BPAI Appointments Clause Argument Waived

Patent,

In re DBC (Fed. Cir. 2008) (

The primary issue in DBC began with Professor Duffy’s 2007 administrative law article in the Patently-O Patent L.J. In that article, Duffy noted a constitutional problem with the appointment of BPAI judges. Notably, the 1999 statute required that BPAI judges be appointed by the PTO Director while constitution requires such ‘inferior officers’ be appointed by either the President or a ‘Head of Department’ such as the Secretary of Commerce. Later, I found that the vast majority of recent BPAI decision included at least one illegally appointed judge (using Duffy’s standard). [LINK] Following these findings, Congress passed an amendment placing the appointment duty in the hands of the Secretary of Commerce. The Bill – now signed into law – includes a retroactive saving clause that would bless prior improperly appointed judges as properly acting as “de facto officer[s]” [Link] The retroactive savings clause is, however, considered constitutionally suspect.

During reexamination, the patentee (DBC) lost its BPAI appeal. At the Federal Circuit, the DBC argued that the BPAI decision should be vacated because two of the three BPAI panel members were ‘illegally appointed.’ Citing Duffy’s Patently-O article, Judge Linn noted the potential appointment problems. However, rather than addressing the issue directly, the Federal Circuit dismissed DBC’s argument as waived because the patent applicant had failed to raise the issue before the BPAI panel itself.

If DBC had timely raised this issue before the Board, the Board could have evaluated and corrected the alleged constitutional infirmity by providing DBC with a panel of administrative patent judges appointed by the Secretary. Of course, the Board may not have corrected the problem, or even acknowledged that the problem existed. But in that case, DBC would have preserved its right to appeal the issue.

In exceptional circumstances, the Federal Circuit will consider previously waived arguments. Here, however, the court declined its discretion to do so: “We do not view the circumstances of this case to warrant such an exceptional measure.”

Although this case focuses on the particular appointments clause issue, its discussion of waiver may be especially important for those preparing BPAI arguments.

DBC’s patent focuses on uses of the mangosteen fruit – apparently one of the ugliest and most delicious fruits around. In the appeal the Federal Circuit also found (1) a substantial question of patentability had been raised [this has become a very low bar] and (2) that the patent claims were properly found obvious based on the prior art despite evidence of commercial success.

Applying Bilski to Biotechnology and the Life Sciences

Patent, , ,

By Professor Christopher M. Holman (University of Missouri at Kansas City School of Law and author of Holman’s Biotech IP Blog)

The Bilski majority characterizes its machine-transformation test as "the governing test for determining patent eligibility of a process under section 101." Under this test, a claim is patent-eligible if (and as applied in Bilski apparently only if): (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing." As explained by the Court, the test serves as a proxy for assessing the more fundamental concern – ensuring that the claim does not seek to impermissibly "preempt the use of a fundamental principle." This might make sense in the context of so-called business method patents, where the fundamental principle implicated is typically characterized as an abstract idea or mental process. But it is unclear to what extent this test will prove applicable to patent claims arising out of the life sciences, where patentable subject matter challenges more often allege preemption of a natural phenomena or law of nature, rather than an abstract idea or mental process.

For example, although Bilski states that a process claim is "surely" patent-eligible under section 101 if it complies with the machine-transformation test, this cannot be literally correct with respect to a naturally occurring biological process. Photosynthesis transforms carbon dioxide and water into sugar, and in Bilski the Court specifically points to chemical reactions as the sort of physical transformation that will render a process patentable, but a claim directed to photosynthesis would clearly violate Supreme Court precedent which bars the patenting of natural phenomena.

Bilski acknowledge that the machine-transformation test might require refinement or augmentation in the future, and I think this refinement will likely be necessary when the court addresses patentable subject matter challenges based on allegations that a patent claim preempts a biological natural phenomenon. Three such cases are currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit – Ariad v. Lilly, Classen v. Biogen, and Prometheus v. Mayo. Nevertheless, since for the time being the machine-transformation test is apparently the governing test, it is worth considering how the claims at issue in these case, and some other controversial biotechnology patent claims, might fare under this approach.

Ariad’s claims essentially recite methods of altering the activity of a regulatory protein (NF-kB) in a cell, which would seem to satisfy the transformation prong of the test. This outcome would be consistent with the District Court’s determination that the claims comply with section 101, albeit for an entirely different reason. But Lilly argues (reasonably I think) that the claims wholly preempt the use of a natural biological phenomenon, and since Bilski acknowledges that the machine-transformation test is really just a proxy for weeding out patent claims that preempt "fundamental principles," this argument might prevail even though the claim does recite a physical transformation.

The claims at issue in Classen, on the other hand, are directed to methods for determining an optimal immunization schedule based on comparing the observed incidence of immune-mediated disorders in treatment groups subjected to different vaccination schedules. Determining an immunization schedule does not appear to satisfy either prong of the machine-transformation test. The claims do include an additional step of immunizing patients, but under Bilski this step would likely be classified as "insignificant extra-solution activity." For example, the majority particularly points to data collection steps as insufficient to render patentable a claim that is essentially directed to a process of analyzing the data. Notably, the majority strongly suggests that the inclusion of a data-gathering step in the claim at issue in LabCorp v. Metabolite is insufficient to confer patentability on that claim, the essence of which is directed to the non-tranformative step of observing a correlation between homocysteine and vitamin B levels in a body fluid. In this regard, Bilksi appears to be consistent with the approach suggested by Justice Breyer in his dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision not to decide LabCorp.

Similarly, the claims at issue in Prometheus essentially target observing the level of a drug metabolite in a patient, and based on that observation recognizing that an adjustment in dosage may be required. The claims recite the administration of the drug to a patient and determining the level of metabolite in the patient’s body, but under Bilski these might well be treated as an insignificant extra solution data-gathering steps, analogous to the assay step in the claim challenged in LabCorp. If we disregard these steps, the claims would appear to fail machine-transformation test.

Note that at the core, the reason the claims in Prometheus and Classen might fail the machine-transformation test has little to do with any underlying natural phenomenon, but rather because they preempt an abstract idea/mental process without tying that process to a specific machine or apparatus. In contrast, the challenge to Ariad’s claims is fundamentally different, being based on preemption of a natural phenomenon rather than preemption of an abstract idea that could be implemented mentally without the use of a machine. In my view, the machine-transformation test just does not work for claims such as Ariad’s.

