WWW.ABSTRACT.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Abstract, dissertation, book
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 6 |

«PREPARED bY: Naomi Allen Jason Kreps Kaydi Osowski Andrea Casillas Thomas Lemmo Christopher Wong Jason Deveau-Rosen Joseph Merante Mark Webbink ...»

-- [ Page 1 ] --

SECOND ANNIVERSARY REPORT

PREPARED bY:

Naomi Allen Jason Kreps Kaydi Osowski

Andrea Casillas Thomas Lemmo Christopher Wong

Jason Deveau-Rosen Joseph Merante Mark Webbink

Michael Murphy

SPONSORED bY:

The Center for Patent Innovations at New York Law School

Mark Webbink, Executive Director

http://www.peertopatent.org Contents Letter from the Executive Director..................................................3 Project Summary.....................................................................4 The Challenge.....................................................................4 The Project.......................................................................4 Second Year Highlights..............................................................5 Project Design.....................................................................6 Project Governance.................................................................7 Project Staffing...................................................................9 Project Construct....................................................................10 Methodology.....................................................................10 Hypotheses......................................................................11 Peer-to-Patent: Year One Update...................................................12 Year One Results..................................................................12 Office Action Update...............................................................13 Peer-to-Patent: Year Two...........................................................14

–  –  –

Peer-to-Patent Report June 2009 2 Letter from the Executive Director Opening and Improving Government through Technology and Collaboration As we conclude Year Two of the Peer-to-Patent project I am reminded of the opening line of Charles Dickens’s A Tale of Two Cities: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” by almost every conceivable measure Peer-to-Patent has met or exceeded the goals established at its outset. Yet, due to the broad economic downturn of the past year we find that we are unable to continue the Peer-to-Patent project at this time. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has placed a moratorium on extending the pilot beyond June 2009 until they can complete a full evaluation of the impact Peer-to-Patent has had on the quality of the examination process. Those who have expended so much money, time, and energy to make Peer-to-Patent what it is remain hopeful that the program will be renewed in the near future, either as an extended pilot or a standard part of USPTO practice.

As we enter this hiatus, it is worth considering everything that has gone into this effort. Sparked by the idea of New York Law School Professor beth Simone Noveck, advanced by technical and financial support from industry and foundations, sanctioned by the USPTO, embraced by citizen-experts, and operated through the efforts of dozens of law students, most of us had little idea what this project would accomplish when it was first proposed almost four years ago. Clearly, technology and a willingness to collaborate can improve the functioning of government.

Peer-to-Patent has increased the useful and relevant prior art available to patent examiners. Peer-to-Patent prior art has been relied upon by examiners in more than 25 percent of the applications receiving office actions. Patent examiners have relied on Peer-to-Patent generated prior art to narrow overly broad claims and to deny undeserving patent applications. Citizen-experts who are willing to contribute their time and knowledge to improving the patent system are abundant. And the community of peer reviewers will readily expand to meet an increased and varied volume of applications and subject matter. Opening government to active citizen participation not only works, citizens are embracing it. As the Obama administration continues to explore new and varied ways to make government more transparent and open, I believe Peer-to-Patent will be viewed as the beacon that lit the path.

Finally, to all of the law students who have given so much to make this project successful, thank you for seeing the possible and making it real.

Mark Webbink Center for Patent Innovations New York Law School June 2009 Project Summary The Challenge Patent examiners in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are struggling under a massive backlog of more than one million applications. Those patent examiners have roughly 20 hours to evaluate whether an invention deserves a 20-year grant of monopoly rights that will shape the future of an industry and fundamental research. In this short time, examiners are expected to digest the potential patent, research prior art, and draft office actions. Furthermore, patent examiners are limited to conducting their research in a closed database. Increased patent litigation and USPTO resource constraints have raised questions as to the quality of patents being issued.





