Tafas v. Dudas et al

Filing 143

NOTICE of Correction to Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment by Triantafyllos Tafas re 141 Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law# 2 Affidavit Tafas Declaration# 3 Exhibit A# 4 Exhibit B# 5 Exhibit C# 6 Exhibit D# 7 Exhibit E-1# 8 Exhibit E-2# 9 Exhibit F-1# 10 Exhibit F-2# 11 Exhibit G-1# 12 Exhibit G-2# 13 Exhibit G-3# 14 Exhibit G-4# 15 Exhibit G-5# 16 Exhibit G-6# 17 Exhibit G-7# 18 Exhibit G-8# 19 Exhibit H# 20 Exhibit I# 21 Exhibit J# 22 Exhibit K# 23 Exhibit L-1# 24 Exhibit L-2# 25 Exhibit L-3# 26 Exhibit M-1# 27 Exhibit M-2# 28 Exhibit M-3# 29 Exhibit M-4# 30 Errata N# 31 Affidavit Fenili Declaration# 32 Exhibit A# 33 Exhibit B-D# 34 Affidavit Rueda Declaration# 35 Exhibit 1# 36 Exhibit 2# 37 Exhibit 3# 38 Exhibit 4-a# 39 Exhibit 4-b# 40 Exhibit 5# 41 Exhibit 6# 42 Exhibit 7# 43 Exhibit 7-a# 44 Exhibit 8# 45 Exhibit 9# 46 Exhibit 10# 47 Exhibit 11# 48 Exhibit 12# 49 Exhibit 13# 50 Exhibit 13-a# 51 Exhibit 14# 52 Exhibit 14-a# 53 Exhibit 15# 54 Exhibit 16# 55 Exhibit 17# 56 Exhibit 18-a# 57 Exhibit 18-b# 58 Exhibit 18-c# 59 Exhibit 19# 60 Exhibit 20# 61 Exhibit 21# 62 Exhibit 22# 63 Exhibit 23-a# 64 Exhibit 23-b# 65 Exhibit 23-c# 66 Exhibit 23-d# 67 Exhibit 24# 68 Exhibit 25-a# 69 Exhibit 25-b# 70 Exhibit 26# 71 Exhibit 27# 72 Exhibit 28# 73 Exhibit 29-a# 74 Exhibit 28-b# 75 Exhibit 30# 76 Exhibit 31-a# 77 Exhibit 31-b# 78 Exhibit 32# 79 Exhibit 33-a# 80 Exhibit 33-b# 81 Exhibit 34# 82 Exhibit 35-a# 83 Exhibit 35-b# 84 Exhibit 35-c# 85 Exhibit 35-d# 86 Exhibit 35-e# 87 Exhibit 35-f# 88 Exhibit 35-g# 89 Exhibit 36# 90 Exhibit 37# 91 Exhibit 38# 92 Exhibit 39-a# 93 Exhibit 39-b# 94 Exhibit 39-c# 95 Exhibit 40-a# 96 Exhibit 40-b# 97 Exhibit 40-c# 98 Exhibit 41# 99 Exhibit 42# 100 Exhibit 43)(Baden-Mayer, Joanna) Modified on 12/26/2007 to reflect the title of docked entry (klau, ).

Tafas v. Dudas et al

Doc. 143 Att. 32

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 1 of 38

Exhibit A

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 2 of 38

CERTIFICATION ANALYSIS UNDER THE REGULA TORY FLEXIBILITY ACT
Changes to Practice for Continued Examination Filngs, Patent Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims, and Examination of Claims in Patent Applications

Prepared for:

United States Patent and Trademark Offce

Prepared by:

ICF International

-

ICF

INTERNATIONA1. .

June 29, 2007

A08270

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 3 of 38

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations and Acronyms ........ ......... ............. .................. ............... ....... ............. .......... ii
Executive Summary ....... ........ .... .... ......... ........ ...... ........ ..... ..... .... ........ ........ ............... ......... 1
1. Need for and Objectives of

the Rule........................................................................... 3

1.1 Background ........... .......... ........ .......... ............. ........ ........ .... ........ ......................... 3 1.2 The Proposed Rule and Certification.................................................................. 5 1.3 Summary of the Final Rule ................................................................................. 6

2. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments.......................................................... 8
3. Description and Estimate of

the Number of Affected Small Entities......................... 9

3.1 Industries Affected by the Rule .......................................................................... 9 3.2 Small Entities. ....... .......... ............... ...................... .......... .............................. ..... i 0
4. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements........... 15

4.1 Examination Support Document...................................................................... 16 4.2 Petition for Continuing Applications or Continued Examinations ................... 18 4.3 Information Related to Patentably Indistinct Claims....................................... 19

5. Impacts Assessment ............................... ................ ..... ............................................. 19
5. i Methodology................ ........... .......... .......... .......... ............ ......... ...... ........... .... 20 5.2 Results.......................................................................................................... ..... 24
5.3 Conclusion ........... ..... .... .......... ...... .... ..... ......... ....... ........ ...... .............. ...... ..... .... 28

6. Duplicative, Overlapping, and Conflcting Rules..................................................... 28

7. Significant Alternatives Considered and Steps Taken to Minimize Impacts on Small
Entities ........................ ................ ........ .......................... ..................... .... ............ ...... ..... 29

7. i Alternatives Adopted by USPTO...................................................................... 29
7.2 Alternatives Considered But Not Adopted ....................................................... 30
Appendix A:
Appendix B:

Input Cost Estimates .............................................................................32
Estimating the Value of Patent Applications ........................................33