Some of the most controversial biotechnology patents are so-called human gene patents, particularly those relating to genetic diagnostic testing. For example, Myriad has been widely criticized for its perceived aggressive enforcement of patents relating to the BRCA breast cancer genes. Some of these patents broadly claim methods of identifying mutations, with no apparent extra-solution step that transforms a particular article or is tied to a particular machine or apparatus. For example, U.S. Patent No. 5,753,441 claims a "method for screening germline of a human subject for an alteration of a BRCA1 gene which comprises comparing germline sequence of a BRCA1 gene . . . with germline sequences of wild-type BRCA1 gene . . ., wherein a difference in the sequence of the BRCA1 gene . . . of the subject from wild-type indicates an alteration in the BRCA1 gene in said subject.

Similarly, U.S. Patent No. 6,432,644 claims "a method for diagnosing the presence of a polymorphism in human KCNE1 . . . wherein said method is performed by means which identify the presence of said polymorphism . . .."

Arguably, these sorts of claims are merely directed to "comparing" naturally occurring genetic sequences, or "diagnosing" the presence of natural mutations, and lack the significant extra-solution step necessary for patent-eligibility under Bilski.

Finally, note that Bilski in effect treats the patentable subject matter doctrine as a mechanism for policing claim scope, a role more commonly associated with the enablement and written description requirements. For example, the majority points to its earlier decision in Abele as an example where a broad claim is invalid for encompassing patent-ineligible subject matter, but an appropriately narrowed dependent claim complies with Section 101. Similarly, genetic diagnostic testing claims might be fine if limited to a specific test or tests, but patent-ineligible if drafted so broadly as to effectively encompass any method for observing a genetic variation.

Gardner: Patent Bar Should Use Its High Priced Skills to Overcome Bilski et al.

Patent, ,

In my last post on Bilski, I added my Comiskey ‘fear factor’ to Paul Gardner’s analysis of post-Bilski claim strategies. In response, Mr. Gardner first notes that the Comiskey language I quoted is “dicta, supported only by arguably inapposite precedent, and presumably uninformed by any discourse in the briefing.” Beyond that, however, Gardner explains that the Patent Bar should stand-up and explain to the PTO and courts that “the application of novel and nonobvious software to otherwise computer hardware is neither ‘routine’ nor ‘typical.'”

Paul Gardner: The verbiage in Comiskey from which you opine in the September 20, 2007 issue of Patently O that “Comiskey could be read to indicate that any portion of an invention that constitutes nonstatutory subject matter will be considered de facto obvious” is dicta, supported only by arguably inapposite precedent (n. 16 in Comiskey), and presumably uninformed by any discourse in the briefing (given the fact that the court remanded the case to the Patent Office for ruling on the Section 103 issue). Moreover, the opinion says only that “[t]he routine addition of modern electronics to an otherwise unpatentable invention typically creates a prima facie case of obviousness.” (Emphasis added.) I can’t help but wonder whether such gratuitous, patent-negative dicta is in large part the unintended but predictable consequence of the patent bar too often capitulating to rejections rather than aggressively asserting their clients’ rights to protection (caused, perhaps, by clients’ limited funding of patent prosecution). By “aggressively asserting,” I mean arguing forcefully in a given case that the application of novel and nonobvious software to otherwise conventional computer hardware is neither “routine” nor “typical,” and that labeling it “routine” or “typical” at the front end is to prejudge the 103 issue and forestall reasoned analysis.

I submit that a compelling argument can and should be made that the application of nonobvious software to conventional hardware renders the combination patentable, in much the same way that purification of a naturally-occurring substance renders the purified substance patentable if its therapeutic value is nonobvious. The discovery of the therapeutic value of the naturally-occurring substance makes the purified substance nonobvious notwithstanding the fact that the purification process itself is old and well known. It seems to me that the same logic applies to nonobvious software implemented by old and well known hardware.

One of the two questions you posed last Friday was whether skilled patent attorneys will be able to alter their claim strategies to fit within Bilski’s pronouncements. I believe that it is more important than ever for the patent bar to use their high priced skills to argue against the kind of short-sighted rejections that are coming out of the Patent Office and being affirmed by the courts. The balance has clearly shifted against inventors and patentees in recent years, and only the skills of the advocate can move the balance back to the appropriate position.

Please understand that I do not take issue with your statement that “Comiskey could be read to indicate that any portion of an invention that constitutes nonstatutory subject matter will be considered de facto obvious.” My concern is that, left without countervailing exposition, such commentary may discourage the patent bar from advocating the contrary.

Patent

I have posted a reprint of my Patently-O post from the first Tuesday of November, 2004. There were no comments added to that original post

Chicago still uses punch-cards for voting. Despite the risk of hanging chads or dimpled marks, the benefit of this system is the paper trail. Many voters, including myself, are reassured by the paper trail. Patent No. 4,445,731 (shown above) was invented by John Ahmann in the early 1980’s. The patent covers the type of portable voting booths used in my precinct. Ahmann is still recognized as an expert in voting technology and testified in the Bush v. Gore controversy of 2000. According to the BBC, about 30% of U.S. voters will use electronic voting (e-voting) machines in today’s election. *2008 NOTE – that number is up to 32% for 2008*

Problems and praise Opponents highlight the problems that have already occurred with the machines – pointing for instance to a congressional race in Ohio in which votes were incorrectly registered due to a problem with the memory cartridges. At the same time however, Georgia’s entirely electronic system appears to have few naysayers after two years in operation – although it is widely believed that the [2004] presidential election will prove the greatest test. The principal criticism remains the lack of paper audit trails. Nevada is the only state using machines that provide voters with the kind of receipt which would, if necessary, allow for a manual recount. But in order to accommodate some of the concerns, a number of states – including California – will give voters the opportunity to vote using electronic machines or a paper ballot form.

Here is a picture of my neighbor and senate hopeful Barack Obama and his daughter casting his vote.

Bilski: Adding Obvious but Meaningful Limitations

Anticipation, Claim Drafting Tips, Patent, Patentable Subject Matter, ,

Paul Gardner is PRG’s Academic Director. In an e-mail, I asked him whether claim drafting techniques and strategies can be effectively tailored to satisfy Bilski’s requirements without sacrificing valuable claim scope. Mr. Gardner says yes it can be done most of the time (and PRG is developing the CLE to tell you how). For Gardner, an important consideration in Bilski is between “meaningful limits” versus “nonobvious limits.”

