Shouldn't The Patent Office Be Able To Reject A Bad Patent Application For Real?
from the just-a-thought dept
A few people have been submitting various versions of the story about how online gaming company OnLive is claiming a patent on its system for cloud-based video games. You can see the actual patent (7,849,491), if you'd like to dig into the details.However, rather than dig into the specifics on this particular patent, I did want to dig into one somewhat offhand comment that Dean Takahashi made in his writeup of this patent over at VentureBeat, where he gets in a little dig at the Patent Office:
it was originally filed in December, 2002... The patent was granted last week, showing just how far behind the patent office is in acknowledging inventions.Similarly, in the WSJ article where OnLive's Steve Perlman claims this is a "pivotal patent," he also complains about how slow the patent office is, and how annoying it was that he had to wait so long to get this patent.
Now, I'm not known for standing up for the Patent Office on much, and everyone seems to agree that the USPTO has a huge backlog that it takes them a while to get through, but the implication here is that if you just submit an application, you'll have to wait 8 years to get that patent approved. That's not really fair or accurate. I went and looked at the history of this particular patent and it's a lot more complicated than that. First of all, while it was initially filed in 2002, the application wasn't actually complete until April of 2003. Then, it appears that a whole bunch of additional information was filed over the years -- which is perfectly fine (as new things come out, you're supposed to file such information disclosure statements), but each of those need to be reviewed as well.
But what's a lot more telling is that the patent was "rejected" by the patent examiner not once, not twice, not three times, not four times, but five times before it was finally approved. However, the way the patent system works is that there's no such thing as a real rejection of a patent application. Even if there is something called a "final rejection" (the second rejection here was officially a "final rejection"), that's clearly misnamed, as the applicant is able to keep requesting new examinations, perhaps with adjustments to the patent, or after the applicant (or, more likely, a patent attorney they hired) argues that the patent should be approved.
So, perhaps it's not just that the patent office is "behind" on "acknowledging inventions," it's that patent applicants can just keep trying and trying and trying over and over and over again until they finally convince the examiner to approve the patent. Of course, all of this does contribute to the actual backlog -- because each time the examiner has to deal with a "rejected" application request for another examination, and hear them out on why it should be approved, or review the changes, that's time that could be spent reviewing a different patent application.
What I still don't understand is why we still let the system work this way. I can understand being able to make your case as to why a patent should be approved after an examiner initially rejects it -- and perhaps potentially an opportunity for an appeal -- but why do we let the system be so open ended? And, to be clear, I'm not saying if this particular patent is a "bad patent." I really don't know (though, I assume some of you may have some opinions on that). I'm just pointing out that, contrary to the claim in that article, the delay here might not have just been about a slow patent office, but about the fact that the patent was "rejected" so many times, and each time OnLive was able to come back and get another crack at the apple...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cloud gaming, patents, rejections, steve perlman, video games
Companies: onlive, uspto
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
simple solution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It follows your favorite equation: old idea + new technology = get a new patent.
It's depressing actually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I believe it usually dates from the filing, not the approval. However a much bigger problem is that the patent office seems to have very little interest in actually looking for prior art - many patents have been passed even though a quick Google search of the concept reveals busloads of prior art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually I should be more fair - very little time is probably the real issue. I don't know enough about the innerworkings to say what's actually causing the problems - but it certainly seems that nobody is bothering to search for prior art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So if we don't have enough time to review a patent is valid or not it just defaults to passing? Seems like the real issue would be policy then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It is easy to understand people wondering about the scope of searches and sources relied upon for conducting searches. One reason for the confusion is that searches are conducted in association with the claims being presented in the application. There may be "tons" of information that pertains in general to the subject matter area of an invention, but those "tons" invariably reduce down to mere "ounces" when it is realized that the claims are what drives the search for prior art.
Are searches perfect? Of course not. It is impossible for anyone to locate throughout the world each and every piece of prior art that is actually relevant and important for judging whether or not a claim meets the legal criteria for its allowance. For example, just how likely is it that either an examiner or an applicant is aware that a PhD thesis that is a "claim killer" is catalogued and available to the relevant public in the library of a university in Latvia? How likely is it that either of them are aware of a similar "claim killer" that resides in a classified vault at a DOD R&D facility and relating to a TOP SECRET DOD program?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm talking about cases where even the specific claims in the patent are *clearly* preempted by widely available examples of prior art... Techdirt has a few recent examples, like the patent on online music distribution or the one on putting a press release online.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg... in the field of software patents especially, it certainly seems like patents get granted for inventions where there is not only prior art, but in fact widespread and common usage of that prior art by countless parties.
A great example is the double linked list patent, where the claimed invention was a basic concept that had already been fundamental to computer programming for more than a decade. The patent was granted despite the fact that it is not novel in any way whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Patent
It would effectively un-patent that concept. For good?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Public Patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am not sure this would fix anything
If a true "Final rejection" was issued I think patent strategy would just change a bit. I think you would see many more patents filed with narrower and possibly overlapping claims. If one gets rejected so what? We have 3 others. Also what is to stop someone, one they receive a "Final Rejection" to just remove or change one claim and then refile as a "new" patent application?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I am not sure this would fix anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I am not sure this would fix anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I am not sure this would fix anything
Ding ding!
