Q. Todd Dickinson, Acting Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, presented an overview and answered questions on President Clinton's FY 2000 budget request for the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) on Monday, February 1, 1998 at the Department of Commerce.

President Clinton requested $922 million to finance PTO's fiscal year 2000 corporate plan. The PTO is fully funded by fees paid by users of the patent and trademark systems. The President's budget seeks no recisions, resulting in fees collected from PTO's users remaining with the agency.

The PTO's FY 2000 corporate plan is ambitious and will achieve an average cycle time of 10.2 months for all patent applications and allow examining attorneys to turn around trademark applications in 13.8 months. The budget is geared toward performance based-activities related to the agency's designation by the Clinton Administration as a High Impact Agency.

The majority of the $126 million increase over FY 1999 will go to improve customer service by funding initiatives that reduce pendency and ensure quality of patents and trademarks, including automation expansion.

I am using my space this month to keep you abreast of a number of current issues. Many of these topics will continue to evolve and I will make sure to update you regularly.

I am very pleased to announce that, with the support of Secretary Daley, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) will soon provide financial assistance to encourage all employees to use mass transportation.

In the spirit of partnership, I signed an agreement with Ronald J. Stern, President of the Patent Office Professional Association (POPA) on February 3, 1999, to provide the Public Transportation Subsidy (PTS) Program for POPA bargai ning unit members with a $40.00 per month subsidy. In addition, we reached agreement with NTEU Chapters 245 and 243 on February 11 and February 12, 1999, respectively, to amend their contractual agreements to reflect an increase in their employees' subsi dy from $37.50 to $40.00 per month.

I encourage everyone to take advantage of this benefit and participate in the program.

While there are more details on this subject elsewhere in the newsletter, I am very pleased that we have proposed a 16% increase in funding, while having no recision of funds. Fees paid to the PTO will b e used in the PTO. I want to reiterate that the $922 million spending plan in the agency's FY 2000 budget request is built around our top priority--maintaining the quality of patents and trademarks. To underscore our commitment to quality, I am consider ing the possibility of creating a senior management position to better integrate quality into our operations. We have convened a quality summit to plan our strategic direction and we will shortly undertake discussions with our unions to ensure that the e ntire Office is engaged in this planning.

Our search for consolidated space is nearing an end.

The final Environmental Impact Statement, one of the last steps along the road to choosing a site and signing a lease, was published on January 29, 1999. Following a 30 day period after its publication, and the recommendation of a developer by the selection committee, I expect GSA will choose our future landlord and enter into a 20-year lease on our behalf in March 1999.

One of the three finalists, Charles E. Smith Co., filed a lawsuit asking for an injunction against the award of the lease. GSA has said that it is confident that our procurement is sound and complies in all respects with all applic able laws and regulations.

Smith's final offer calls for renovating six existing office buildings and constructing two new ones here in Crystal City. The other two final offers are from developers who would construct buildings on vacant land near Metro stops in Alexandria, known as the Carlyle and Eisenhower sites.

On January 22^nd, I convened a group of nearly 20 individuals representing the diversity of our customer base for an extremely successful all-day session to discuss reforms in the patent system and in the operations of the PTO. There was frank and open discussion and anticipated disagreement on many issues during this dialog, which was open to the public. There was one subject, however, that brought the group together. Small inventors and cor porate representatives, intellectual property lawyers and congressional staffers, all agreed that the PTO would do its job best if it had more autonomy. While different ways of achieving this goal were offered, all acknowledged that the agency needed the flexibility to offer more competitive salaries, to get quicker turn-around on procurements, and to take greater advantage of the resources that would best support managing the growth and sophistication of its workload. Legislation addressing this and ot her issues discussed at the roundtable is expected to be introduced in Congress this session.

A PTO Info-Moment

Angela Sykes

Angela Sykes won the 1999 VW Bug that the Crystal Shops in the Underground gave away. A representative from the Charles E. Smith Company notified Angela that she was the official winner. A big celebration was held last month in the Underground.

Angela works in the PTO Lab in Crystal Mall 1.

Angela, Congratulations!

James Lee Witt

James Lee Witt, the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and a Clinton Administration Cabinet Member, recently spoke to PTO managers in the Patents Theater about how he successfully reorganized FEMA into a pro-active, customer-focused agency. He shared with the audience how he made organizational and managerial changes to make FEMA operate more efficiently.

