BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Jeffrey V. Nase and Richard Torczon Administrative Patent Judges Overview of the New Rules on Appeals to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) Rules of Practice before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, 69 Fed. Reg (August 12, 2004); 1286 OG 21 (September 7, 2004)

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Effective date: September 13, 2004 Generally, any paper filed by applicants or mailed by the office on or after September 13, 2004 must comply with the revised or new rules. Appeal briefs filed prior to September 13, 2004 must either comply with former § or new § Certificate of mailing or transmission in compliance with § 1.8 will be applicable to determine if a paper was filed prior to the effective date in order to determine which rule applies. For more information concerning the effective date, see the Oct. 12, 2004 OG notice, Clarification of the Effective Date Provision in the Rules of Practice before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (final rule), available on the USPTO web site at

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, New part 41 for rules relating to appeals and practice before BPAI: General Provisions – subpart A, §§ Ex Parte Appeal – subpart B, §§ Inter Partes Reexamination Appeal – subpart C, §§ Contested Cases (including interferences) – subpart D, §§ Patent Interferences – subpart E, §§ Section has been revised to refer to part 41. Sections have been deleted. Sections have been deleted.

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Subpart A – General Provisions: Policy - § 41.1 Definitions - § 41.2 Petitions - § 41.3 Timeliness - § 41.4 Counsel - § 41.5 Public availability of Board records - § 41.6 Management of the record - § 41.7 Mandatory notices - § 41.8 Action by owner - § 41.9 Correspondence addresses - § Ex parte communications in inter partes proceedings - § Citation of authority - § Fees - § 41.20

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Within 20 days of any change during a proceeding (i.e., after the filing an appeal brief or after the initiation of a contested case), a party must notify the BPAI of any change to the real party-in-interest of each additional judicial or administrative proceeding that the appellant becomes aware of that could affect, or be affected by, the BPAI proceeding Mandatory Notices - § 41.8

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Correspondence in an ex parte appeal and an inter partes reexamination appeal should be mailed to the following address: Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences United States Patent and Trademark Office PO Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia Appeal Correspondence Address - § 41.10

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Citations to authority must include: For any U.S. Supreme Court decision, a United States Report citation; For any decision other than U.S. Supreme Court decision, parallel citation to both the West Reporter System and Unites States Patents Quarterly, whenever the case is published in both; and Pinpoint citations whenever a specific holding or portion of an authority is invoked. Citation of Authority - § 41.12

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Appeal fees Notice of appeal: $250 (small entity) $500 by other than a small entity Brief fee: $250 (small entity) $500 by other than a small entity Oral hearing fee: $500 (small entity) $1,000 by other than a small entity Petition fee for filing a petition under part 41 of 37 CFR is $400 Fees - § 41.20

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Subpart B – Ex Parte Appeals: Definitions - § Appeal to Board - § Amendments and affidavits or other evidence after appeal - § Jurisdiction over appeal - § Appeal brief - § Examiner’s answer - § Reply brief - § Examiner’s response to reply brief (supplemental examiner’s answer) - § Oral hearing - § Decisions and other actions by the Board - § Rehearing - § Action following decision - § 41.54

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Significant Changes for Ex Parte Appeals: 1.The standard for entering affidavits or other evidence submitted after a final rejection now are set forth in § 1.116(e) and § 41.33(d)(1) & (d)(2). 2.The requirements of the content and format of the appeal brief have been revised (§ 41.37). 3.Examiner's answer may include a new ground of rejection (§ 41.39(a)(2)). Appellant may request that prosecution be reopened (§ 41.39(b)(1)) when the examiner’s answer includes a new ground of rejection.

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Significant Changes for Ex Parte Appeals: 4.Supplemental examiner's answer is permitted to respond to any new issue raised in the reply brief (§ 41.43(a)(1)). 5.After a BPAI remand for further consideration of a rejection, if an examiner’s answer is written, appellant may request that prosecution be reopened (§ 41.50(a)(2)(i)).