A08271

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 4 of 38

Abbreviations and Acronyms
AIPLA
American Intellectual Propert Law Association
Code of

CFR

Federal Regulations

ESD
FY

Examination Support Document
Fiscal Year
Federal Register

FR

NAICS

North American Industry Classification System
Patent Application Location and Monitoring Patent Cooperation Treaty
Request for Continued Examination

PALM
PCT

RCE
SBA

Small Business Administration

SRR
USC

Suggested Restriction Requirement United States Code

USPTO

United States Patent and Trademark Offce

11

A08272

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 5 of 38

Executive Summary
The United States Patent and Trademark Offce (USPTO) is revising the rules of practice in patent cases relating to continuing applications and requests for continued examination (together referred to as "continued examination filings"), and for the examination of claims in patent applications.
The final rule is intended to ensure that continued examination filings are used effciently to move applications forward. In addition, the final rule requires applicants with a large
number of claims to share the burden of examining the application by subm itting an
examination support document covering all of

the claims in the application (whether in independent or dependent form). The USPTO expects that the changes to the rules of lead to more focused and effcient examination, improve the practice in this final rule wil quality of issued patents, result in patents that issue faster, and give the public earlier notice of just what patentees claim and address the growing practice of filing (by a multiple applications containing patentably indistinct common applicant or assignee) of
claims.
In response to comments addressing the proposed rules that were critical of

the USPTO's

decision to certify the new rules as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the USPTO has revised its certification analysis to more precisely estimate the final rule's impact on small entities. In this report, the the certification analysis. USPTO describes its revised methodology and the results of
To evaluate significant impact, the study considers the ratio of Annualized Incremental Cost as a Percent of Revenue. Impacts are evaluated relative to two screening thresholds:
. Entities at or above a threshold value of three percent are presumed to face

significant impacts unless additional analysis on these entities indicates this wil not be the case.
. Entities at or above a threshold value of one percent are presumed to face more

moderate impacts that qualify as significant if collectively incurred by a substantial number of small entities, as discussed below.
analyzing this rulemaking, the smallest business is modeled as a sole For purposes of proprietor who currently is capable of paying for or financing all necessary patent application costs and maintenance fees (under current rules) associated with an application of a type that would be affected by the final rule. This study assumes that the minimum annual revenue that would support an individual's living expenses, as well as his/her patent application and maintenance costs, is $75,000,
The analysis assumes that a "substantial number" of small entities exists if

the number of entities impacted at a given impact threshold (e.g., three percent) constitutes more than 20 percent of all small entities that apply for patents.

A08273

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 6 of 38

This analysis estimates that the final rule wil result in incremental costs that range from $872 to $13,993 per application (present value),! Based on the methodology and data described in this report, the resulting analysis indicates that no patent applicants wil incur significant impacts (defined as annualized incremental costs in excess of three percent of revenue) due to the final rule. Although some applicants will exceed the lower screening threshold of one percent, the number of small entities in this category is estimated at only 54, or about 0.05 percent of all small entity applicants. Even using data for all applicants as a sensitivity analysis, only 157 small entity applicants fall into this category - about 0.04 percent of all applicants, These figures do not meet the criterion for a "substantial number" of small entities. Therefore. this analysis concludes that USPTO's final rule wil not result in significant economic impacts on a substantial number of small entities.

i Current patent fiing and maintenance costs for applicants that would be affected by the final rule are
estimated at between $19,940 and $49,155.

2

A08274

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 7 of 38

1. Need for and Objectives of

the Rule

practice in patent cases relating to continuing applications and requests for continued examination (together referred to as "continued examination fiings"), and for the examination of claims in patent applications. This section of the report provides background information and briefly discusses the need for and objectives of the rule. Following some initial background information in Section 1. I regarding how the patent application process currently works, and in Section 1.2 regarding USPTO's proposed rules and small entity certifications, Section 1.3 briefly describes the final rule revisions and the objectives they are designed to meet. These changes wil allow the USPTO to conduct a better and more thorough and reliable examination of patent applications.
The United States Patent and Trademark Offce (USPTO) is revising the rules of

1.1 Background
the final rule, this the current patent application review process. When an inventor wants to establish ownership of an invention by patenting it, slhe prepares and submits a patent application to the USPTO. One of the key elements ofa patent application is the statement of "claims." In the context of a patent or patent application, claims provide the legal description that bounds whatever the inventor is claiming as his or her invention. There are two types of claims: independent and dependent. An independent claim stands by itself as a description of the invention or an aspect of the
To provide context for understanding the need for and objectives of section presents an overview of invention. Dependent claims, in the simplest of

terms, reference an independent claim

and cannot stand on their own. In some cases, dependent claims may describe ancilary features, (e,g., "bells and whistles") related to the more fundamental independent claims. In FY 2006, the number of independent claims in patent applications under review by the USPTO ranged from i to over 50, and the number of total claims ranged from 1 to over 350. According to USPTO staff a typical patent application has 20 total claims, while an average patent application has approximately 21 total claims, including approximately 3 independent claims.
According to USPTO staff estimates, over 90 percent of patent applicants use a patent attorney to prepare and prosecute their patent applications. A typical patent application contains many elements, including specifications, claims, and drawings. Most applicants (55 percent) conduct a patent search and include a description of it in the application, although this is not a requirement and many applicants (45 percent) do not conduct a patent search.

The Application Process
Once an applicant submits his or her patent application, a USPTO patent examiner examines the application. Following the initial examination, the USPTO wil take an "initial first action" on the application. If the patent examiner's initial first action is a rejection, then the applicant may fie a response to the USPTO's initial first action. In
3

A08275

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 8 of 38

general, the applicant's response wil modifY the application in some respect, including by deleting claims (usually) or adding claims (occasionally). Following this response, the patent examiner will issue his or her final action on the patent application.