Native American Heritage Celebrated at the PTO

At the celebration, Mary Arpante Sunbeam (third from right), an educator, storyteller, poet, and dancer was the keynote speaker. The program’s theme was "The Voice of the Indigenous People." PTO officials and employees were on hand for the celebration.

Solicitor’s Office Case Note Summaries

By Linda Moncys Isacson, Scott A. Chambers, and Maximilian R. Peterson

You may contact Scott, Linda, or Max by E-mail or phone at 305-9035 with specific questions. Full text versions of the cases are available on the Internet at www.law.emory.edu/FEDCTS/.

Federal Circuit Affirms PTO’s Interpretation That Rule 602(a) Applies to Multi-Party Interferences: In Barton v. Adang, 162 F.3d 1140, 49 USPQ2d 1128 (Fed. Cir. 1998), the Federal Circuit held that 37 C.F.R. 1.602(a) applied to multi-party interferences where less than all applications or patents are owned by the same entity, requiring an election between commonly owned applications/patents. However, based on the specific facts of this case, the court held that the Board abused its discretion in finding that no good cause existed to allow a party to continue the interference with commonly owned applications. Rule 602(a) states: "Unless good cause is shown, an interference shall not be declared or continued between (1) applications owned by a single party or (2) applications and an unexpired patent owned by a single party."

The case arose from a three-way interference between Barton, Fischoff and Adang involving a single count directed to introducing genes into plants that encode certain bacterial proteins that are selectively toxic to insects. Shortly after the interference was declared, Monsanto (owner of the Fischoff application), acquired the Barton application, making the two applications commonly owned. Monsanto filed a notification of common ownership with the Board, stating that good cause existed under 37 C.F.R. 1.602(a) for continuing the interference between all three parties. Specifically, Monsanto argued that good cause existed because the count in interference was subject to change following preliminary motions which were not yet due, and because of inherent legal uncertainties involved in biotechnology determinations, making it impossible to choose the best application to defend in the interference.

After issuing a show-cause order against Monsanto, the Board found that no good cause was shown as to why the interference should be continued with both commonly owned applications. Specifically, the Board found that Monsanto had not shown that the count needed to be modified or that there were separately patentable inventions in either application. Monsanto elected Fischoff and petitioned the decision to the Commissioner. The petition was denied and judgment was entered against Barton at Monsanto’s request.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit rejected Monsanto’s argument that rule 602(a) does not apply to multi-party interferences where all of the involved applications or patents are not commonly owned, noting that the Commissioner’s interpretation of the rule was reasonable and consistent with the language of the regulation. The court found that the Board abused its discretion in determining that no good cause was shown to continue the three-way interference. Under the particular facts of this case, the election was forced just after the interference was declared, but before preliminary motions were due and before any discovery. Additionally, the court noted that both Adang and Fischoff filed preliminary motions to substitute the count. Thus, the court concluded that the count was indefinite and Monsanto could potentially lose patentable subject matter by early dismissal of the Barton application.

Claim Using Open "Comprising" Language Cannot Be Read to Cover Subject Matter Surrendered During Reexamination: In Spectrum International Inc. v. Sterilite Corp., ___ F.3d ___, 49 USPQ2d 1065 (Fed. Cir. 1998), the Federal Circuit affirmed a summary judgment of noninfringement, holding that claims could not be construed to cover subject matter surrendered during reexamination. Spectrum’s 202 patent was directed to a stackable crate having a "box-like structure with four walls and a bottom." The front wall of the crate had upper and lower portions cut out in a generally rectangular opening so that when the crates were stacked, large articles could easily be stored and removed. Spectrum sued Sterilite for infringement of claims 2 and 11. Both claims contain the requirement that the bottom side of the crate merge with at least a substantial portion of the bottom edge of the central portion of the crate’s front wall. During reexamination, claims 2 and 11 were distinguished over a prior art box where the bottom side merged with the top edge of the central portion of the front wall, but not the bottom edge. In the district court, Sterilite argued that its accused crate could not infringe either claim 2 or 11 because the bottom side of the accused crate did not merge with the bottom edge of a front wall. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement.