While Bilski requires that process claims recite machine or transformation limitations that “impose meaningful limits on the claim’s scope,” such limitations need not themselves be new or nonobvious. In other words, “meaningful limits” is not to be equated with “nonobvious limits,” and the “meaningful limits” requirement may be satisfied – insofar as Section 101 patent-eligibility is concerned – by machine or transformation limitations which, standing alone, are old or obvious. Once Section 101 patent-eligibility is found to be present, novelty and nonobviousness of the claim as a whole may be satisfied by a novel and nonobvious algorithm in combination with the structural machine or transformation recitations.

This difference is seen in the Federal Circuit’s discussion of Abele.

As Chief Judge Michel points out in Bilski, in Abele the CCPA found a broad method claim reciting only data manipulation steps (calculating the difference between two values and displaying the value of the difference) to be patent-ineligible, but found a dependent claim adding only that the data is “X-ray attenuation data produced in a two dimensional field by a computed tomography scanner” to be patent-eligible, because the data represented physical and tangible objects.

My own caution comes from the CAFC’s nonobviousness analysis in the 2007 Comiskey decision. In describing that case, I led with the headline “35 USC 101 Finds its Teeth (Biting into Nonobviousness)” because Comiskey could be read to indicate that any portion of an invention that constitutes nonstatutory subject matter will be considered de facto obvious. Under this reading of Comiskey, obvious but meaningful limitations may overcome §101, but leave the claim extremely vulnerable under §103(a). The Supreme Court’s 1978 Parker v. Flook decision follows this same line of thinking – treating a non-statutory (but previously unknown) algorithm “as though it were a familiar part of the prior art.”

   

     

     

   

Written Description: Single Embodiment Insufficient

Enablement, Patent, Patent Cases 2008, ,

This decision is nothing new. Broad claims must either be supported by multiple embodiments or some general principles describing how the single embodiment is applicable to other configurations. Failing that, a broad claim may fail the enablement prong. As seen here, even when enabled, a broad claim without sufficient support will be invalid under the written description requirement.

In re Alonso (Fed. Cir. 2008)

The PTO Board of Appeals (BPAI) rejected claim 92 of Kenneth Alonso’s for failing the written description requirement of Section 112. “To satisfy this requirement, the specification must describe the invention in sufficient detail so that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought.” (quoting case). In an opinion written by Judge Stearns (D.M.A.) sitting by designation, the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Claim 92 of the Alonso patent application claims a “method of treating neurofibrosarcoma in a human by administering an effective amount” of an idiotypic monoclonal antibody (mAb) secreted in a human-human cell hybridoma.

In his application, Alonso only described the preparation of a single mAb, but claimed essentially all Mab’s that bind to neurofibrosarcoma, and the PTO found that a “skilled artisan would reasonably conclude that applicant was clearly not in possession of the claimed genus of compounds. Applicant should direct the claim language toward the only described embodiment (e.g., a mAb produced by hybridoma HB983).”

Standard of Review: The PTO’s factual determinations are reviewed for “substantial evidence.” Thus, the Federal Circuit will affirm when “a reasonable mind might accept [the evidence] as adequate to support a conclusion.” Even if the Federal Circuit might ultimately have seen the facts differently, it will affirm if the PTO’s position is reasonable.

Predictability: The Federal Circuit acknowledged that disclosure of a single embodiment can be sufficient for a broader genus claim. However, more disclosure is necessary when the composition and effectiveness of members of the genus is heterogeneous or unpredictable.

We have previously held in a similar context that “a patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictability in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated.” Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Alonso argued that his single embodiment should be given more weight because he had actually reduced it to practice (unlike the Rochester COX-2 case). The Federal Circuit rejected that argument because Alonso had not provided the necessary predictive information – “nothing about the structure, epitope characterization, binding affinity, specificity, or pharmacological properties common to the large family of antibodies implicated by the method.”

Notes:

  • The court gives the following justification for the written description requirement: “The requirement ‘serves a teaching function, as a quid pro quo in which the public is given meaningful disclosure in exchange for being excluded from practicing the invention for a limited period of time.'” quoting Univ. of Rochester, 358 F.3d 916 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (in turn quoting Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d 956 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
  • In his 2005 book on Electronic and Software Patents, Steve Lundberg, et al. include the understatement: “The purpose of the written description requirement has been in flux recently.”

Professor Collins: In re Bilski: Tangibility Gone “Meta”

Academic Studies, Articles and Publications, Patent, Patent Cases 2008, Patentable Subject Matter, , ,

By Professor Kevin Emerson Collins (Indiana University Law School – Bloomington) [PDF Version]

In its recently issued en banc majority opinion in In re Bilski, the Federal Circuit articulates a “machine-or-transformation” test for patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 of the Patent Act. Although they are both legitimate questions, this short comment addresses neither whether there is a legitimate statutory basis for this test nor whether Supreme Court precedent should be interpreted so as to mandate (or even support) this test. Rather, it focuses solely on the criteria that the court offers to draw the line between patentable and unpatentable transformations. The Federal Circuit has added a new twist to the tangibility test that has for many years played a role in determining patent-eligibility: the tangibility test has gone “meta.” The tangibility of the formal data that is actually transformed by a method of processing information is not relevant to patent-eligibility, but the tangibility of the things that the data is about—the tangibility of the informational content of the data or the things to which the data refers—now appears to be dispositive.

Bilski sets out a disjunctive two-prong “machine-or-transformation” test for patent-eligible subject matter: “A claimed process is surely patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.” Slip op. at 10. The opinion declines to elaborate on the implications of the particular-machine prong of the test because the applicants conceded that their claim did not satisfy this prong. Id. at 24. It addresses only the transformation prong. It puts forward a conjunctive, two-prong test that must be satisfied for a method to “transform[] a particular article into a different state or thing” and thus to qualify as patent-eligible subject matter. First, the transformation implicated “must be central to the purpose of the claimed process.” Id. In other words, it must also “impose meaningful limits on the claim’s scope” and not “be insignificant extra-solution activity.” Id. Second, the transformation only qualifies as patent-eligible if it transforms a certain type of “article.” “[T]he main aspect of the transformation test that requires clarification here is what sorts of things constitute ‘articles’ such that their transformation is sufficient to impart patent-eligibility under § 101.” Id. at 24–25. This is the distinction—the distinction between the “articles” that, if transformed, constitute patent-eligible subject matter and the other “articles” that, if transformed, do not constitute patent-eligible subject matter—on which the opinion elaborates at length, id. at 25–32, and on which this comment focuses.