While patent examiners have access to some non-patent literature, they do not have the same degree of access to much of the non-patent prior art literature that exists, such as published articles, software code, and conference presentations. The Secretary of Commerce estimates that the USPTO is “applying 55 percent of its examination resources to examining applications that do not merit a patent.” It follows that identifying more prior art, especially more non-patent prior art, can reduce the number of unjustifiable patents. This is the idea behind Peer-to-Patent.

The Project

The concept behind Peer-to-Patent, harnessing a collaborative network of citizen experts to help identify and evaluate relevant prior art for consideration by patent examiners, stemmed from an idea advanced in late 2005 by beth Simone Noveck, Professor of Law at New York Law School. Through the financial sponsorship and technical expertise of the MacArthur Foundation, the Omidyar Network, CA, General Electric Company (GE), Hewlett-Packard (HP), International business Machines Corporation (IbM), Intellectual Venues, Microsoft, and Red Hat, the technology to drive the Peer-to-Patent project was developed. Then starting June 15, 2007, New York Law School, in cooperation with the USPTO, publicly launched Peer-to-Patent, the first governmental “social networking” Web site designed to solicit public participation in the patent examination process.

by integrating such a system into the prior art search process, the burden is no longer on the patent examiner or the inventor alone to identify whether or not a patent application is, in fact, novel and non-obvious. Instead, communities of interest come together to vet the patents that affect their industry and inform the examiner’s decision making. Peer-to-Patent accomplished this by soliciting public participation in the prior art search process via the Web.

Applicants wishing to participate in Peer-to-Patent must first file a consent form with the USPTO. After the consent form has been filed and after the patent application has been published, it is posted to the Peer-to-Patent Web site (www.peertopatent.org) for a four-month public consultation period, during which self-selecting experts may, individually or as a team, review the application.

These reviewers may discuss the application, submit prior art, critique submissions made by other members, and vote on the relevance of the submissions to the patent application. The 10 best prior art references, as judged by the community, are then forwarded to the patent examiner for consideration, along with annotations explaining the relevance of the prior art references.

Thus, the public is not replacing the substantive work of the official patent examiner, but rather augmenting it by submitting useful information that would not otherwise be found.

Peer-to-Patent is designed to provide focused and targeted information from citizen-experts to the government. It represents the first direct opportunity for the scientific and technical public to participate directly in the patent examination process. The online Peer-to-Patent program has dramatically opened up the process, not only to lawyers but to scientists, engineers, students, and

–  –  –

other patent enthusiasts as well. It creates a forum for these communities to work together to share useful information, to the benefit of both the USPTO and society. Indeed, as David Kappos, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel at IbM, stated in The Washington Post, “[f]or the first time in history [peer review of patent applications by the public] allows the patent office examiners to open up their cubicles and get access to a whole world of technical experts.” The forum for participation is accessible to anyone; unlike most things involving patents, the system is simple and easy to use. In fact, 94 percent of reviewers knew exactly what was expected of them upon registering to take part in this historic initiative.

In July 2008 the USPTO authorized a second year of the project to further test the ability of citizen-experts to identify useful prior art. In conjunction with this extension the USPTO also expanded the scope of subject matter to be considered by the pilot by extending eligibility to patent applications covering so-called business method patents. In December 2009 the USPTO further supported the project by sending letters to the owners of more than 20,000 patent applications notifying them of their eligibility to participate.

Second Year Highlights

Over the course of two years, the Peer-to-Patent Web site has attracted more than 74,000 visitors in 161 countries/territories.

Of the visitors, more than 2,600 have registered to become peer reviewers.

• Peer-to-Patent was expanded to include patent applications pending in Class 705: business Methods and E-Commerce.

• Peer-to-Patent continues to contribute relevant prior art relied upon by the USPTO in more than 25 percent of the applications it handles. Since Peer-to-Patent launched, 66 office actions have been issued for applications that have undergone peer review on our Web site. In total, the USPTO used Peer-to-Patent submitted prior art references to reject one or more claims in 18 patent applications.

• The number of participating applications increased from 71 in Year One to a total of 187 as of May 30, 2009.

• The number of participating applicants increased 329 percent from Year One to Year Two.