On appeal, Spectrum argued that the district court’s claim construction was incorrectly narrow because both claims use the transitional term "comprising," which does not exclude additional, unrecited elements. Therefore, nothing of record limited the front wall of claims 2 and 11 from encompassing crates in which the bottom side merges with both the bottom and top of the front wall’s central portion, as in the accused crate. The Federal Circuit rejected this claim interpretation, noting that explicit arguments made during prosecution to overcome prior art can lead to narrow claim interpretations. Thus, a patentee, "after relinquishing subject matter to distinguish a prior art reference asserted by the PTO during prosecution, cannot during subsequent litigation escape reliance [by the defendant] upon this unambiguous surrender of subject matter." The court further clarified that this principle "applies with equal force to arguments made by a patentee to sustain the patentability of claims during reexamination." Furthermore, the court explained that Sterilite’s reliance on the term "comprising" as interpreted in Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261, 1271, 229 USPQ 805, 812 (Fed. Cir. 1986), was misplaced. Although Moleculon acknowledged that "a transitional term such as ‘comprising’. . . does not exclude additional unrecited elements, or steps (in the case of a method claim)," in the very same sentence the court limited this broad view of "comprising" to avoid altering the scope of the particular claim step at issue. The Federal Circuit reiterated that "‘[c]omprising’ is not a weasel word with which to abrogate claim limitations." Accordingly, the court held that use of the claim term "comprising" could not restore subject matter excluded during reexamination.
 

Howard Levine and Won T. Oh Named AIPLA Examining Attorneys of the Year

The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), a national bar association of approximately 10,000 lawyers who practice patent, trademark, and copyright law, selected Howard Levine and Won Oh as AIPLA attorneys of the year because of their high quality of performance.

Both were presented a certificate of recognition during the annual meeting of AIPLA, last year, at the Crystal Gateway Marriott Hotel. Howard is a Trademark attorney in Law Office 105 and has been with the PTO for 9 years.Won Oh is a Trademark attorney in Law Office 104 and has been with the PTO for 5 years. Congratulations Howard and Won.

PTO Day Observed

At the annual PTO Day Conference on Patent and Trademark Office Law and Practice, Q. Todd Dickinson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Deputy Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks delivered the keynote address.

PTO Day was held at the Ronald Reagan International Trade and Conference Center and was cosponsored by the PTO and Intellectual Property Owners Association.

The PTO Remembers...

James Bryant, Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Petitions.

James began his career with the PTO in 1974 as a Patent Examiner. He was promoted to the position of Primary Examiner in 1980. Since 1995 he served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Office of Petitions.

During his career at the PTO, he received 21 outstanding performance ratings, 17 SAAs, and a Bronze Medal in 1995. His willingness to help others was exemplary.

James received a Bachelor of Science degree from Morgan State University, in 1972. He took a number of graduate courses at the University of Maryland and George Washington University. He was recently selected to participate in the Maxwell Executive Program.

James’ presence and friendship will be deeply missed by all who knew him.

At a PTO assembly in the Crystal Forum, the African American Subcommittee honored the life and legacy of slain civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

The keynote speaker was Ethel Rollins-Cross, Director of Technology Center 3700. Cross’ speech centered around the career and educational opportunities that the PTO now offers. Also, she talked about her career at the PTO.

During the celebration, unity candles were lit by representatives from other PTO culture subcommittees. Also, soloist Lorraine Armstead and the PTO Choir rendered moving songs.

1998 Top 10 Private Sector Patent Recipients

1. International Business Machines Corporation 2,657

2. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha 1,928

3. NEC Corporation 1,627

4. Motorola 1,406

5. Sony Corporation 1,316

6. Samsung 1,304

7. Fujitsu Limited 1,189

8. Toshiba Corporation 1,170

9. Eastman Kodak Company 1,124

10. Hitachi Ltd. 1,094

PTO Pulse Info Line!!