Most importantly for the point addressed here, the Federal Circuit implies in Bilski that there are two different categories of “electronically-manipulated data,” id. at 25, and that the data in each category is a different type of “article” insofar as patent-eligibility is concerned. The data in the first category is an “article” that, if transformed by a method claim, constitutes patent-eligible subject matter, but a method that transforms the data in the second category is not a patent-eligible method.

The first category is comprised of data that represents a “physical object or substance.” Id. at 28. For example, citing In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 1982), the Federal Circuit stated that a method that transforms data that “clearly represent[s] the physical and tangible objects, namely the structure of bones, organs, and other body tissues” is a patent-eligible method. Slip. op. at 26.

The second category of data seems to have two distinct subsets. The first subset is data that, as claimed, does not represent anything (or, alternatively, that can represent anything). This data is semantically empty; it is a variable without any specified informational content. Bilski again uses Abele—but this time the claims that the court rejected under § 101—as an example. Id. The fact that methods reciting the transformation of this meaningless (or infinitely meaningful) data are not patent-eligible should come as no surprise to those familiar with the history of patent-eligibility in the last several decades: methods that recite the manipulation of variables without semantic meaning are nothing more than methods that recite mathematical algorithms in the abstract.

The second subset of the second category, however, is likely to raise some eyebrows: it contains data that represents something specific or something in particular, but that something represented is itself intangible. Here, the informational content of the data—the thing in the world to which the data refers—is intangible. The Federal Circuit holds that the method at issue in Bilski is not patent-eligible because it “transform[s]” or “manipulat[es]” data representing “public or private legal obligations or relationships, business risks, or other such abstractions,” which critically is not data “representative of physical objects or substances.” Id. at 28.

The idea that the meaning that the user attributes to the data transformed or manipulated by an information processing method is relevant to patent-eligibility is not a novel feature of the “machine-or-transformation” test announced in Bilski. For example, the “concrete, useful and tangible result” test of State Street Bank required the courts to examine the meaning of the data, variables or “numbers” in the course of determining patent-eligibility. State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Group, 149 F.3d 1368, 1373–75 (Fed. Cir. 1998). However, what is new in Bilski is the importance now placed on the physicality of the thing to which the data refers. Thus, the tangibility test has gone “meta”: it is no longer the tangibility of jostling electrons that is of concern (as it was in the early days of patents on computer-executed information processing methods), but the tangibility of the stuff represented by those electrons-as-symbols. In the language of semiotics, the tangibility analysis has shifted from a concern about the tangibility of the signifier—the physical configuration of matter that forms a symbol—to a concern about the tangibility of the signified—the informational content of or the thing represented by the symbol.

There is in my opinion much that needs to be said about this move in Bilski that takes the long-standing concern about tangibility in the patent-eligibility analysis “meta,” transforming it from a concern about a signifier to a concern about a signified. Here, however, I limit myself to raising two initial, narrow questions.

First, the move raises a normative question: Why should we treat information about tangible things in a manner that is categorically different from the manner in which we treat information about intangible things? Having taken its cue from the Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit clearly wants to prevent patent-eligible method claims from pre-empting mathematical “fundamental principles.” Slip op. at 26. However, the most appropriate means to achieve this end would seem to be a focus on the specificity, not the intangibility, of what is meant. Why should the manipulation of data that represents my height (a presumptively physical property of my body) be patentable, yet the manipulation of data that represents my expected longevity (a property that is difficult to classify as a physical one) be unpatentable?

Second, the move raises concerns about administrability. Is data about my expected longevity about something physical, namely my body? If it is, then why isn’t the data at issue in Bilski also about something tangible? The data is after all about a property of lumps of coal, namely their expected future rate of consumption or the legal rights that individuals have with respect to them. Or, to formulate the administrability problem in a recursive manner, what about data that is about the structural qualities of electronic signals? To determine whether a method that manipulates such data is patent-eligible, it would seem again to be necessary to confront the tangibility of an electronic signal—the very question that patent doctrine has been trying to render irrelevant for several decades—but this time with the signal as a signified rather than as a signifier.

Patently-O Bits and Bytes

Bits and Bytes, Patent

CLE: How to Draft Software Claims under Bilski

Articles and Publications, Claim Drafting Tips, Patent, Patent Cases 2008, Patentable Subject Matter

In Bilski, the Federal Circuit laid down the law of subject matter eligibility under Section 101 of the Patent Act. To be patent eligible, a claimed process must either: (1) be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) transform a particular article into a different state or thing. In all likelihood, claim limitations focused at general machines such as a “computer” will not be considered tying to “particular machine.” Bilski did not, however, decide that question – Bilski’s claims were admittedly divorced from any particular machine. On the transformation side, the court provided the example from Abele where graphically displaying “X-ray attenuation data produced in a two dimensional field by a computed tomography scanner” was sufficient transformation. Bilski’s claims were essentially knocked-out on the new mental steps doctrine – a process where all the claimed steps “may be performed entirely in the human mind is obviously not tied to any machine and does not transform any article into a different state or thing.”

Two additional points: Although the Federal Circuits points to the machine-or-transformation test as the sole test for Section 101 patentability, the court approved two ‘corollaries.’  First, field-of-use limitations continue to be “generally insufficient to render an otherwise ineligible process claim patent-eligible.” Second, “insignificant postsolution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process.” (quoting Diehr).  Thus, merely reciting a specific machine or particular transformation will not bring a claim into the realm of patentable subject matter unless the recitation is more than mere insignificant postolution or extra-solution activity.

Going forward, I do not believe that these limitations will have a significant impact on a skilled practitioner’s ability to patent software innovations. However, I would like community input on how you might properly claim computer software in a way that avoids § 101 rejections?

Patenting Tax Strategies Under Bilski

Patent, Patent Cases 2008, Patentable Subject Matter

Except for the few patent holders and Accenture, the tax strategy business community has been largely anti-patent – going so far as to lobby congress to introduce legislation to create a specific exception that would block enforcement of those patents.

