rejection in the absence of one thereof.

    1. 1.2

      Quality of examination?

      Have you ever seen the movie, “Bridge on the River Kwai?” This movie teaches a lesson on keeping an eye on the big picture. The Japanese commander was trying to a bridge over the river by a certain date. His own engineers were incompetent and he could not get the cooperation of the British commander. So what did he do? He appointed the British commander to be in charge of the building of the bridge, whereupon he proceeded to do so with the highest degree of competence and efficiency so as to demonstrate to the Japanese the skill of the British Army and to keep his own troops’ morale high. The quality the bridge produced was high — but the existence of such a bridge was against the best interest of the British Empire and had to be destroyed. The British commander standing there looking at the bridge just prior to the 1st train crossing asked himself in dismay, “What have I done?”

      Issuing patents that are competently and efficiently prosecuted by all, with the I’s dotted in the T’s crossed, may have the illusion of quality. But if the end product is not on patentable subject matter, or otherwise defeats the goals of the patent system in advancing the progress of the useful arts, all the quality and efficiency in producing that patent is ultimately a mistake of the highest degree.

      1. 1.2.1


        Have to respectfully disagree with you on this.

        The purpose of examination is to comply with the law AS IT IS in the granting or refusal of patent applications. To the extent this is performed properly the entire mandate of the USPTO in regard to granting or refusing patent applications is met… and if done perfectly properly they would, by definition, be doing “the perfect” job.

        Stepping back at any point in examination and applying a superfluous, illegal (read outside the law) judgement over and above the law, such as any kind of “patent quality” (if it were not ALREADY part of the law), in some attempt to “do better” is nonsensical. Such would be like attempting to draw a better circle by drawing a square. Far from “doing better”, in the context of the executive branch reaching outside the law, such is doing the opposite, it is contravening the law as set down by the legislation as interpreted by Courts of Law, and THAT would be a “mistake in the highest degree”.


          But Anon2, the desired ends are just not being reached with those means.

          Software and business method patents still abound, oh my and ohnoes.


          As I said, there are two measures of quality, one of process, and the other of compliance with the law. Neither should be ignored.

Comments are closed.