... Next month, the PTO will make available a full U.S. patent text database with images on the Internet for free. The text and images will date from 1976 to the present. . .The following employees have been selected to be new Administrative Patent Judges at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences: Joseph F. Ruggiero, Paul Lieberman, John F. Gonzales, Stuart N. Hecker, Douglas W. Robinson, Parshotam S. Lall, Peter F. Kratz, Hubert C. Lorin, Joseph L. Dixon, Carol A. Spiegel, Anita Pellman Gross, and Eric S. Frahm. More information to follow in the March PTO Pulse . . . Ronald P. Hack, formerly Director, Office of Systems and Telecommunications Management, Department of Commerce, has joined the PTO as Administrator for Computer and Telecommunications Operations . . . Theodore Morris and Flo Stanmore have retired from the PTO after 30 years of service. . . Next month the Patent and Trademark Museum will feature an exhibit on Women Inventors. Be sure to check it out. . . Q. Todd Dickinson will be the guest speaker at the Patent and Trademark Office Society’s annual meeting on February 16th . . . The 7th Edition of the MPEP has been revised extensively to incorporate changes necessitated by the final rules that took effect as of December 1, 1997. The 7th Edition of the MPEP in electronic form will be made available to the examiners' servers in the middle of February, 1999....The Office of Public Affairs will exhibit this month at the 1999 Black Engineer of the Year Awards Conference and Expo in Baltimore, MD, and The National Association of Secondary School Principals in New Orleans, LA.

A Spotlight Feature

Quality Review and Control in the PTO:

The Historical Evolution

The Patent and Trademark Office has had a quality focus for a very long time. Over the past 40 years various programs and projects were created to monitor and improve quality. Today’s formal Quality programs find their roots in a 1961 Commissioner’s study. That study recommended the establishment of two separate organizations, one to deal with patent quality problems in view of an earlier study that had indicated that half of appealed litigated patents were held invalid and another as a formal examiner training program. This resulted in the establishment of both an Office of Examining Control and the Patent Academy.

A Quality Rating Program began in 1963 using first line supervisors (SPEs) as reviewers. This program merged the quality review and quality control functions. It was suspended in 1964 because it took too much supervisory time and because the reviewers (SPEs) lacked specific guidelines, which resulted in the review of many insignificant items.

In 1966 a Presidential Commission on industry recommended that "The Patent Office develop and maintain an effective control program to evaluate, on a continuing basis, the quality of patents being issued". This concept has been carried forward in all subsequent patent quality programs.

Separation of quality review and quality control functions occurred in a 1967 program, which used Board of Appeals members as reviewers in conducting the quality review function. Areas reviewed were patentability, field of search and practice and procedures. This program was abandoned in 1970 because it took too much of the Board of Appeals’ time. Also, there was no provision for correcting discovered problems, causing the PTO to issue patents with known defects. In other words, the separation resulted in eliminating what quality control existed.

In February 1974, the Department of Commerce approved the establishment of a continuous quality review program to start in April 1974. As with the 1967 program, this program separated the review from the control functions, however, unlike the 1967 program, applications with questions of patentability or other issues bearing on the quality of the examination were returned to the Patent Corps for correction of the problems. Quality control was therefore placed in the hands of the Corps. The review program was initially staffed with nine full-time detailee reviewers (three from each discipline: chemical electrical and mechanical) on six month renewable details. The review was conducted on a continuing basis. In November 1975, the program was staffed with nine permanent reviewers. Detailees were also used over the years, first as Practice and Procedures reviewers and later as patentability reviewers. They were added as sample size changed and when projects demanded more of the permanent reviewers’ time. The nine permanent reviewers were the nucleus of OPQR and, aside from the addition of more reviewers, they remain the core of OPQR’s staff.

In 1976, a special committee was created by the Commissioner of Patents to study the perception that patent quality was low and to study objective data relating to patent quality. This committee found that the 1974 Patent Quality Review Program was the best single indicator of the quality of the patent examining process. In 1978, the Subcommittee on Patent Information and Policy of the Advisory Committee on Industrial Innovation published its recommendations which included expanding the PTO’s quality program to review a greater sample of allowed applications. Then, in 1981, in response to a statistical study conducted by an outside expert, the sample was adjusted to a level that would remain essentially unchanged until 1996. At that time the sample size was again adjusted on recommendations of a team of outside experts to improve the statistical accuracy.

From the beginning, improving and maintaining the quality of patents was to be driven by a cooperative review-control mechanism. Since 1967, however, the review element has received the most attention. The Quality Review Program was originally intended as a means for statistically measuring the rate of validity of issued patents. As the steward of this program, since 1975, it was OPQR’s responsibility to evaluate the quality of allowed applications and continuously report these results to upper management, to aid them in their overall quality control efforts.

During the 1980s, quality programs throughout the PTO were expanded and handled as a Total Quality Management effort. The premise of TQM is that if a business implements the best practices employed by world-class companies, it will improve.