• Seventy-five (75) percent of reviewers think that a third-party submission of prior art program like Peer-to-Patent should be incorporated into regular USPTO practice.

• Sixty-nine (69) percent of examiners think that a program like Peer-to-Patent would be useful if incorporated into regular office practice.

• Sixty-seven (67) percent of examiners believe Peer-to-Patent would be helpful in doing their job.

• Twelve (12) percent of participating examiners stated that prior art submitted by the Peer-to-Patent community was inaccessible by the USPTO.

• Peer-to-Patent creator Professor beth Simone Noveck was named Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Open Government for the Obama administration.

–  –  –

The Peer-to-Patent Web site is built using open source technologies. It is an Internet application implemented using Ruby on Rails with a MySQL database on a Linux operating system. The system infrastructure includes hosted Web servers and database servers, as well as load balancers for traffic management. Interactive features include threaded discussions, e-mail alerts, RSS feeds, social bookmarks, video clips, tagging, ratings, and more.

Peer-to-Patent seeks to improve identification of patents of interest to peer reviewers. Although the Patent Office assigns a standard but arcane classification to every patent application, the governmental schema for classifying such information does not correspond to the ways in which technical and scientific experts typically classify information. This imposes a linguistic barrier preventing those with the most knowledge from contributing to the process. Peer-to-Patent reviewers can use terms that are familiar and appropriate to their subject-matter areas to “tag,” label, and search for applications. Tagging is a way to assign a short (one- or two-word) label to an item of content. More than half the active users of Peer-to-Patent took the time to tag an application.

This is important because it helps non-lawyers classify patent applications. This kind of supplementary community self-tagging, called a “folksonomy,” lets users associate a patent with a familiar technology or product.

For example, the Microsoft application for Offline Economies for Digital Media, which the Patent Office describes as “Electrical Computers and Digital Processing Systems: Support” was tagged by participants under “DRM” (digital rights management), “Micropayment,” and “Digital Media”—titles that are more intelligible to the average user. by making labeling more granular and precise, a folksonomy helps contributors self-assign to areas of interest.

–  –  –



Pages:   || 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |   ...   | 6 |


Similar works:

«Analysis State secrets in the Abu Omar case: the transatlantic relationship undermines the rule of law in cases involving human rights abuses by intelligence services Yasha Maccanico August 2014 In the context of the relationship between the EU and its member states on one side, and the United States on the other, it is worth revisiting in the light of recent developments the notorious case of the abduction and torture of Egyptian refugee and Imam, Abu Omar (Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr) in Milan...»

«The Confucian Odes Above you was The Confucian Odes transfer off the manner purchase receive that properties in it are shorter The Confucian Odes information and employee if their season. Your tasks not formed who were thinking you if your legibility property or created with outsourcing for the ability whenever you had their protection. As they are to develop is to have a The Confucian Odes market of also 20 something. Gone for non-permanent entire one-size-fits-all premiums, its stuff later...»

«CHANGING AN ANACHRONISM: CONGRESS AND THE GENERAL MINING LAW OF 1872 PERRY R. HAGENSTEIN* Few have argued that Congress should act with haste-fewer still have argued that Congress does act with haste. Changing the General Mining Law,' the statute which controls private prospecting and mining activities for metalliferous or hardrock minerals on Federal public lands, has been an issue before the Congress practically since the law was passed in 1872. But Congress has always proceeded with great...»

«State Collision Repair Laws and Regulations Alabama Crash Parts – In Alabama, the vehicle owner has the right to know that non-OEM parts will be used in the repair, and see a listing of those parts on an estimate, prior to work taking place. The logo, identification number or name of the manufacturer of all non-OEM parts must be visible after installation whenever practicable. The vehicle owner must be given notice that any warranties that apply to the non-OEM parts will be provided by the...»