In Bilski, the Federal Circuit refused to categorically exclude any particular fields of business or technology from the scope of patent protection. The court specifically mentioned software and business methods as still patentable. Presumably, tax strategies are still patentable as well. The closest the court came to creating an exclusion is for purely ‘mental’ processes – where each step of the process could be performed in the human mind.

Rather than an approach focusing on specific exclusions, the court applied the machine-or-transformation rule: A process is patent eligible under §101 if “(1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state of things.” Bilski’s claim was not patentable as a mental process. Additionally the Bilski claim failed the machine-or-transformation test because it was (1) not tied to any machine and (2) the alleged transformations in Bilski were not sufficient because they did not transform “physical objects or substances” nor did the transform articles “representative of physical objects or substances.” Notably, transformation of “legal obligations or relationships, business risks, or other such abstractions” do not qualify as ‘transformations’ under the new test. The Federal Circuit left the State Street patent hanging – we know the test used in State Street was wrong, but we don’t know whether the claimed invention would be patentable under the new test.

Going forward, tax strategies (and business methods generally) that necessarily need computer assistance will be able to obtain protection by including sufficient recitation of ties to “particular machines.” Practically, the links should be tied to particular portions of the computer to ensure that the tied machine is “particular” enough. On the transformation side, it is unclear whether the transformation of money will be considered sufficiently “representative of physical objects or substances.”

Links:

In re Bilski: Patentable Process Must Either (1) be Tied to a particular machine or (2) Transform a Particular Article

Patent, Patent Cases 2008, Patentable Subject Matter, , , , , ,

In re Bilski, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2008)(en banc)

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTO’s Board of Patent Appeals (BPAI) finding that Bilski’s claimed invention (a method of hedging risks in commodities trading) does not satisfy the patentable subject matter requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. In doing so, the nine-member majority opinion (penned by Chief Judge Michel) spelled out the “machine-or-transformation” test as the sole test of subject matter eligibility for a claimed process.

The Supreme Court … has enunciated a definitive test to determine whether a process claim is tailored narrowly enough to encompass only a particular application of a fundamental principle rather than to pre-empt the principle itself. A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing.

….

Because the applicable test to determine whether a claim is drawn to a patent-eligible process under § 101 is the machine-or-transformation test set forth by the Supreme Court and clarified herein, and Applicants’ claim here plainly fails that test, the decision of the Board is AFFIRMED.

State Street Test Is Out: In State Street, the Federal Circuit used the “useful, concrete, and tangible result” of a process as a touchstone for patentability. In Bilski, the en banc panel found the State Street formulation “insufficient to determine whether a claim is patent-eligible under § 101.”

[W]e also conclude that the “useful, concrete and tangible result” inquiry is inadequate and reaffirm that the machine-or-transformation test outlined by the Supreme Court is the proper test to apply.

Some Business Methods and Software Are Still In: Still, the court made clear that business methods and Software will still be patentable – if they meet the machine-or-transformation test.

We rejected [a categorical] exclusion in State Street, noting that the so-called “business method exception” was unlawful and that business method claims (and indeed all process claims) are “subject to the same legal requirements for patentability as applied to any other process or method.” We reaffirm this conclusion.

…

[A]lthough invited to do so by several amici, we [also] decline to adopt a broad exclusion over software or any other such category of subject matter beyond the exclusion of claims drawn to fundamental principles set forth by the Supreme Court

To be clear, the machine-or-transformation test is not a physicality test – i.e., a claim can still be patentable even if it does not recite sufficient “physical steps.” On the flip-side, “a claim that recites ‘physical steps’ but neither recites a particular machine or apparatus, nor transforms any article into a different state or thing, is not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter.” Here, the court spelled out the specific issue in mind: a claimed process where every step may be performed entirely in the human mind. In that situation, the machine-or-transformation test would lead to unpatentability. “Of course, a claimed process wherein all of the process steps may be performed entirely in the human mind is obviously not tied to any machine and does not transform any article into a different state or thing. As a result, it would not be patent-eligible under § 101.”

Along this line, the court also dispelled two rising concerns, noting that that (1) neither novelty nor obviousness have any relevance to the section 101 inquiry, and (2) the fact that an individual claim element is – standing alone – patent ineligible does not render the claim unpatentable because patent eligibility is considered while examining the claim as a whole.

What is a Transformation?: The courts have already developed an understanding of transformation as it relates to the Section 101 inquiry. Here, the Federal Circuit referred to the distinction made in the 1982 Abele case. There, the court distinguished between two of Abele’s claims – finding only one patentable. The unpatentable claim recited “a process of graphically displaying variances of data from average values” without specifying “any particular type or nature of data … or from where the data was obtained or what the data represented.” The patentable dependent claim identified the “data [as] X-ray attenuation data produced in a two dimensional field by a computed tomography scanner.” In retrospect, the Federal Circuit sees the difference between these two claims to be that of transformation. The second claim included sufficiently specific transformation because it changed “raw data into a particular visual depiction of a physical object on a display.” Notably, the transformation did not require any underlying physical object. As the court noted later in the opinion, the transformed articles must be “physical objects or substances [or] representative of physical objects or substances.”

The Bilski claims themselves were not seen as transforming an article:

Purported transformations or manipulations simply of public or private legal obligations or relationships, business risks, or other such abstractions cannot meet the test because they are not physical objects or substances, and they are not representative of physical objects or substances. Applicants’ process at most incorporates only such ineligible transformations. . . . As discussed earlier, the process as claimed encompasses the exchange of only options, which are simply legal rights to purchase some commodity at a given price in a given time period. The claim only refers to “transactions” involving the exchange of these legal rights at a “fixed rate corresponding to a risk position.” Thus, claim 1 does not involve the transformation of any physical object or substance, or an electronic signal representative of any physical object or substance.

The principle behind the test is to prevent a patentee from obtaining claims that preempt the use of fundamental principles. That principle reaches back more than 150 years to the Morse case where the inventor was precluded from claiming all uses of electromagnetism to print characters at a distance.

We believe this is faithful to the concern the Supreme Court articulated as the basis for the machine-or-transformation test, namely the prevention of pre-emption of fundamental principles. So long as the claimed process is limited to a practical application of a fundamental principle to transform specific data, and the claim is limited to a visual depiction that represents specific physical objects or substances, there is no danger that the scope of the claim would wholly pre-empt all uses of the principle.