The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award is an excellent TQM model, but in its simplest terms TQM can be distilled into five key elements. (1) Customer Focus: the development of processes that identify today's customer needs and predict customer needs in the future. (2) Planning Process: the development of business plans that translates customer needs into action that is essential for success. These plans should clearly identify key success factors and deploy them throughout the organization. (3,4) Process Management & Improvement: These elements involve managing the core processes of the office to consistently deliver high quality products and services while at the same time offering training and coaching to provide people the with the quality tools they need to be successful. (5) Total Involvement: management leadership and participation by everyone in the organization. When management provides a clear direction for business success and empowers people to use quality principles to achieve business objectives and trains employees in the use of basic and sophisticated quality tools and facilitates quality improvement teams, world-class performance can result.

All of these programs emphasized the quality of the patent grant.

In the 1990s, the necessity for more efficiency led to a reengineering effort in the Government. In its simplest terms, the reengineering movement led to the emphasis on customer service and satisfaction. The Center for Quality Services (CQS) was established to interface with our external customers. For the first time, service measurements were taken with customer feedback. With support from the Clinton administration (Executive Order 12862), the PTO embraced the reengineering mandate and an agency-wide effort was undertaken to re-examine and streamline all operational functions at their most basic levels.

Included in this process was a thorough reevaluation of the PTO’s quality review and customer focus. A cross cutting Reengineering Team created a concept of operation that would include in-process review as well as the traditional end-checking function. Reviews would target quality matters identified by the customers themselves through focus sessions managed by the Center for Quality Services.

Also included were proposals for additional resources and making more training available within each examining group ( now Technology Center). Individuals at the operational level specifically responsible for quality were added in the form of Quality Assurance Specialists(QASs). These reengineering initiatives were piloted in the semiconductor technology areas of the Patent Corps. Most of the features envisioned by the Reengineering Team are being adopted by the Technology Centers with the support and cooperation of the Office of Patent Quality Review and the Center for Quality Services.

The recognition that the customer is a key arbiter of quality is a notable change from earlier efforts. To ensure the delivery of a quality product or service, customer input is an essential component. During the past few years, service standards, customer surveys, and focus groups have emerged as a means to define and measure quality within the Patent organization. Accompanying the broadening of the definition of quality to include our customers is a significant shift in the methodology used to assess the degree of quality. The previous end-checking, error recordation approach has been supplanted by the more anticipatory strategy of in-process review and continuous quality improvement; measuring the quality of a product or service during, instead of only at the end of the process.

More recently, the Patent Cost Center adopted the quality goal of "exceed our customers expectations through the competencies and empowerment of our employees." This is more commonly known as Patent Business Goal IV. Customers, through a 1996 survey, identified the following four sub-goals which were critical to meeting their expectations: (1) directing customers promptly to the proper Office or person; (2) returning phone calls within one business day, or providing another contact; (3) setting forth clearly in written communications the technical, procedural, and legal positions of examiners; and (4) conducting a thorough search of all information. A Patent Business Goal IV committee has been established to promote quality initiatives designed to meet Patent Business Goal IV and the above sub-goals that have been established.

Both the Patent Corps and the Office of Patent Quality Review have instituted in-process reviews. The Corps reviews are being handled by each Technology Center’s Quality Assurance Specialists (QASs) and are currently focused on sub-goals 3 and 4 above. OPQR , while acting as a validator for the Corps in process review, is also piloting in process reviews that focuses on the overall quality of office actions. Although OPQR will continue to monitor the quality of the final product, more emphasis will be devoted both in the Corps and in OPQR to monitoring and correcting the examination process in its earlier stages.

These quality improvement efforts, while encouraging, have been only partially effective. Principally, these programs lack coordination, communication, and commitment from all partners and stakeholders. An important step towards overcoming these deficiencies was made by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Deputy Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Q Todd Dickinson.

In July 1998, Commissioner Dickinson called together Patent managers and the Director of the Office of Patent Quality Review and raised concerns about the diffuse nature of the current quality improvement effort. The managers were charged with defining a quality vision and identifying strategies to achieve an integrated quality effort across the entire PTO and which is characterized by greater communication and increased sharing of quality-related information.

As a result, a Patent Quality Summit was convened. It was attended by Directors of the six Technology Centers and representatives of 10 other quality-supporting operations.

