Patent prosecution is more than drafting patents-it is also advocating patentability. The challenge that each patent prosecutor be an effective draftsman and advocate is compounded by mounting pressure to procure high quality patents at minimum cost. There is a need for a quick, reliable reference to assist prosecutors in creating, researching, and supporting patentability arguments. In the U.S. Patent Prosecutor's Desk Reference, Joshua P. Graham and Thomas G. Marlow assist patent prosecutors in responding to Office Actions issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejecting patent application claims. It provides a comprehensive and updated source of law, organized by sections corresponding to the types of rejections made by the USPTO. Each section of this reference work includes the basis for the rejection, responses to the rejection, and legal authority supporting the responses.
This desk reference cites six different authority sources: statutes that govern the granting of patents; the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Eighth Edition, which dictates how examiners determine whether a patent application should be allowed; decisions by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, which is the administrative body of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that reviews decisions made by the examiners; the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, which was the body that reviewed decisions made by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences until the Federal Circuit came into existence in 1982; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which reviews decisions made by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences; and the selected opinions of the United States Supreme Court . The U.S. Patent Prosecutor's Desk Reference provides a comprehensive and reliable guide for prosecutors who create, research, and support patentability arguments. Discussions of the decisions made by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit generally have four parts: Technology Area, Quotable Language, Rejection Response, and Relevant Facts. This 2013 Edition includes all cases from the Federal Circuit and Board of Patent Appeals through December 31, 2012, and is updated with: -Federal Circuit and Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences opinions issued in 2012 -The addition of a sixth authority source of the selected opinions of the United States Supreme Court -Statutes as amended by the American Invents Act -Full text of cited sources available at www.usppdr.com
Publisher: Oxford University Press Inc
Number of pages: 320
Dimensions: 235 x 156 mm
"After reviewing Graham & Marlow's new desk reference for patent prosecution, I kept asking myself why no one had ever published anything like this before. In short, this is an absolutely wonderful resource for patent prosecutors who need to quickly draft effective and authoritative responses to a myriad of different USPTO rejections. You can either spend hours delving through a confusing array of regulations and court decisions, or you can pick up this desk reference and get the guidance and authorities you need for most prosecution questions in less than two minutes. I would strongly recommend it for any prosecutor."
- Steven W. Lundberg
Patent attorney and a founding partner of Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner
"The U.S. Patent Prosecutor's Desk Reference is an essential practice guide for every patent attorney. It is much easier to rebut an Examiner's rejection when you have at your fingertips a collection of decisions by the CAFC, CCPA and BPAI in which the Examiner's rejection was reversed. Because these decisions are organized by rejection type, you can quickly find authority to bolster your argument that a particular rejection is improper. Using this reference will make even experienced patent prosecutors more efficient and effective."
- Ann McCrackin
Professor of Law and Director of the Patent Prosecution Program
University of New Hampshire School of Law (formerly Franklin Pierce Law Center)