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Notice of Appeal (§ 41.31) Every applicant or owner of a patent under ex parte reexamination filed before November 29, 1999 any of whose claims has been twice rejected, may appeal from the decision of the examiner to the Board by filing a notice of appeal accompanied by the fee set forth in § 41.20(b)(1) within the time period set for response. Every owner of a patent under ex parte reexamination filed on or after November 29, 1999, any of whose claims has been finally rejected, may appeal from the decision of the examiner to the Board by filing a notice of appeal accompanied by the fee set forth in § 41.20(b)(1) within the time period set for response. The signature requirement of § 1.33 of this title does not apply to a notice of appeal.

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, FR Notice Of Appeal Appeal Brief Decision § §§ 41.33(a) & (d)(1) §§ 41.33(b),(c) & (d)(2) The practice for amendments filed after final action, but prior to the date of filing a brief, has not changed (§§ and 41.33(a)). Sections 41.33(a), (b) & (c) apply to amendments. Sections 41.33(d)(1) & (d)(2) apply to affidavits and other evidence. Amendment Practice

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Section 41.33(b) provides that amendments filed on or after the date of filing an appeal brief may be admitted only to: Cancel claims, where such cancellation does not affect the scope of any other pending claim in the proceeding, or Rewrite dependent claims into independent form. No limitation of a dependent claim can be excluded in rewriting that claim into independent form. Amendment Practice (continued)

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Section 41.33(c) provides that all other amendments filed after notice of appeal will not be entered except: where applicant requests that prosecution be reopened after an examiner’s answer or Board decision including a new ground of rejection; where applicant requests that prosecution be reopened after a supplemental examiner’s answer written in response to a Board remand for further consideration of a rejection; and where applicant amends a claim on appeal in response to an explicit statement of the Board of how that claim may be amended to overcome a specific rejection. Amendment Practice (continued)

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Affidavits or other evidence filed after final action, but before or on the date of filing a notice of appeal (§ 1.116(e)), may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier presented. Other evidence includes declarations and exhibits, but not IDSs (which are treated in accordance with §§ 1.97 and 1.98). Affidavit/Evidence Practice

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Affidavits or other evidence filed after the date of filing a notice of appeal, but prior to the date of filing a brief (§ 41.33(d)(1)), may be admitted if the examiner determines that both a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier presented has been made and that the affidavit or other evidence overcomes all rejections under appeal. All other affidavits or other evidence filed after the date of filing a notice of appeal will generally not be entered (§ 41.33(d)(1)) except where applicant requests that prosecution be reopened after an examiner’s answer or Board decision including a new ground of rejection; or after a supplemental examiner’s answer written in response to a Board remand for further consideration of a rejection. Affidavit/Evidence Practice (continued)

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Appeal Brief – copy requirement and time for filing (§ 41.37) Only one copy of the brief is required. The brief is required to be filed within two months from the date of filing of the notice of appeal. The time allowed for reply to the action from which the appeal was taken is no longer relevant.

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Appeal brief – Content (§ 41.37(c)) i.Real party in interest. A statement identifying by name the real party in interest even if the party named in the caption of the brief is the real party in interest. ii.Related appeals and interferences. Identification of all other prior and pending appeals, interferences or judicial proceedings which may be related to, directly affect or be directly affected by or have a bearing on the Board’s decision.

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Appeal brief – Content (§ 41.37(c)) iii.Status of claims. The status of all the claims in the proceeding (e.g., rejected, allowed or confirmed, withdrawn, objected to, canceled) and an identification of the appealed claims. iv.Status of amendments. A statement of the status of any amendment filed subsequent to final rejection.

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Appeal brief – Content (§ 41.37(c)) v.Summary of claimed subject matter. A concise explanation of the subject matter defined in each of the independent claims involved in the appeal, which refers to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters. For each independent claim involved in the appeal and for each dependent claim argued separately, every means plus function and step plus function must be identified, and the structure, material, or acts described in the specification as corresponding to each claimed function must be set forth with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters.