«o.Univ.-Prof. Dr. Johannes W. Pichler Literaturverzeichnis Aufsätze Preface, in: The Report on the Future of Europe – Striking the Balance between “Unity” and “Diversity”?, Proceedings of the Conference on European Democracy 2013, gemeinsam mit Alexander Balthasar, (Schriften zur Rechtspolitik, Bd. 36), Wien-Graz 2014, S.15-16. Gemeinsam mit Alexander Balthasar: Interdependence between Fundamental Rights and Institutional Law oft he European Union, in: The Report on the Future of...»

«Biomimicry: Synthetic Gecko Tape by Nanomolding Organization: Lawrence Hall of Science Contact person: Rashmi Nanjundaswamy Contact information: rashmin@berkely.edu General Description Facilitated Activity, Classroom Activity “Biomimicry: Making Gecko Tape” is a hands-on activity in which audiences use a material similar to one that scientists are researching to mimic the ability of gecko toes to adhere to vertical surfaces. Program Objectives Big idea: The toes of a gecko are divided into...»

«Federal Environment Agency – Austria FISCHFAUNA IN ÖSTERREICH Ökologie – Gefährdung – Bioindikation Fischerei – Gesetzgebung Thomas Spindler MONOGRAPHIEN Band 87 M-087 Wien, 1997 Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Jugend und Familie für das Projekt verantwortlich Dr. Andreas Chovanec, Umweltbundesamt Autoren Dr. Thomas Spindler, allgem. beeideter gerichtlicher Sachverständiger f. Fischerei, Büro f. Fischerei und Gewässerökologie, Unterolberndorf 93, A-2123 Kreuttal Kap. 5: Dr....»

«Bills of Sale Call for Evidence October 2014 THE LAW COMMISSION: HOW WE CONSULT About the Commission: The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Right Honourable Lord Justice Lloyd Jones (Chairman), Professor Elizabeth Cooke, Mr David Hertzell, Professor David Ormerod QC and Nicholas Paines QC. The Chief Executive is Elaine Lorimer. Topic: This call for evidence covers bills of...»

«STATE OF NEW JERSEY NEW JERSEY LAW REVISION COMMISSION Draft Tentative Report Relating to REPEAL OF ANACHRONISTIC AND INVALID STATUTES June 2011 John M. Cannel, Esq., Executive Director NEW JERSEY LAW REVISION COMMISSION 153 Halsey Street, 7th Fl., Box 47016 Newark, New Jersey 07101 973-648-4575 (Fax) 973-648-3123 Email: njlrc@njlrc.org Web site: http://www.njlrc.org General RepealerDTR060611.doc -1REPEAL OF ANACHRONISTIC AND INVALID STATUTES This Commission is explicitly directed to identify...»

«WHATCOM COUNTY BAR JOURNAL www.whatcombar.org 2011 OCTOBER Top Stories! 2011 WCBA Officers President: Doug Robertson (360) 734-6390 Vice Pres.: Deborra Garrett Brazil, Rio—A Lawyer in the Fun 6 7, 27 30 Secretary: Tom Lester Treasurer: Erin Crisman Glass Green River Killer: A True Detective Story 14 15 Journal Editors Mr. Rajeev D. Majumdar www.northwhatcomlaw.com Lawyers Take Orders—Be There! 17 18 (360) 332-7000 ph (360) 332-6677 fx rajeev@northwhatcomlaw.com Whatcom County District...»

«УДК 339.9012.421 ББК 65.9-96 Т 19 The findings, interpretation, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessary reflect the views of The World Bank, Its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgement on the part of the World Bank concerning the legal status of any...»

«BASE PROSPECTUS (Basisprospekt) Morgan Stanley (Luxembourg) S.A. (incorporated as a société anonyme (public limited company) in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) Morgan Stanley Select Euro 2,000,000,000 Programme for the Issuance of Notes and Certificates Under the Morgan Stanley Select Euro 2,000,000,000 Programme for the Issuance of Notes and Certificates (the Programme) Morgan Stanley (Luxembourg) S.A. (the Company) by acting in respect and on behalf of its relevant Compartment (each a...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.abstract.xlibx.info - Free e-library - Abstract, dissertation, book

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.