Ifthe USPTO does not grant the patent in the final action, the patent applicant may the rejected application. The process that the applicant pursues varies by case, and there is not a "typical" prosecution path through the patent approval system. However, for the purposes of this final rule, this analysis describes one of the application prosecution paths that would trigger the final rule's continued examination fiing requirements, which are described in Section 1.3.
pursue furter prosecution of

Following the USPTO's final action, an applicant may decide to fie a continuation application. A continuation is considered a separate application relative to the initial
application. However, everyhing that the inventor claims in the original application is
matter. (If

once again claimed in the continuation application, and it should not include any new the applicant wishes to add new subject matter, the applicant would instead
fie a continuation-in-par.) Similar to the initial application, the USPTO takes a first

action on the continuation and the applicant wil be able to respond to that first action jf
necessar by deleting or adding claims or making other modifications. Following the

applicant's response, the USPTO issues its final action on the first continuation.

Ifthe final action on the continuation is a rejection, the applicant may continue his or her application by filing a second continuation application, As described for the first continuation, the USPTO issues a first action, and the patent applicant may submit a response to the first action on the second continuation. Following the applicant's response, the USPTO issues its final action on the second continuation.
prosecution of

The patent applicant may then decide to fie a "request for continued examination" (or "RCE"). An RCE is not a separate application; instead it is a request for continued examination of an application (initial, continuation, or continuation-in-part), without requiring the applicant to fie a continuing application. Although an RCE is not considered an application, the USPTO responds with a first action, and the applicant may respond to the first action. After this response, the USPTO issues its final action on the
RCE.
If the final action on the RCE is a rejection, the applicant may continue prosecution of his or her application by filing a third continuation application, and so on. The baseline (i.e" current) application cost estimated in this study assumes that the USPTO grants the patent after the third continuation and after the applicant pays the USPTO's issue fee.2

Over the 20-year lifespan of

the patent, the USPTO requires patent holders to pay three

patent maintenance fees. These fees are due 3 Yi, 7 Yi, and i i Yi years from the date of

the original patent grant.
2 Applicants that are issued patents earlier in the process would incur lower costs but would not be affected

by the final rule's requirements for continued examination fiings.

4

A08276

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 9 of 38

Patentably Indistinct Claims
USPTO's current rules of practice provide that "Where two or more applications fied by the same applicant contain conflcting claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and suffcient reason for their

retention during pendency in more than one application." (See current Sec. i. 78(b).)

Despite this existing rule, the USPTO stil receives multiple applications with overlapping disclosures, a common inventor, and the same fiing date.
Patent law prevents an inventor from obtaining two patents that cover the same invention or an obvious variation of the same invention. In cases where the patents cover identical inventions, the second patent is considered invalid. If there are obvious variations between the patents, the applicant may fie a terminal disclaimer that states that the second patent to issue wil expire on the same date as the first patent. This terminal disclaimer eliminates the possibilty of an inventor gaining an improper extension of the patent period resulting from the second patent. To prevent double patenting, the patent examiners must closely inspect these applications and require applicants to either fie a terminal disclaimer or combine applications that should have been fied as one application.

Need for the Rule
Although the filings affected by this rulemaking (including continued examination fiings, applications with large numbers of claims, and applications with indistinct claims) are relatively few in number, they occupy a disproportionate portion ofUSPTO resources, Therefore, the USPTO spends a disproportional amount of its review time on relatively few applications, which takes away from the review time that the USPTO could otherwise commit to new initial applications. This situation is a significant cause of the backlog of un examined applications before the USPTO and has created the need for the rule.

1.2 The Proposed Rule and Certification
The USPTO published two proposed rules in January 2006 (Changes to Practice for Continuing Applications, Requests for Continued Examination Practice. and Applications Containing Patentablv Indistinct Claims, 71 Federal Register 48, January 3, 2006); and
Changes to Practice for the Examination of Claims in Patent Applications, 71 Federal Register 61, January 3, 2006). Under the first proposed rule, which addressed continuing

applications, RCEs, and patentably indistinct claims, the USPTO proposed to change the rules of practice to require that: (I) any second or subsequent continued examination fiing (continuation or continuation-in-part application or request for continued examination) include a showing as to why the amendment, argument, or evidence could not have been submitted prior to the close of prosecution after a single continuation or continuation-in-part application or request for continued examination; and (2) multiple applications that have the same claimed fiing or priority date, substantial overlapping disclosure, a common inventor, and a common assignee include either an explanation of

5

A08277

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 10 of 38

how the claims are patentably distinct, or a terminal disclaimer and explanation of

why

patentably indistinct claims have been fied in multiple applications.
Under the second proposed rule, which addressed the examination of claims, the USPTO proposed to revise application review practices as follows: (1) the USPTO would conduct "representative claims," which would have included all of an initial examination only of the independent claims and only the dependent claims that the applicant expressly representative claims is designated for initial examination; and (2) if the number of greater than ten, the USPTO would require the applicant to share the burden of examining the application by submitting an examination support document (ESD) to
provide certain information regarding all of

the representative claims.

In each of the two published notices, the USPTO certified that an initial Regulatory Flexibilty Act analysis was not required because the proposed changes would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In response to this certification, the USPTO received a number of comments, which are discussed in Section 2.