What is a “Particular Machine”?: For software and business methods, the question will remain as to whether a general purpose computer is sufficiently particular to qualify as a “particular machine.” “We leave to future cases the elaboration of the precise contours of machine implementation, as well as the answers to particular questions, such as whether or when recitation of a computer suffices to tie a process claim to a particular machine.” As Professor Duffy noted in an earlier Patently-O article, the PTO Board of Patent Appeals (BPAI) has already answered this question: “A general purpose computer is not a particular machine, and thus innovative software processes are unpatentable if they are tied only to a general purpose computer.” See Ex parte Langemyr (May 28, 2008) and Ex parte Wasynczuk (June 2, 2008). More commonly, the claim may tie the software to computer memory or a processor – is that sufficiently particular? I suspect this fact pattern will arise shortly.

Unpatentability Affirmed

Notes:

  • Although three dissenting opinions were filed, Judge Newman is the only judge who found patentable subject matter in Bilski’s claim.
  • In Dissent, Judge Mayer thought the decision did not go far enough: “Affording patent protection to business methods lacks constitutional and statutory support, serves to hinder rather than promote innovation and usurps that which rightfully belongs in the public domain.” Citing work by Professors Dreyfuss and Pollack, Mayer argues that business method patents have the overall effect of stifling innovation by restricting competition.
  • In his Dissent, Judge Rader asks the insightful question of why a new test is necessary when settled law already answers the question. Rader would have decided the opinion with one line: “Because Bilski claims merely an abstract idea, this court affirms the Board’s rejection.” I believe Rader’s position is quite defensible. In particular, the majority justifies its need for the test as a way to ensure that we avoid the “preemption of fundamental principles.” In the majority construct, the machine-or-transformation test serves as a fairly accurate proxy for preventing preemption. The court does not, however, answer why any proxy is necessary – if the purpose is to exclude overbroad abstract ideas why not simply rely on the current rule preventing patenting of abstract ideas (as well as the law requiring full enablement)?

Concurring opinion by Judge DYK (joined by Judge LINN) attempt to reconcile the history of the patent system with the new rule of patentability.

Reasonable Billing Rates

Attorney Fees, Patent, Patent Cases 2008

Matlink v. Home Depot & Lowes (S.D. Cal. 2008)

Matlink sued the big box retailers for infringement of its patent covering a supply re-ordering system. After some discovery “stonewalling,” the district court awarded attorney-fees to the defendants for their time wasted on a motion to compel. Here, the attorney fees were calculated based on the rates charged by the defendant’s three Southern California Winston & Strawn attorneys:

Partner with 15 years experience

$630 per hour

Associate with 6 years experience

$455 per hour

Associate with 1 year experience

$280 per hour

In awarding fees, the court found these rates “not … excessive in this context.”

A similar situation recently arose in Quantronix v. Data Trak (D. Minn 2008). There, the district court looked at the hourly billing rates for several Salt Lake City patent litigators from the Trask Britt firm:

Partner with 15 years experience

$350 per hour

Associate with 3 years experience

$195 per hour

Associate with 2 year experience

$175 per hour

The Quantronix court found these rates reasonable as well. “Considering the experience levels of the individuals on the Quantronix billing statements and the Court’s own experience with and knowledge of prevailing rates in this market, the Court finds that the hourly billing rates submitted by Quantronix are reasonable and commensurate with the rates of other attorneys in this area with similar knowledge and practice experience.”

When Richmond based attorneys from Troutman Sanders requested attorney fees earlier this year, they used the following rate chart:

Partner with 20 years experience

$350 per hour

Partner with 14 years experience

$350 per hour

Thomas & Betts Power Solutions v. Power Distrib., Inc., (E.D. Va. 2008).

The Florida IP firm of Allen Dyer requested similar rates in AC Direct, Inc. v. Kemp (M.D. Fla. 2008)

Founding partner with 40 years experience

$325 per hour

Attorney with 6 years experience

$190 per hour

The AC Direct court found those rates reasonable. “In the Court’s experience, the rates charged by the attorneys and paralegals assigned to this case are within the range of reasonable legal fees for the Orlando, Florida marketplace. Further, the fees are appropriate given the level of skill displayed in this case.”

Notes:

  • I saw the original report of Matlink in the Docket Navigator; The other cases were found in Westlaw.

Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 74

Bits and Bytes, Patent
  • Our thoughts and prayers go out to Peter Zura of the great 271 Patent Blog. Peter is now officially cancer free.
  • Professor Doug Lichtman is offering free CLE Credit. Listen online: www.ipcolloquium.com
  • DMCA is 10 years old. [EFF] [News]
  • The US Government has Seized the Mongol’s trademark and is now “seiz[ing] all products, clothing, vehicles, motorcycles … or other materials bearing the Mongols trademark” [Randazza] I don’t know what they will do with this guy’s head…

Via Kelly Talcott: $125 Million is a Lot to Pay for Fair Use

PTO To Delay IDS & Markush Rules Until 2009

Patent

According to an AIPLA release, the PTO will not finalize its proposed rules on IDS statements or Markush claims before a new president takes office in January 2009. Peggy Focarino (PTO Deputy Commissioner) reportedly made this announcement on October 24, 2008 at the AIPLA Annual Meeting. This decision falls in line with the OMB Memo to all federal agencies that any “final regulations should be issued no later than November 1, 2008.”

As discussed earlier on Patently-O, IDS statement proposal would require an applicant to provide supplemental information for any submissions more than 25 pages in length or written in a foreign language. Likewise, the supplemental information would be required when more than 20 documents are submitted in a single case. The supplemental information includes pin-citation to important features of the document and a discussion of how the disclosed features relate to the applicant’s claims.

Patently-O Bits and Bytes

Patent
  • Publications: A little over 60,000 patents issued May-September 2008. Of those, 90% were also published as applications under 35 U.S.C. §122(b). (This excludes the 1.5% filed prior to December 2000). How has this shift changed the business of patents?
  • Needed: Senior ANDA Litigator.
  • Bilski Coming?: IPO has planned a December 1 session to discuss “Patentable Subject Matter after In re Bilski” (via Hal Wegner).

 

Co-Inventors Contribution Must Be “More Than The Exercise of Ordinary Skill”

Inventors, Patent, Patent Cases 2008

Oren Tavory v. NTP (Fed. Cir. 2008)(nonprecedential)

In March 2006, RIM settled its patent dispute with NTP for $600 million+. In the wake of that settlement, Tavory filed an inventorship claim against NTP arguing that he was a co-inventor of at least one of the NTP patents. The district court dismissed the case – finding that Tavory did not provide “sufficient independent evidence to corroborate his inventorship allegations.” On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed in NTP’s favor.

