As promised last week, here is a more detailed breakdown of what happens after an appeal brief, examiner answer, or reply brief.
~15% of appeal briefs yield an allowance and ~15% result in reopening prosecution
In 2017, reply briefs were filed after 80% of examiner answers (a 10 year high)
A reply brief is almost always followed by a board decision
As noted in this post, the dip in 2018 is because most appeal briefs filed in 2018 do not have a decision yet. So far in 2018 there are 27 abandonments vs. 65 decisions. For comparison, 2017 had 47 abandonments and 3428 decisions.
The events in the appeal timeline were pretty consistent across technology centers in 2017
The rates of answer, reopening, and allowance vary significantly among art unit groups
Notes for this chart:
- The clear outlier, 1750, has a very small sample size (it seems 1750 was combined into another art unit because it is not listed on the USPTO website).
- Highest rate of reopening was 24% in 3670 “Wells, Earth Boring/Moving/Working, Excavating, Mining, Harvesters, Bridges, Roads, Petroleum, Closures, Connections, and Hardware.”
- Lowest rate of reopening was 3% in 3690 “Business Methods – Finance/Banking/ Insurance.”
- Highest rate of allowances was 29% in 2110 “Computer Architecture” and 2660 “Digital Cameras; Image Analysis; Applications; pattern Recognition; Color and Compression; Enhancement and Transformation.”
- Lowest rate of allowances was 7% in 1780 “Miscellaneous Articles, Stock Material, Adhesive Composition, Fabrics” and 3750 “Fluid Handling and Dispensing” (ignoring 1660, which is plants).
As with many aspects of prosecution, the response to an appeal brief is highly dependent on the particular examiner
Even within a particular art unit, there is a lot of variability as to what percentage of appeal briefs result in an answer, allowance, or reopening. Use BigPatentData Examiner Statistics to see the stats for your particular examiner. The first table below shows examiners with at least 20 appeal briefs (since 2000) that have answered less than 10% of them. The second table shows examiners with at least 20 appeal briefs that have answered at least 90% of them.
Answered less than 10% of 20+ appeal briefs
Examiner | Ar Unit | Appeal Briefs | Answer Rate |
---|---|---|---|
CHERRY, EUNCHA P | 2872 | 21 | 0 |
PAN, DANIEL H | 2183 | 28 | 0 |
YOHANNES, TESFAY | 2441 | 23 | 0 |
PARK, JUNG H | 2411 | 34 | 2 |
ANDREWS, LEON T | 2411 | 43 | 2 |
HONG, JOHN C | 3726 | 30 | 3 |
ZHAO, WEI | 2475 | 55 | 3 |
TRUONG, BAO Q | 2875 | 24 | 4 |
WANG, BEN C | 2192 | 25 | 4 |
SCHILLINGER, ANN M | 3774 | 74 | 4 |
SHEHNI, GHAZAL B | 2436 | 24 | 4 |
HO, ANDY | 2194 | 48 | 4 |
LABAZE, EDWYN | 2887 | 22 | 4 |
LAU, TUNG S | 2863 | 87 | 4 |
BEKIC, LILYANA | 2915 | 25 | 4 |
BLEVINS, JERRY M | 2883 | 42 | 4 |
KENDALL, CHUCK O | 2192 | 69 | 5 |
MORRIS, PATRICIA L | 1625 | 52 | 5 |
TRUONG, CAMQUY | 2195 | 34 | 5 |
MARTINEZ, DAVID E | 2181 | 32 | 6 |
KIFLE, BRUCK | 1624 | 30 | 6 |
BRITT, CYNTHIA H | 2117 | 29 | 6 |
DONNELLY, JEROME W | 3764 | 26 | 7 |
JEAN, FRANTZ B | 2454 | 28 | 7 |
PATEL, CHANDRAHAS B | 2464 | 38 | 7 |
NGUYEN, DANNY | 2836 | 27 | 7 |
TRINH, MINH N | 3729 | 69 | 7 |
WESTBROOK, SUNSURRAYE | 3612 | 25 | 8 |
WILLIAMS, ROSS A | 3714 | 68 | 8 |
RAYMOND, EDWARD | 2857 | 24 | 8 |
NOORI, MASOUD H | 2855 | 23 | 8 |
BUI, HANH THI MINH | 2192 | 35 | 8 |
CHEN, CATHERYNE | 1655 | 44 | 9 |
NGUYEN, DUNG T | 2871 | 55 | 9 |
JOHNSON, SONJI N | 2887 | 21 | 9 |
HONG, MICHAEL HYUN | 2426 | 21 | 9 |
RAHMAN, SABANA | 2156 | 22 | 9 |
SEYE, ABDOU K | 2194 | 22 | 9 |
Answered at least 90% of 20+ appeal briefs
Examiner | Ar Unit | Appeal Briefs | Answer Rate |
---|---|---|---|
BYCER, ERIC J | 2173 | 22 | 100 |
NORMAN, SAMICA L | 3697 | 23 | 100 |
HOSSAIN, FARZANA E | 2482 | 25 | 96 |
CHEN, SHELLEY | 3663 | 26 | 96 |
STANCZAK, MATTHEW BRIAN | 3711 | 31 | 96 |
TSENG, CHARLES | 2613 | 30 | 96 |
BADER, ROBERT N. | 2614 | 21 | 95 |
BEEBE, JOSHUA R | 3745 | 24 | 95 |
MA, TIZE | 2613 | 43 | 93 |
LUBIN, VALERIE | 3626 | 26 | 92 |
FLORY, CHRISTOPHER A | 3762 | 53 | 92 |
TERRELL, EMILY C | 2689 | 39 | 92 |
YOON, KEVIN E | 1735 | 24 | 91 |
GOLDBERG, IVAN R | 3624 | 45 | 91 |
GOLOBOY, JAMES C | 1771 | 40 | 90 |
HARRIS, DOROTHY H | 2625 | 33 | 90 |
ENIN OKUT, EDU E | 1727 | 31 | 90 |
BARTLEY, KENNETH | 3693 | 41 | 90 |
BIRKHIMER, CHRISTOPHER D | 2136 | 21 | 90 |
BADAWI, ANGIE M | 2172 | 30 | 90 |
MACKALL, LARRY T | 2131 | 22 | 90 |
MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M | 3683 | 72 | 90 |
NGUYEN, THU V | 2452 | 22 | 90 |
YANG, JAMES J | 2683 | 53 | 90 |
TRA, ANH QUAN | 2842 | 31 | 90 |
TSVEY, GENNADIY | 2648 | 32 | 90 |
SMITH, CHAIM A | 1792 | 30 | 90 |
SCHNIREL, ANDREW B | 2625 | 30 | 90 |
POTRATZ, DANIEL B | 2491 | 22 | 90 |
SADLER, NATHAN | 2139 | 21 | 90 |
Pingback:Patent Riffs & Links for Sep 5, 2018