And increase the fees relative to the sum of the all statutory awards granted to applicant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I am not sure this would fix anything
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I am not sure this would fix anything
It wasn't 'truly revolutionary' if the patent office rejects it...twice! Especially with how low the bar is set for patent approval these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW, Office Actions cover a wide range of issues. Claims can be rejected for any number of reasons having nothing to do with the prior art (non-statutory subject matter, restriction requirement, lack of enablement, etc.). For example, in this case one Office Action was principally directed to the sufficiency of the disclosure contained in the "specification" of the application (what is known as a "112" rejection).
After having looked over the file history of this application, I can well understand why the patentee talked about the delay from filing to issue. An application should not have to wait six (6) years before it is taken up for the first time. Clearly, the delay in this case was at the USPTO's end, and not that of the applicant (now patentee).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There is no limitations on the number of times you can lodge a patent. That would be crazy.
Where does it say anywhere, that you cannot lodge any number of patents.
And of course, again, it does not matter how many times it was rejected, and im sure you understand that each application would be different, or written, worded in a better way to convey the invention.
Once they got the way of explaining their invention in terms the patent office requires, the PTO then issues them a patent.
It would be quite stupid to have a limitation on how many times you could lodge, DIFFERENT patents, to patent the same invention.. once you write a patent application that meets the requirements of a patent, then they give you one.
if it's allready been patented, then they reject it on those grounds, or they can find it invalid for many technical reasons, but they cannot find a patent invalid, just because its not worded right, or not in a correct form, they can (and do) ask them to try again, and again and again.. I does not matter how many times, all that matter is the one that is accepted is right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
due process
Those who actually prosecute patent applications know and expect that. It takes time to arrive at claims that are allowable. There is a bit of back and forth. However, patent attorneys will tell you that the PTO routinely rejects claims out of hand and not on merit. For inventions that have broad implications you'd better be ready for a fight. Keep in mind that extended prosecution is expensive for applicants. In some cases it can cost tens of thousands a year for an application. If they feel they are entitled to a patent, they will keep trying. If not, they will save their money. Under such circumstances to not allow extended prosecution would be a denial of due process. Next time, talk to a seasoned patent attorney or agent before you write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Such long pendancy prejudices the examination by allowing the invention to become immersed in what would be competing inventions which can and do distract the examiner (who may only look at the state of the world of invention at the time of patent filing).
As to the number of times an examiner rejects before approval as something WEONG with the PTO and a sign of weakness? Such a conclusion shows an utter lack of understanding of the process itself.
Each time an examiner rejects the inventor responds with a NEW application (typically) in which the claims are changed to overcome the examiners objections or new arguments about why the examiners objections do not have merit. This process minimizes the breadth of patents to protect the public.
The people who seem to write and read this column don't seem to understand that a patent with very weak and limited claims is of little and limited value and cannot typically block or license many competitors. Getting a patent after many rejections is not a measure of the quality of examination or the strength of the rejections.
The only way to determine how broad a patent is, is by careful review of the art and finally a test by fire in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Such long pendancy prejudices the examination by allowing the invention to become immersed in what would be competing inventions which can and do distract the examiner (who may only look at the state of the world of invention at the time of patent filing).
As to the number of times an examiner rejects before approval as something WEONG with the PTO and a sign of weakness? Such a conclusion shows an utter lack of understanding of the process itself.
Each time an examiner rejects the inventor responds with a NEW application (typically) in which the claims are changed to overcome the examiners objections or new arguments about why the examiners objections do not have merit. This process minimizes the breadth of patents to protect the public.
The people who seem to write and read this column don't seem to understand that a patent with very weak and limited claims is of little and limited value and cannot typically block or license many competitors. Getting a patent after many rejections is not a measure of the quality of examination or the strength of the rejections.
The only way to determine how broad a patent is, is by careful review of the art and finally a test by fire in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, it may well be that the apparent prior art really isn't - the examiner misunderstood the claims (equivalently - it's a pointless debate - the claims weren't drafted clearly enough) and in fact the patent being submitted really is different. Why shouldn't the applicant be allowed to clear things up and try again? And ... given that the examiner will almost always only report one problem at a time - what's the sense in some arbitrary limit on the number of resubmissions?
Are there abuses of this process? Absolutely. There are patents that are resubmitted over and over after rejections that really leave nothing standing. The patent office tries hard to have the same examiner deal with all the resubmissions, but some applicants seems to drag things out until they somehow get reassigned to a different examiner who may not be as diligent.
*If* you're going to have a patent process at all, the role of the applicant is to convince the examiner that the patent meets all the requirements the system has. That's go to require so to-and-fro. You could take a trial-like approach - everyone in the room in front of a neutral arbiter who decides when enough is enough and the decision is final (subject perhaps to some fixed-length appeals process that in principle only looks at correctness of procedure, not at facts) - but that would be immensely more expensive than what we have today, and - if you look at court delays - would probably take even longer. The current process seems like a better approach - not that some better controls wouldn't help (though that comment seems to apply equally well to pretty much everything having to do with patents).
-- Jerry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]