Back in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s Tavory worked with Tom Campana as a computer programmer for Telefind. While there, Tavory developed a computer program to facilitate an e-mail-to-pager system. He was also part of a team that created the pager-to-laptop e-mail system. Telefind ran out of money in 1991 and Tavory left for greener pastures. When Don Stout later filed Campana’s patent applications, he appended a copy of the code that Tavory had co-authored. During the RIM trial, Tavory testified for NTP. At that time, he did not claim inventorship.

Correcting Inventorship: An issued patent is presumed to name the correct inventors. Thus, an inventorship challenge must bring “clear and convincing evidence” that the newly surfaced inventor “contributed to the conception of the claimed invention.” “Simply reducing to practice that which has been conceived by others is insufficient for co-inventorship.” Under the clear and convincing standard, the inventorship challenge “must be corroborated by independent evidence.”

Contribution Must Be “More Than The Exercise of Ordinary Skill”: Tavory suggested that his contribution was the claimed “interface switch.” However, the Federal Circuit rejected that claim because (1) Tavory did not prove that the “interface switch itself was not in the prior art”; and (2) Tavory likewise did not prove that “his alleged contribution to the claimed invention—the interface switch—was the result of anything more than the exercise of ordinary skill in the art.” Consequently, “he has failed to establish co-inventorship.”

Judge Newman concurred with this result, but would have decided the case on laches (based on the long delay in making the claim) and estoppel (based on Tavory’s silence during the NTP trial).

 

The Health Impact Fund

Articles and Publications, Bits and Bytes, Patent

Last week I spoke with Yale Professor Thomas Pogge about his proposal for a “Health Impact Fund.” The mission is to provide incentives to develop and distribute drugs that will achieve major global health impacts. Pogge sees the current patent system as valuable, but lacking. The problem is that the most innovative pharmaceutical companies find it very difficult to make money from treatments that are focused on the problems of the developing world. Although helpful, charity donations of drugs are typically insufficient and lead to the problem of parallel imports.

The solution proposed by Pogge is to form a global fund and pay innovator companies based on the global health impact of their new treatment. The more “quality adjusted life years” (QALYs) saved, the more money a company gets. The intent of this reward scheme is to focus the innovators on developing and distributing treatments that will have the greatest worldwide health impact.

The system is intended simply as an additional incentive layer. A drug developer may obtain patents as usual. However, in order to qualify for the program, the patentee would agree to sell its drugs at cost and guarantee access.

Pogge’s models suggest that the fund would have a major impact if funded with $6 billion annually.

Notes:

  • HIF Book is online
  • I like the idea of aligning economic interests of the innovators with a health impact. If structured correctly, innovators will like this program because it does not take away the option of simply using the traditional patent system. The problems are primarily logistical: who pays the $6b?; how do you measure health impact?; how do you prevent gaming the system (by, for example, only using the program when the patents are likely to be challenged)?; etc.
  • President Bush’s “Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief” is set to spend about $6 billion on global AIDS treatment this year. [Link]

Judge Posner on Inequitable Conduct

Inequitable Conduct, Patent, Patent Cases 2008

New Medium (J. Carl Cooper) v. Barco N.V. (N.D. Ill. 2008) (J. Posner)

Sitting by designation, Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner recently found New Medium’s asserted patent unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during ex parte reexamination of the patents. This case is important as one of the first decisions to consider inequitable conduct in the wake of Star Scientific.

Barco presented two theories of inequitable conduct: (1) that New Medium had misled the PTO by failing to disclose that its expert declarants had been ‘retained’ and paid; and (2) that inventor/owner Carl Cooper made false statements to the PTO regarding his association with the experts. Judge Posner rejected the first theory, but agreed with the second.

Disclosing Payment to Declarants: All four of New Medium’s experts were retained and paid by the company. However, only two of the experts disclosed their relationship to the PTO. Judge Posner found the lack of disclosure to be “not misleading.” As a default, the PTO should expect that the patent applicant retained and paid its experts.

“[A]ll expert reports in an ex parte proceeding before the Patent Office are procured by the patent owner or applicant, and it is customary to pay the experts for their time, as was done in this case. There is nothing in the reports of the two experts who didn’t say they had been retained to suggest they were charging no fee—no suggestion that they had been moved by altruism or a strong conviction of the rightness of the application to volunteer to submit an expert report gratis.”

This pragmatic default rule makes some sense. If the failure to disclose the payment was not misleading, it could not be material to patentability or lead to a finding of inequitable conduct.

False Statements About Cooperation: In his declaration to the PTO, Mr. Cooper stated that he had “never met or talked with any of these experts” before contacting them to submit reports. Judge Posner found that statement “false.” Cooper had solicited and paid for a bid from one of the experts (Klughart) seven years prior. (Klughart is also a patent attorney). Judge Posner also found that Cooper and Klughart’s testimony about forgetfulness difficult to believe:

“I conclude that Klughart is not neutral and that his forgetfulness may be strategic. . . .

Cooper testified that when he submitted his report in August of 2001 he had forgotten his prior dealings with Klughart. I do not believe that testimony. . . .

I am also disturbed by the statement in Cooper’s brief that ‘Mr. Cooper didn’t think his past contact with Dr. Klughart was ‘material’ and that’s why he didn’t disclose it.’ That is an admission that Cooper lied in his declaration, though I imagine it is unintended.”

Judge Posner had no problem finding intent to deceive the PTO. The second question then is whether the deception was material to patentability. Several prior opinions have held that failure to disclose relationships can be material. See Ferring v. Barr (Fed. Cir. 2006); Nilssen v. Osram (N.D. Ill. 2006). Here, Judge Posner also found materiality:

“Clearly the fabrication was material. It bore centrally on the credibility of one of the expert reports. . . . Suppose Cooper had explained the circumstances to the patent examiner—that Klughart, a practitioner of modest means and prospects, had submitted to Cooper a $250,000 proposal that Klughart may at the time he prepared his expert report have thought he still had a chance of winning; Cooper had not responded to his proposal and Klughart was unaware that the project had been awarded to someone else. Klughart testified that the $250,000 proposal would have netted him about $200,000—a good deal more than a year’s income for him. . . .