1.3 Summary of the Final Rule
The final rule combines the two proposed rules described above. As a convenience, this analysis distinguishes between the final rule requirements that originated in the first proposed rulemaking (the "continued examination fiing requirements") and the final rule requirements that originated in the second proposed rulemaking (the "claims requirements") because many applicants are not affected by both sets of requirements.

Continued Examination Filng Requirements
The USPTO is changing the continued examination practice because each continued examination filing, whether a continuing application or request for continued examination, requires the USPTO to delay taking up a new application and thus un examined applications before the USPTO. Further. the contributes to the backlog of current practice allows an applicant to generate an unlimited string of continued examination filings from an initial application. In such a string of continued examination filings, the exchange between examiners and applicants becomes less beneficial and suffers from diminishing returns with each continued examination filing.3
Therefore, in the final rule, the USPTO revised the continued examination filing rules so
that an applicant may fie at most two continuing applications (or two continuation-in-

part applications, or one continuation application and one continuation-in-part the initial application or two continuation or continuation-in-part applications, without any showing (referred to as a "petition" in this analysis) as to why the amendment, argument, or evidence could
application) plus a request for continued examination in anyone of

l See Changes to Practice for Continuing Applications. Requests for Continued Examination Practice, and
Applicalions Containing Paten/ably Indistinct Claims, 71 Federal Register 48, Januai 3, 2006.

6

A08278

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 11 of 38

prosecution after a single continuation or continuation-in-part application or request for continued examination. Any additional continuation application, continuation-in-part application, or request for continued examination, however, would have to be supported by a petition in order to be considered
not have been submitted prior to the close of

by the USPTO.

The final rule also eases the burden of examining multiple applications that have the same claimed filing or priority date, substantial overlapping disclosure, a common inventor, and common assignee by requiring that all patentably indistinct claims in such applications be submitted in a single application (absent good and suffcient reason).4
The current, unrestricted continued examination practice and the filing of

multiple applications containing patentably indistinct claims are impairing the USPTO's abilty to examine new applications, even without real certainty that these unrestricted practices effectively advance prosecution, improve patent quality, or serve the typical applicant or the public. The final rule is intended to ensure that continued examination filings are used effciently to move applications forward. The USPTO expects that the changes to the rules of practice in this final rule wil: (1) lead to more focused and effcient examination, improve the quality of issued patents, result in patents that issue faster, and just what patentees claim; and (2) address the growing give the public earlier notice of multiple applications containing practice of fiing (by a common applicant or assignee) of patentably indistinct claims.

Claims Requirements
In response to the proposed claims rule, the USPTO received a substantial number of comments from the public opposing the "representative claims" examination approach and suggesting that the USPTO simply adopt a strategy based upon whether an application contains more than a given number of independent and total claims. In response to these public comments, the USPTO modified the final rule to make the presentation of more than five independent claims or more than twenty-five total claims more than ten representative claims) the threshold for (rather than the presentation of invoking the examination support document requirement. .
The final rule provides that if the number of independent claims is greater than five, or total claims is greater than twenty-five, the applicant must share the burden the number of of examining the application by submitting an examination support document covering all of the claims in the application (whether in independent or dependent fonn).
The final rule wil not require small entities, as defined in i 3 CFR i 2 1 .802, to include in the elements that would have been required under the proposed rule. their ESDs one of Small entities will not need to identify, for each reference cited, all the limitations of each of the claims (whether independent or dependent) that are disclosed by the references. Large entities, however, wil need to include this information in their ESDs.
4 The analysis estimates that there wíl be no incremental costs resulting from this requirement, as
discussed in Section 4.

7

A08279

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 12 of 38

2. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments
In response to the proposed rulemakings, the USPTO received 342 comments on the continuing application requirements, and 198 comments on the claims requirements.
This section summarizes only the comments addressing the USPTO's certification of

proposed rules under the Regulatory Flexibilty Act.
A number of comments generally asserted that the USPTO did not comply with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibilty Act in certifYing that the changes in the proposed rulemakings wil not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The comments stated that:

the

the proposed paying reduced patent fees and excludes any application from a small business that has assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed any rights in the invention to an entity which would not qualifY for small entity status;
(1) the definition of small entities used by the USPTO in its certification of rules is designed for the purpose of (2) the USPTO's certification did not adequately address the impact of

the proposed rules

on small entities, and the USPTO failed to provide a credible factual basis to justifY its certification that the proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in compliance with 5 U .S,C. 605(b);

(3) the rule changes would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities seeking patents due to the additional costs associated with preparing an
application, establishing the required showing under proposed § 1.78(d)(1 )(iv) and

§ 1. 14(t), and supplying an examination support document in compliance with proposed § i .26 i, and would hinder the abilities of small entities to enhance their applications and
protect their inventions;

(4) the USPTO should prepare an initial Regulatory Flexibilty Analysis and republish the proposed rules before issuing any final rule to enable the USPTO to closely examine the impact on the affected small entities, encourage small entities to comment on additional information provided by the analysis, identify viable regulatory alternatives to the proposed rules, and demonstrate the USPTO's compliance with the Regulatory
Flexibilty Act;

(5) the USPTO did not describe any viable alternatives to the proposed rules to provide regulatory relief to small entities as required under 5 U.S.C. 603(c);
(6) the rule changes would be invalid and vulnerable to challenges under 5 U.S.C. 6 i 1 if the Regulatory Flexibilty Act;

the USPTO fails to comply with the requirements of

(7) the USPTO should exempt small entities from complying with the proposed rules to avoid further scrutiny under the Regulatory Flexibilty Act; and

8

A08280

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 13 of 38

the fact that several large companies support the proposed changes it is questionable whether the rule changes are truly neutral towards small companies and that a bias in favor oflarge companies and against small entities could be in violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
(8) in light of In response to the comments that were critical of the USPTO's decision to certify, the USPTO has established a business size stndard for purposes of conducting analyses or making certifications under the Regulatory Flexibilty Act for patent.related regulations (see 71 Federal Register 67109, November 20, 2006). The USPTO also has revised its certification analysis to more precisely estimate the final rule's impact on small business entities. In this report, the USPTO describes its revised methodology and results of the certification analysis.