The participants agreed that the current system would be more effective if all areas of the Office involved in quality worked together as a team to integrate and enhance quality improvement programs in the PTO. A vision of Working Together for Excellence for the PTO quality program in the 21^st century was proposed. The Working Together for Excellence vision will involve a greater focus on our customers, employees and organization, and will be characterized by greater coordination, communication and commitment.

To achieve this vision, members agreed to follow a strategy that advances the integration process while drawing from the Patent Business Goal 4 effort—where integration between Technology Centers, the Office of Patent Quality Review and the Center for Quality Services has already begun. As noted above in-process quality checks are now being done in the Technology Centers by Technology Center personnel. The Office of Patent Quality Review is validating these checks to assure uniform standards across all Technology Centers. The Center for Quality Services is collecting customer input on these quality checks to assure that our standards are consistent with customer standards. Organizations concerned with automation will participate by assisting in the development of a shared data base for these reviews. The Patent Academy will use the information from these reviews to enhance its curriculum.

New Examiners Welcomed

In a greeting session held on January 13, 1999, the Directors of Technology Center (TC) 1700 welcomed 30 of their new examiners to the Patent and Trademark Office and to TC 1700. Richard Fisher and Esther Kepplinger gave a brief introduction of themselves and then proceeded to invite all the attendees up to the podium to do the same. During these brief introductions, most of the new examiners indicated that they enjoyed their work, were striving for or had already reached performance goals, and were pleased with their career choice.

The breadth of talent, evidenced by their varied education and work experiences, that these examiners bring to TC 1700 is as diverse as their geographic locations of origin (e.g., China, India, as well as the Mid-Atlantic, Mid-west and Western United States).
 
 

Questions and Answers from All-Hands Sessions

A series of all-hands meetings were held in late August and early September to correct misinformation and to answer employee questions on a number of important issues facing the PTO as we enter the new millennium. Printed below are answers to questions that were not addressed during those sessions. This issue will be the last time Q & As will run in the PTO Pulse.

Question

What is the impact of the legislation on retirement systems (FERS & CSRS) and civil service protections?

Answer

Some of the alternatives would have no effect on FERS or CSRS coverage. The others would permit the PTO to add to, but not reduce, the benefits offered under FERS and CSRS. No alternative would reduce those benefits.

This range of alternatives is true for title V coverage as well. Some alternatives propose no changes at all. Some would give the agency more flexibility, allowing the PTO to establish its own pay schedules, etc. All alternatives would require the PTO to engage in collective bargaining with its unions on these issues.

Question

Is there a pending congressional proposal to change our patent process to mimic the European or WO patent processes?

Answer

The 105^th Congress, which adjourned last October, considered, but did not enact, patent reform legislation. The legislation would have recast the PTO as performance based organization and provided operating flexibilities to better serve our customers. The legislation would also have made various reforms to patent law including early publication of patent applications, creation of a prior user defense and reexamination reform. While some of the reforms considered by the Congress are currently in effect in the European and Japanese patent systems, the primary intent of reform proponents is to improve the U.S. patent system, not to have it mirror that of another country. Congress is likely to consider comparable legislation in the new session beginning in 1999.

Question

Why has the PTO supported Corporation legislation which would strip employees of their title 5 benefits?

Answer

None of the legislation seeks to strip employees of any benefits. The various bills were developed in response to challenges the PTO faced, including its difficulty in competing with the private sector for certain types of employees.
 
 

Patent Fees Lowered for the First Time

in 50 Years!!!

On November 10, 1998, President Clinton signed the "United States Patent and Trademark Office Reauthorization Act, Fiscal Year 1999" into law (Public Law 105-358). This Act reduced patent fees (e.g., filing fee, issue fee, and maintenance fees) by approximately six percent.

The Congressional record of the Act notes that this is the first time patent fees have been reduced in fifty years or perhaps since the patent system was established in 1790.

The PTO published a final rule to conform the patent fees specified in title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations to the new fee amounts set by this Act and to revise a few regulatory fees which track the basic filing fee. This final rule was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 1998 at 63 Fed. Reg. 67578, and in the Official Gazette on December 29, 1998 at 1217 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 148.

A complete explanation of the new patent fees, including all the current fee amounts and the notice that the PTO will waive the requirement of Rule 1.26(a) and automatically issue refunds for overpayments of $25, or less, during the period from November 10, 1998 through January 10, 1999, is on the PTO’s Web site at:

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/qs/ope/fees.htm.
 