Had these circumstances been disclosed to the patent examiner in Cooper’s declaration, Klughart’s report would have been rejected and perhaps the other reports as well, contaminated by the evidence of Cooper’s bad judgment in soliciting a report from Klughart.”

The question of whether deception was material to patentability is an issue of predictive fiction. Here Judge Posner recognized that the reexamination might have had the same result even with full disclosure. However, he implicitly applied the rules of equity to block New Media from such an argument, Quoting Refac, “an inventor cannot submit a misleading affidavit among a plurality of affidavits and later argue that it was the nonmisleading affidavit that resulted in allowance, thus effectively curing the defective affidavit.”

Inequitable conduct: After finding both intent and materiality, the court next determines whether their combined harm is sufficient for a finding of inequitable conduct. Here, Judge Posner found that the intentional submission of false statements tipped the scales.

“The making of a deliberate, material misrepresentation to a patent examiner is extremely serious misconduct because of the ex parte nature of most patent proceedings, including the reexamination proceeding at issue in this case. . . .

Because even material misrepresentations made to the Patent Office will usually not be detected, it is necessary to impose a severe sanction for such misrepresentations when they are detected, at least when as in this case they are deliberate. The appropriate sanction will normally be, and in this case I have decided that it should be, the cancellation of the patents.”

Claim by Claim: The expert reports focused only on a few claims. Cooper argued that the court should only hold those claims unenforceable. Following precedent, Judge Posner rejected that approach.

“The suggestion is that since the expert reports pertained to only a fraction of the claims in the ‘780 patent, I should declare unenforceable just those claims. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly ruled that if inequitable conduct is proved, the entire patent is unenforceable and not just the claims affected by that conduct.”

Holding: Asserted patents are unenforceable.

Notes:

  • Posner also suggested that the PTO take some action in this case – noting that it “might warrant discipline by the Patent Office (Cooper, as a registered patent agent, is subject to such discipline).”
  • Hat Tip to David Donoghue for originally noting the case [Link]

The Trade Secret Value of Early Patent Filing

Academic Studies, Articles and Publications, Patent, Trade Secret, , , ,

Patent.Law168The patent laws promote an early filing doctrine.  Most directly, by filing patent application documents early, an applicant can avoid problems created by pre-filing disclosures that can negate patentability.[1]  Inter alia, early filing also provides a presumptive date of invention and reduction to practice that may have important evidentiary benefits for the applicant.[2]  Some doctrines push against early filing. Notably, earlier filed applications may be more likely to have inadequate disclosure.  A rushed disclosure could result in the patent application being rejected under the utility, written description, or enablement requirements of the Patent Act.[3] Alternatively, if the application is filed prior to gaining an understanding of the eventual market, an applicant may have insufficient disclosure to support the most valuable claims potential. 

Going unrecognized is another benefit of early filing – the ability to keep secret later developed innovations and parameters.  That secret information can then be protected and exploited as trade secret information.

At the time of filing, the applicant must provide a complete description including the best mode contemplated by the inventor. However, many if not most patent applications are filed well before the associated product or method is ready for public consumption – before the inventor knows the best commercially viable mode.  Post-application developments could take any number of forms, such as particularly operative formulations; ideal antibiotic manufacturing parameters; software code that implements a novel algorithm; a more durable circuit arrangement; etc. Commonly, these tweaks and advances may take the form of a specific species of a disclosed and claimed genus.  Of course, this later-stage developments could be incredibly important to anyone wanting to practice the invention or develop some follow-on technology.

Even though product development typically continues after the patent application is filed, the law allows the patent applicant to legitimately keep any later developed information as trade secret.  Patent applications are not allowed to add ‘new matter’ to a patent application during prosecution. Likewise, the applicant has no duty to otherwise inform the patent office or the public of ongoing development. Rather, the application is set at filing and ex post developments are generally irrelevant to patentability.[4]

In a later post, I’ll explore whether this potential overlap of patent and trade secret rights is good from a policy perspective.



[1] 35 U.S.C. §102(b).  This is especially critical if filing foreign applications.

[2] See, for example, 35 U.S.C. §102(g) and §102(a).

[3] See 35 U.S.C. §101 and §112¶1.

[4] There may be some exception here when arguing secondary factors of nonobviousness.

Tags:

BPAI: Under §102(e), Provisional Application Considered Prior Art as of its Filing Date.

Anticipation, BPAI, Patent, Patent Cases 2008

Ex parte Yamaguchi (BPAI 2008)(Precedential Opinion)

In prosecution, the Examiner cited the Narayanan reference against a Texas Instruments patent application filed by Yamaguchi. The rejection identified Narayanan as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). The issue on appeal to the BPAI was whether the Narayanan reference can be considered 102(e) prior art as of the filing date of its provisional application.

Section 102(e) allows for submarine prior art – these are typically pending US patent applications that, when published or patented, suddenly become prior art as of their filing date. The statute allows that “[a] person shall be entitled to a patent unless . . .the invention was described in . . .a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent.. . .” 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).

102(e) Provisional: The issue here is whether Narayanan’s provisional application can be used in 102(e) analysis. The expanded BPAI panel agreed with the examiner that the 102(e) prior art date does reach-back to the date of provisional filing. This result is based on their analysis of 35 U.S.C. § 111(b). Section 111(b) requires that “provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall apply to provisional applications for patent.”

“Based on this express intent to apply the provisions of Title 35 relating to “applications for patent” to provisional applications (except for four enumerated sections noted in §111(b)(8)), a provisional application can therefore be reasonably considered an “application for patent” within the meaning of §102(e). The plain meaning of these provisions of Title 35 as noted above is outlined in MPEP 2136.03(111) for establishing the critical reference date under §102(e) of a U.S. patent or U.S. application publication that is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of a provisional application under §119(e). Based on the statutory scheme of Title 35, we hold that Appellants have not shown harmful error in the rejections on appeal.”

This holding is in tension with the controlling precedent of In re Wertheim, 646 F.2d 527 (CCPA 1981). In Wertheim, the CCPA held that for a continuation-in-part application, the parent’s filing date may serve as a §102(e) date, but only if the parent contains full §§120 and 112 support for the disclosure.

In this case the Examiner found that the Narayanan provisional application fully supported the eventual publication – and thus that the 102(e) date for narayanan was the filing date of the provisional. The applicant was unable to disprove these findings and the BPAI affirmed the rejection.