In addition, in response to public comments on the proposed rules, including those
comments described above, the USPTO revised the

continued examination fiing

requirements in the final rule. Under the proposed rule, the USPTO would have required applicants to fie a petition with the second continuation, continuation-in-part, or RCE. The final rule allows two continuations and an RCE without a petition. This relaxation in rule language will reduce the number of affected small entities.
In addition, the USPTO changed the final rule requirements to exempt small businesses, the requirements in the ESD. Under the final rule, the USPTO wil not require these small entities to identifY, for each reference cited, all the limitations of each of the claims (whether independent or dependent) that are disclosed by the references, The USPTO considers this element of the ESD to be the most challenging for patent applicants. As a result, the costs associated with the final rule wil be reduced considerably for small entities,
as defined in 13 CFR 121.802, from one of

3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Affected

Sm all Entities
To identify the small entities affected by the final rule, this analysis first considers, in Section 3.1, the industries affected by the rule, Section 3.2 then focuses on the definition of small entity that this analysis uses and also estimates the number of small entities affected by the final rule.
3.1 Industries Affected by the Rule

Patents are intended to spur research and innovation. Because research and innovation
can occur in any industry, the universe of

potential patent applicants includes all

industries. Certin industries tend to account for relatively larger shares of patent filings over certain time periods, but the industries that comprise this group can shift over time. Moreover, the span of industrial fields that generate patent fiings is quite broad, as suggested by the USPTO's organization of some of its patent filing review activities around the following seven broad "technology centers":

9

A08281

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 14 of 38

. Biotechnology and Organic fields
. Chemical and Materials Engineering fields

. Computer Architecture Softare and Information Security

. Communications
. Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
. Transportation, Electronic Commerce, Construction, Agriculture, Licensing and

Review
. Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing and Products

The USPTO does not collect or maintain statistical data on how many patents or patent fiings fall within a given industry. This analysis assumes that patent applicants are spread across all industries and that all industries wil be equally impacted by the rule.s
3.2 Small Entities

3.2.1 Definition of "Small Entity"
The Small Business Administration (SBA) small business size standards applicable to most analyses conducted to comply with the Regulatory Flexibilty Act are set forth in 13 CFR 121.201. These regulations generally define small businesses as those with fewer than a maximum number of employees or less than a specified level of annual receipts for the entity's industrial sector or North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. The USPTO, however, recently adopted an alternate size standard as the size standard for the purpose of conducting an analysis or making a certification under the Regulatory Flexibility Act for patent-related regulations (see 71 Federal Register 67109, November 20, 2006 for a detailed discussion of the USPTO's considerations in establishing this size standard).6 Unlike the SBA small business size standards set forth in l3 CFR 121.20 i, this size standard is not industry-specific. Specifically, the USPTO's definition of small business concern for Regulatory Flexibilty Act purposes is a business or other concern that: (i) meets the SBA's definition ofa "business concern or concern" set forth in 13 CFR 121.05; and (2) meets the size standards set forth in 13 CFR 121.802 for the purpose of paying reduced patent fees, namely an entity: (a) whose number of employees,
S Although some industries may generate relatively more patent applications than others (as noted above),

these industries are not more likely to face significant impacts because the applications are most likely to
come either from large entities or from small entities that are able to attact investment capital. The

analysis described in this report is not sensitive to this assumption. 6 This small business size standard previously was established for purposes of identitYing the criteria
entities must meet to pay reduced patent fees; patent applicants that choose to self-identitY themselves on

the patent application qualitY for reduced patent fees. The USPTO captures this data in the Patent Application Location and Monitoring (PALM) database system, which tracks information on each patent application submitted to USPTO. Some patent applicants contend that applicants do not always selfidentitY as small entities even though they would qualitY for reduced fees by doing so. Assuming this is

true, then data from PALM would understate the number of small entity applicants. The analysis specifically considers this possibility, as detailed in Section 3.2.2.

10

A08282

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 15 of 38

including affliates, does not exceed 500 persons; and (b) which has not assigned, granted, conveyed, or licensed (and is under no obligation to do so) any rights in the invention to any person who made it and could not be classified as an independent inventor, or to any concern which would not qualify as a non-profit organization or a small business concern under this definition.

3.2.2 Small Entities Affected by the Rule
This analysis estimates the number of small entities using two alternative sets of data taken from the USPTO's Patent Application Location and Monitoring (PALMf database system, which tracks information on each patent application submitted to USPTO:

(1) Small Entity Data Set. The first data set consists of data for just those FY 2006 fiings for which the applicant self-identified as a small entity for
purposes of

paying reduced patent fees. Some patent applicants, however,

contend that applicants do not always self-identify as small entities even though they would qualify for reduced fees by doing so. To the extent that this is true, then this first data set wil understate the number of small entity applicants.
(2) All Entity Data Set. As a sensitivity analysis, the second data set

considers data for all FY 2006 filings. The rationale for this data set is drawn from a report issued by the Small Business Administration stating that approximately 99.9 percent of businesses qualifY as small entities using a size threshold of 500 employees (i.e., the same threshold that appears in the USPTO alternative definition of small entity).8 Therefore, the second data set considers data for all FY 2006 filings as an approximation of the 99.9 percent figure. This data set clearly is overly conservative (it implicitly assumes that large entities do not submit any patent fiings) and is useful primarily as a bounding case.
which data set is used, however, not all entities will be affected by the final rule or wil incur impacts. Therefore, this study analyzes each data set to estimate the number of small entities affected by the final rule. Affected small entities fall into one of three categories: (1) fiings affected by the claims requirements only; (2) fiings affected by the continued examination fiing requirements only; and (3) filings affected by both the claims and the continued examination filing requirements.
Regardless of

7 The number of applications included in this analysis account for only those applications with claims data

reported in PALM. The USPTO receives some applications without knowing the number of claims in the application. As a result, the number of applications the USPTO received in FY 2006 may be higher than what is reported in this report. · Small Business Administration Offce of Advocacy. The Small Business Economy For Data Year 2005, A Report to the President. U.S. Governent Printing Offce: Washington, DC. December 2006.
See page 8.

11

A08283

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 16 of 38

Note: It would be preferable to use data for each applicant, rather than each fiing, in order to evaluate impacts on any applicants that submit more than one patent filing. The data obtained from PALM do not support such an analysis. Consequently, this analysis inherently assumes that each applicant submits patent filings pertaining to one invention within any given year. There is some support for this assumption, at least for smaller applicants, based on comments requesting that applicants continue to be permitted to fie divisional applications serially (Le., as through continuations or continuation-in-pars), rather than in parallel (i.e., by submitting multiple related applications simultaneously), in order to spread out the associated cost burden over time. This assumption likely does not hold for many large firms and it may not hold for some small firms. Nevertheless, it is the very smallest entities (e.g., sole proprietorships) that can likely to hold for most of least afford an incremental burden,

Entities Affected by the Claims Requirements
The claims requirements in the final rule apply to a portion of

total initial patent applications fied. In fiscal year 2006, there were 285,324 initial applications. The final rule requirements apply to patent applications with more than five independent claims or more than 25 total claims. However, as described in the Federal Register notice believe that once the final rule is adopted, accompanying the final rule, USPTO staff applicants with more than five but less than 15 independent claims, or more than 25 but less than 75 total claims, will choose to prosecute their application in a manner that does not trigger the claims requirements. They wil be able to do this under the final rule by submitting an initial application containing up to five independent claims and up to 25 two continuation total claims, and then adding a similar number of claims in each of applications (or two continuation-in-part applications, or one continuation application and one continuation-in-part application) as pennitted without a petition (see Section 1).
they had been applied As a result, this analysis anticipates that the claims requirements, if to applications during FY 2006, would have affected only those initial patent applications having more than 15 independent claims or more than 75 total claims. Based on analysis of PALM data on total claims in initial patent applications,9 approximately 1,105 fiings, or 1.0 percent, submitted by small entities and 3,742 fiings, or 0.9 percent, submitted by all entities in FY 2006 would incur costs under the claims requirements. These affected applications can be further subdivided, however, into two groups.
. Claims Requirements Onlv. 780 of

the small entity initial applications (1.0 percent) affected by the claims requirements, or 2,818 of all initial applications
(1.0 percent), have i 5 or more independent claims and 75 or more total claims.

These initial applications are not affected by the continued examination fiing requirements.
9 PALM contains data on the number of independent claims and total claims in each application. Based on
analysis of this data a "rule-of-thumb" approximation is one independent claim out of

every seven total

claims. Assuming this distribution, the typical application will exceed the threshold for total claims more frequently than the threshold for independent claims. The analysis models total claims based on reported independent claims and the rule-of-thumb described above.
12

A08284

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 17 of 38

. Continued Examination Filnii Requirements and Claims Requirements. 325 of

the small entity filings (0.3 percent) affected by the claims requirements, or 924 of all filings (0.2 percent), are also are affected by the continued examination filing requirements.

Entities Affected by the Continued Examination Filing Requirements Only
The final rule requirements related to continued examination filings apply to applications or chains of continued examination fiings that include more than two continuing applications (continuation or continuation-in-part applications), and more than a single request for continued examination in anyone ofthese three applications (the initial or two continuing applications). Note that these are not the same as initial applications, as discussed in Section 1. For example, while there were 285,324 initial applications in FY 2006, there were 408,396 total filings. A portion of these total filings would be affected by the final rule's continued examination fiing requirements.
To estimate the affected entities, this analysis assumes that all applicants filing their third, fourth, fifth, or greater continuing application and continuation-in-part application wil be affected by the continued examination fiing requirements. Exhibit 3- 1 shows a box
Exhibit 3- 1

Applications Affected by the Continued Examination Filng Requirements, ut 0 a .pPllcations
APPLICATION PROSECUTION STAGE
Initial Application
First CON/CIP