A PTO Info-Moment

Stephen C. Browning

Stephen Browning, currently Director, Office of Management and Organization, Department of Commerce, is on detail to the PTO as Acting Associate Commissioner and Chief Financial Officer. This assignment took effect on January 17, 1999.

Gloria Gutierrez

Gloria Gutierrez, formerly Acting Deputy Associate Commissioner for Administration and Quality Services and Administrator for Human Resources and Public Affairs, has been assigned to the Bureau of the Census as Assistant Director for Marketing and Customer Liaison.

Law School Tuition Reimbursement Program Reinstituted

Q. Todd Dickinson, acting Commissioner of PTO, and Ron Stern, President of the Patent Office Professional Association (POPA), shake hands after signing a partnership agreement to reinstitute the Law School Tuition Reimbursement Program and the Technology Training Program.

Intellectual Property Enforcement Program Held at the PTO

The PTO’s Office of Legislative and International Affairs (OLIA), in conjunction with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), recently conducted a two-week intellectual property enforcement program. Foreign government officials from Brazil, Chile, Thailand, Vietnam, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Kenya, Zimbabwe, Panama, and Trinidad/Tobago participated in the program. OLIA prepared the two-week program agenda, which focused on internationally-agreed standards for intellectual property protection and enforcement.

The program participants heard presentations by officials from the FBI, U.S. Customs and the Department of Justice. They also met with Federal District Judge Sporkin in his chambers and visited the Customs port in Baltimore.

A wide range of industry representatives provided training, which included internet piracy and domain name issues. Company representatives from Nike, Microsoft, and Louis Vuitton joined industry association representatives from the software, motion picture, sound recording and electronic games industries to emphasize the scope of the problem and the need for enforcement.

African American History Month Calendar of Events

The African American Inventions and Entrepreneurs Exhibit- February 1st –28th. The Patent and Trademark Museum presents this exhibit which will feature the African American inventors and entrepreneurs from the past and present. The exhibit will feature significant contributions of African Americans to the countries industry and technology.

First Round Competition

February 4th …12-1p.m., Location; 2nd Floor Auditorium , Crystal Park II, 2121 Crystal Drive .

Second Round Competition

February 11^th …12-1p.m., Location - 2nd Floor Auditorium, Crystal Park II, 2021 Crystal Drive. For more information contact Larry E. Williams at 305-5482.

Workplace Effectiveness Strategies

February 16th… from 12 - 1 p.m. - This workshop features Mr. Peiport Mobley discussing obstacles and solutions for moving up the ladder of success. Location - 2nd Floor Auditorium, Crystal Park II , 2021 Crystal Drive. For more information contact Harold Lee at 703-308-9500, ext. 133

Final Round Talent Competition

February 18th… from 12 - 1:00 p.m. Location - 2nd Floor Auditorium, Crystal Park II , 2021 Crystal Drive. For more information contact Larry E. Williams at 703 305-5482

All Employees Program

February 25^th… from 12 - 1 p.m. Talent Showcase winner performs. Guest speakers and closing ceremonies. For more information contact Bonnie Holloman on 703-305-8960.

Patent Examiners Honored at Graduation

By Anne Kelly

On January 6, the Patent Academy held its first graduation scheduled for this year. The Patent Theater was the site for the ceremony attended by over seventy first year patent examiners, Supervisory Primary Examiners, and Technology Center Directors. The graduates were recognized for completing the first year’s required training which includes Patent Examiner Initial Training (PEIT), Practice and Procedure (P&P) and Introduction to Practice and Procedure (IPP), and Automated Patent System Training.

Anne Kelly, the Patent Academy Director congratulated the examiners and introduced the speakers who included Q. Todd Dickinson, the Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. Mr. Dickinson congratulated the examiners and spoke about their important role in supporting the Patent System and promoting the viability of new technology and the Nation’s economic growth.

Adding their congratulations were Stephen Kunin, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Patent Policy and Projects, Nicholas Godici, Acting Assistant Commissioner for Patents, and Edward Kazenske, the Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Patents. Each examiner received a Certificate of Training for the successful completion of the first year’s mandatory training. Additional graduations will be held throughout the year.

Come See "Colors of Innovation" a Tribute to African American Inventors Now Thru Feb. 28 at the Patent and Trademark Museum!!!