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Appeal brief – Content (§ 41.37(c)) vi.Grounds of rejection to be reviewed on appeal. A concise statement of each ground of rejection presented for review. Example: Claims 1 to 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. X. vii.Argument. The contentions of appellant with respect to each ground of rejection presented for review, and the basis therefore, with citations of the statutes, regulations, authorities, and parts of the record relied on. Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief or a reply brief will be refused consideration by the BPAI, unless good cause is shown.

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Appeal brief – Content (§ 41.37(c)) vii.Argument (continued). A separate heading is required for each ground of rejection. Any claim(s) argued separately should be placed under a subheading. When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group, the Board may select a single claim from the group to decide the appeal with respect to the group of claims as to the ground of rejection on the basis of the selected claim alone. A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Appeal brief – Content (§ 41.37(c)) viii.Claims appendix. A copy of the claims involved in the appeal. ix.Evidence appendix. Copies of any evidence entered and relied upon in the appeal along with a statement setting forth where in the record that evidence was entered in the record by the examiner. Reference to unentered evidence is not permitted. x.Related proceedings appendix. Copies of decisions rendered by a court or the Board in any proceeding identified in the related appeals and interferences section.

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Non-compliant appeal briefs (§ 41.37(d)) If the examiner or the BPAI determines that a brief does not comply with all the requirements set forth in § 41.37(c), the appellant will be notified of the reasons for noncompliance. The appellant will be given an extendable time period (e.g., one month or 30 days) from the mailing of the notification of non-compliance to file an amended brief.

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, A new ground of rejection is now permitted in an examiner’s answer mailed on or after September 13, 2004 (§ 41.39(a)(2)). A new ground of rejection should be rare, rather than a routine occurrence. Any new ground of rejection made in an answer must be: Approved by a Technology Center Director or designee; and Prominently identified (e.g., a separate heading with all capitalized letters) in the Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal section and the Grounds of Rejection section of the answer. Examiner’s Answer (§ 41.39)

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Technology Center Authorized Person(s) 1600Directors only Directors only 2100 Directors only 2600 Directors, SPREs, and Qas Directors, Qas, Art Grimely, Georgia Epps, and Olik Chaudhuri Directors only Directors only 3700 Directors only. Persons authorized to approve new grounds of rejections in an Examiner’s Answer

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Appellant options if examiner's answer includes a new ground of rejection (§ 41.39) If an examiner’s answer contains a new ground of rejection, appellant must, within two months, either: 1. Request that prosecution be reopened by filing a reply under § 1.111; or 2. Request that the appeal be maintained by filing a reply brief. The two month time period is not extendable under § 1.136(a). If appellant fails to take action, the appeal will be sua sponte dismissed as to the claims subject to the new ground of rejection.

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Reply brief (§ 41.41) Appellant may file a reply brief to an examiner’s answer within two months from the mailing of the examiner’s answer. If examiner provides a supplemental examiner’s answer to respond to a reply brief (see § 41.43), appellant may file another reply brief within two months from the mailing of the supplemental examiner’s answer (see § 41.43(b)). Extensions of time under § 1.136(a) are not available for filing a reply brief.

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Examiner's response to reply brief (§ 41.43) After receipt of a reply brief, the examiner can acknowledge receipt and entry of the reply brief. In addition, if a reply brief includes a new issue (e.g., appellant for the first time argues that the secondary reference is nonanalogous art), the examiner may: Withdraw the final rejection and reopen prosecution; or Furnish a supplemental examiner's answer responding to any new issue raised in the reply brief.

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Examiner's response to reply brief (§ 41.43) (continued) A Technology Center Director or designee must approve every supplemental examiner’s answer. Persons authorized to approve supplemental examiner’s answer are the same persons who are authorized to approve new grounds of rejections in an Examiner’s Answer (see slide 22). A supplemental examiner’s answer responding to a reply brief may not include a new ground of rejection.