o f IIA lNU.MBER OF
.. 15 IC I .. 75 TC .. 15 IC I .. 75 TC

INDEPENDENT CLAIMSI TOTAL CLAIMS IN THE APPLICATION
;. 15 LC I;. 75 TC

;. 15 iC/;. 75 TC

Second CON/CIP

.. 15 1C I .. 75 TC

;.15IC/;.75TC
:: 15 IC I:: 75 TC
:: 15 IC/::75

Third CON/CIP
Fourt CON/CIP
Fift CON/CIP

.. 15 IC I.. 75 TC
.. 15 IC I .. 75 TC

TC

.. 15 IC I.. 75 TC
.. 15 IC I .. 75 TC
.. 15 IC I .. 75 TC

;. 151C I;. 75 TC
;. 15 IC I;. 75 TC ;. 15 IC I;. 75 TC

Sixth CON/CIP

Seventh CON/CIP
Eighth CON/CIP

.. 15 IC/..75TC
.. 15 IC I .; 75 TC

;. 15 IC I;. 75 TC
;. 15 IC I ;. 75 TC

Ninth CON/CIP
Tenth+ CON/CIP

.. 15 IC I.. 75 TC

;. 15 IC I:: 75 TC

13

A08285

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 18 of 38

around the affected applications. The double-lined box surrounds applications affected by the continued exaination fiing requirements. Those applications in the center column are affected only by these requirements, whereas those in the right column also are affected by the claims requirements.1o
In addition to the applications identified in Exhibit 3-1, this analysis also considers FY 2006 RCE fiings to determine those RCE fiings that trigger the continued examination filing requirements under the final rule.
Based on analysis of

PALM data, approximately 3,300 fiings, or 3.0 percent, submitted

by small entities and 11,326 fiings, or 2.8 percent, submitted by all entities in FY 2006

would incur costs under the continued examination filing requirements. These affected fiings can be further subdivided, however, into two groups.
. Continued Examination Filng Requirements Only. 2,995 of

the small entity filings (2.7 percent) affected by the continued examination filing requirements, or 10,402 of all 'filings (2.6 percent), have 15 or fewer independent claims and 75 or
fewer total claims. These fiings are not affected by the claims requirements.

. Continued Examination Filng Requirements and Claims Requirements. 325 of

the small entity filings (0.3 percent) affected by the continued examination filing requirements, or 924 of all filings (0.2 percent), have more than 15 independent claims or more than 75 total claims. These fiings also are affected by the claims
requ irements.

Summary of Small Entities Affected by the Final Rule
Exhibit 3-2 summarizes the results described above.

Smf ar 0 dectS ii aE n..ies u m Aff em tit
Small Entity Data Set Number Percent Total in Universe Affected Affected
Only Claims Reauirements
Only Continued

Exhibit 3-2

Total in Universe

All Entity Data Set Number Percent Affected Affected
2,818
10,402

79,050
111,178
I i 1,178

780

1.0%

285,324

1.0%

Examination Filing Reauirements Both

2,995
325

2.7%
0.3%

408,396 408,396

2.5%

924

0.2%

10 The methodology used to quantifY the applications represented in the exhibit results in significant

double-counting of claims. As a result, the analysis wil overstate the number of applications affected simultaneously by both the claims requirements and the continued examination tiling requirements.

14

A08286

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 19 of 38

4. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other

Compliance Requirements
The final rule establishes three compliance requirements that wil allow the USPTO to conduct a better and more thorough and reliable examination of patent applications. .
. Submittl of an examination support document (ESD) for certin applications;
. Submittal of a petition in support of certin requests for continuing applications or

continued examinations;
. Submittl of information related to patentably indistinct claims.

The following subsections discuss these requirements and estimate the associated burden on applicants that must comply with them. To develop the estimates for the incremental costs resulting from the requirements of the final rule, the analysis uses the following information and data sources:

. .

Activities resulting in costs were identified based on a review ofthe draft final rule (provided by the USPTO), the proposed rules, and on discussions with
USPTO staff. i i

USPTO fees charged oflatent applicants and patent holders were taken from the
i
USPTO's fee schedule.

. The costs associated with baseline patent application preparation were taken from

Report of

an American Intellectual Propert Law Association (AIPLA) report entitled the Economic Survey 2005.13
provided estimated unit costs for a variety of

. Finally, USPTO staff

factors, as

noted in Appendix A.

All costs are calculated in 2006 dollars. The analysis applies a legal services labor rate of $233 per hourl4 (a composite of attorney and paralegal wage rates), and conservatively assume the applicant's labor rate is $150 per hour. The resulting costs are summarized in Section 5.2.

i i Changes to Practice for Continuing Applications, Requests for Continued Examination Practice. and
Applications Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims, 71 FR 48 (Jan. 3,2006) ; Changes to Practice for
the Examination of

Claims in Patent Applications, 71 FR 61 (Jan. 3, 2006) 12 http://ww.uspto.gov/web/offces/ac/qs/opefee2007februaryOi.htm.
ii AIPLA. Report of/he Economic Survey 2005. Arlington, VA. September 2005.
14 This labor rate is a blended composite wage based on data from the AIPLA report entitled Report of

the

Economic Survey 2005. The analysis updated the 2004 composite wage rate to 2006 dollars based on the
Consumer Price Index.

15

A08287

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 20 of 38

4.1 Examination Support Document
Under the final rule, patent applicants wil be required to submit an ESD if

the

application contains more than five independent claims or more than 25 total claims. The final rule states that the ESD must contain the following six elements (Section
1.261 (a)(1)-(6) of

the final rule):

(I) A statement that a preexamination search was conducted, including an identification of the field of search by United States class and subclass and the the search, where applicable, and, for database searches, the search logic date of
or chemical strcture or sequence used as a query, the name of searched and the database service, and the date of

the fie or fies

the search;

(2) An information disclosure statement in compliance with § i .98 citing the reference or references deemed most closely related to the subject matter of each of the claims (whether in independent or dependent form);
the claims (whether in independent or dependent form) that are disclosed by the reference; how each of the claims (whether in independent or (4) A detailed explanation of dependent form) is patentable over the references cited with the particularity required by § i. 1 l(b) and (c); the utility of the invention as defined in each of the (5) A concise statement of independent claims; and where each limitation of each of the claims (whether in independent (6) A showing of
(3) For each reference cited, an identification of all thè limitations of each of

or dependent form) finds support under the first paragraph of35 U.S.C. 112 in the
written description ofthe specification. If the application claims the benefit of one or more applications under title 35, United States Code, the showing must also include where each limitation of each of the claims finds support under the first paragraph of35 U.S.C. 112 in each such application in which such support exists.

