ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "United States Patent and Trademark Office"
(→Examination guidelines: (There's an interesting article about the change in "obviousness" [http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1742 here])) |
(→Examination guidelines: * 2007: new guidelines were issued, raising the standard for obviousness, following the ruling in KSR v. Teleflex (2007, USA)) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
* 1996: [http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/pdf/ciig.pdf Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions] (The date, 1996, is given by Martin Goetz<ref>http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/09/in-defense-of-software-patents-part-2.html</ref> but the document itself does have a date - I don't know how we'd verify if this is still the 1996 version or if this link now points to an updated verion) | * 1996: [http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/pdf/ciig.pdf Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions] (The date, 1996, is given by Martin Goetz<ref>http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/09/in-defense-of-software-patents-part-2.html</ref> but the document itself does have a date - I don't know how we'd verify if this is still the 1996 version or if this link now points to an updated verion) | ||
| + | * 2007: new guidelines were issued, raising the standard for obviousness, following the ruling in [[KSR v. Teleflex (2007, USA)]] | ||
* 2009, 2010: Interim guidelines were issued following the [[CAFC]]'s decision on [[in re Bilski]], and further interim guidelines were published following the [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]]'s decision in [[Bilski v. Kappos]]. See: [[USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept]]. (As of October 2010, final revised guidelines are not yet available) (There's an interesting article about the change in "obviousness" [http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1742 here]) | * 2009, 2010: Interim guidelines were issued following the [[CAFC]]'s decision on [[in re Bilski]], and further interim guidelines were published following the [[US Supreme Court|Supreme Court]]'s decision in [[Bilski v. Kappos]]. See: [[USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept]]. (As of October 2010, final revised guidelines are not yet available) (There's an interesting article about the change in "obviousness" [http://www.ipeg.eu/blog/?p=1742 here]) | ||
Revision as of 11:49, 4 November 2010
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is known for granting large numbers of software patents.
According to a 2004 paper by Bessen and Hunt, the USPTO approves about 70 software patents per day.(see page 47) Other sources have said that in 2006 the USTPO granted just over 40,000 software patents,[1] which is 110 per day, seven days per week.
The USPTO is an agency of the US government's Department of Commerce.
Contents
Specifically excluded
In the USA, according to the USPTO, "...it has been held that the laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas are not patentable subject matter."[2]
Examination guidelines
- 1996: Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions (The date, 1996, is given by Martin Goetz[3] but the document itself does have a date - I don't know how we'd verify if this is still the 1996 version or if this link now points to an updated verion)
- 2007: new guidelines were issued, raising the standard for obviousness, following the ruling in KSR v. Teleflex (2007, USA)
- 2009, 2010: Interim guidelines were issued following the CAFC's decision on in re Bilski, and further interim guidelines were published following the Supreme Court's decision in Bilski v. Kappos. See: USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept. (As of October 2010, final revised guidelines are not yet available) (There's an interesting article about the change in "obviousness" here)
Key people
The Director of the USPTO, since August 2009, is David Kappos.[4] Kappos previously worked for IBM as vice president for intellectual-property law.[5]
Examiners stuck for time
Examiners in the USPTO have on average 20 hours to examine each application.[6]
Procedural notes
More info sought: there is an "Office of First Filing" and an "Office of Second Filing".[7]
Related pages on ESP Wiki
- USA patents courts and appeals
- Who decides if software patents exist
- Criteria for patentability
- 1994 USPTO software patent hearings
- Legislation in the USA - the USPTO interprets the legislation
- USPTO 2010 consultation - deadline 27 sept
External links
- http://uspto.gov - the USPTO's website
- The USPTO's PAIR system for checking the status of applications
- Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)
USPTO documents
- http://des.uspto.gov/Foia/ReterivePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd20072130-10-04-2007-1 "There is no authority that we know of which permits software per se to be considered statutory [patentable subject matter]."
- The USPTO's accelerated patent procedure
- http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/08/interim-guidelines-on-statutory-subject-matter.html - A third-party article linking to the USPTO's guidelines on interpreting the Bilski Particular machine or transformation test
Third party documents
- http://www.bitlaw.com/source/soft_pats/final.html
- http://www.bitlaw.com/software-patent/patentable.html
- A 1981 patent claims to be the first USA software patent
- Graph of number of software patents granted by the USPTO per year
- KSR, patent obviousness and USPTO practice, 29 Sep 2010, ipeg
References
- ↑ http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/12/patent-ibm.html
- ↑ http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/what.htm
- ↑ http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/09/in-defense-of-software-patents-part-2.html
- ↑ http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/08/kappos-sworn-in-as-director.html
- ↑ http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383639/index.htm
- ↑ http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/08/21/8383639/index.htm
- ↑ http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp