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Oral Hearing (§ 41.47) If appellant desires an oral hearing, appellant must file, as a separate paper captioned "REQUEST FOR ORAL HEARING," a written request for such hearing accompanied by the fee set forth in § 41.20(b)(3) within two months from the date of the examiner's answer or supplemental examiner's answer. At the oral hearing, appellant may only rely on evidence that has been previously entered and considered by the primary examiner and present argument that has been relied upon in the brief or reply brief except upon a showing of good cause, appellant may rely on a new argument based upon a recent relevant decision of either the Board or a Federal Court.

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Remand for further consideration of a rejection. If a supplemental examiner’s answer is written after such a remand, appellant must, within two months, either: 1. Request that prosecution be reopened by filing a reply under § 1.111; or 2. Request that the appeal be maintained by filing a reply brief. If appellant fails to take action after a supplemental examiner’s answer is written, the appeal will be sua sponte dismissed as to the claims subject to the rejection for which the Board has remanded for further consideration. Decisions/actions by the Board (§ )

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, New ground of rejection. The appellant, within two months from the date of the decision, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: 1. Reopen prosecution by submitting an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner. 2. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § by the Board upon the same record. The request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection and state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing is sought. Decisions/actions by the Board (§ )

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Appellant may file a single request for rehearing within two months of the date of the original decision of the Board. The request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board. Arguments not raised in the briefs before the Board and evidence not previously relied upon in the brief and any reply brief(s) are not permitted in the request for rehearing except either upon a showing of good cause, appellant may present a new argument based upon a recent relevant decision of either the Board or a Federal Court; or new arguments responding to a new ground of rejection made pursuant to § 41.50(b). Rehearing (§ 41.52)

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Contested cases including patent interferences

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Types of contested cases Currently mainly patent interferences  35 U.S.C. 135(a) A few government ownership disputes  42 U.S.C. 2182(4): Department of Energy  42 U.S.C. 2457(d): NASA In the future, patent cancellations?  The new contested case rules provide a model

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Key changes to patent interference practice Limited issues allowed and decided Replaced petitions with miscellaneous motions Clarified basis for claim correspondence

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Limited issues for decision Priority Also the touchstone for necessary issues Issues necessary to decide priority Threshold (standing) issues Scope of the count (interfering subject matter) Benefit for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(g)(1) Claim correspondence Other issues up to the discretion of the Board

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Lists of intended motions Priority statements Motions list requires more precision Priority (preliminary) statement is simpler, but must be exhaustive A bad list/statement may preclude relief Second chance not likely (Phase-in period to accommodate learning)

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Petitionable issues during a contested case Relief sought via miscellaneous motion No petition per se Could be delegated to another part of the Office, if appropriate Otherwise, decided at the Board Panel decision is final Judicially reviewable as part of judgment

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Claim correspondence clarified Two theories Claims of both sides directly interfere Claims estopped by loss on priority Could produce different outcomes New rule picks estoppel theory Lost count bars anticipated or obvious claims Remedy: move to change count or correspondence

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Declaration tips Clean up everything – it is cheaper ex parte File disclaimers, correct inventorship, divide out non-corresponding claims Help the examiner set up the interference It is your best chance to frame the case your way Examiner requirements do not need a rejection

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Help in the Corps During interference, work only through the Board Before and after, consult an interference practice specialist (IPS) in the relevant Tech Center Having trouble getting a suggested interference declared? Make sure you have allowed, interfering claims If so, and the IPS cannot help, contact Dan Hunter at:

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Go to the USPTO home page ( and click on Advanced Search (which will go to Put your search terms in the box following “Find these words" In the “Select a Site Search Collection” drop-down box select either “Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences Decisions” or “Interference Trial section Opinions” Click the Search button to get the results Web Searching Board Decisions

BCP Partnership Meeting March 15, Web Searching Board Decisions

March 15, Thank You