Patent applicants with applications that exceed the independent or total claims thresholds wil incur costs to prepare and submit the ESD.
To estimate the cost of the ESD, the analysis considers each of

the six elements in the

ESD.
The first element of

the ESD requires the applicant to conduct a patent search. Although

applicants currently are not required to conduct a patent search, most patent applicants part of the application process. According to AIPLA (55 percent) conduct one as. estimates, the cost ofa patent search ranges from approximately $1,000 for a relatively simple patent application up to approximately $2,500 for a relatively complex patent application.

Under the final rule, applicants that must prepare an ESD wil have an incentive to
complete the patent search prior to completion of

their applications and ESDs. The

reason for this is that doing so wil reduce their costs for completing other portions ofthe

16

A08288

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 21 of 38

ESD (due to the heightened familarity they wil have with the patent search relative to the application). Given this incentive, it would be reasonable to assume that all applicants required to prepare an ESD (including conducting a patent search) would choose to complete the patent search prior to completing their application. Such an assumption would allow the analysis to account for lower ESD preparation costs than apply in cases where the patent search is not conducted until after the application is completed. Nevertheless, as a conservatism, the anàlysis assumes that only 50 percent of applicants in this situation wil conduct the patent search prior to completing the application. The remaining 50 percent of applicants facing ESD requirements are assumed to complete the application first, even though doing so leads to higher ESD preparation costs.
Exhibit 4-1 presents the time estimates for each element of the ESD, assuming the applicant haslhasn't completed the patent search prior to completing the application.

Exhibit 4- 1

Examination S upport

D T /C E'
Patent Search is

ocument ime ost stimates Estimate Assuming Estimate Assuming
Patent Search is

ESD Element
Element 1

Cost Basis

Element 2

Element 3*

ADPlication-based Application-based First two independent claims Remaining independent claims First 10 dependent claims Remaining dependent claims
Independent claims

Conducted Prior to Application $1,000 - $2,500

i hour
30 minutes each
i 0 minutes each
10 minutes each

Conducted After Application $1,000 - $2,500 1 hour
40 minutes each
10 minutes each
10 minutes each

5 minutes each
i 0 minutes each

5 minutes each
i 5 minutes each

Element 4 Element 5

Dependent claims Application-based First two independent claims Remaining independent claims
Dependent claims
the ESD.

No additional time

needed
30 minutes
20 minutes each

No additional time needed 30 minutes
20 minutes each
i 0 minutes each

Element 6

i 0 minutes each

· To mitigate the fmal rule's cost impact on smaU entitles, the USPTO will not require small entities, as defined in 13
efR 121.802, to complete Element 3 of

..

5 minutes each

5 minutes each

17

A08289

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 22 of 38

This analysis assumes that the cost associated with three of

the ESD elements is

"application-based." Specifically, for elements 1,2, and 5 ofthe ESD, applicants wil incur a flat cost. Conversely, the cost incurred by applicants to complete elements 3, 4,
and 6 of the ESD wil vary depending on the number of

independent and dependent

claims in an application. To reduce the final rule's cost impact on small entities, however, the final rule does not require small entities to complete Element 3.
Exhibit 4-2 summarizes the resulting estimates of incremental ESD costs for affected small entities.

. Assuming a patent search is conducted before the patent application is completed, this analysis estimates that the incremental cost associated with the ESD ranges
from $2,563 to $ 1 0, 1 36.

. Assuming a patent search is conducted after the patent application is completed, this analysis estimates that the incremental cost associated with the ESD ranges from $5,170 to $13,121.
Exhibit 4-2 Summary of Small Entity Incremental Costs Associated with the ESD Incremental Cost For applicants that already conduct a patent search in the $2,563-$10, I 36* baseline For applicants that do not conduct a patent search in the $5, i 70-$13, i 2 1 * baseline
· Cost of preparng an Examination Support Document vares depending on lIe numbr of claims in lIe application. Range shown covers up to 50 indepndent claims or 350 total claims. The analysis does not assume a range of costs per application, but instead applies the spcific cost appropriate to lIe number of claims in each application.

4.2 Petition for Continuing Applications or Continued

Examinations
The final rule also sets a reporting requirement related to continued examination fiings. According to the final rule, an application or chain of continued examination fiings may include no more than two continuing applications (continuation or continuation-in-part applications), and no more than a single request for continued examination in anyone of these three applications (the initial or two continuing applications), without a petition showing why the amendment, argument, or evidence presented could not have been previously submitted. Based on a USPTO staff estimate, this analysis estimates that the petition required under the final rule will cost applicants $ i ,000 to complete.ls

IS In the OMB Paperwork Burden Analysis for the proposed continued examination fiings rule, the

the petition to be $572. As a conservatism, this analysis assumes the cost of the petition wil be higher ($1,000).
USPTO estimated the cost of

i8

A08290

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 23 of 38

4.3 Information Related to Patentably Indistinct Claims

The final rule also contains a reporting requirement to address patentably indistinct claims. This requirement applies to applicants with pending applications or patents that the filing date ofthe pending (1) have an effective fiing date within two months of application; and (2) name at least one inventor in common with the pending application. Under the final rule. the applicant must name these other commonly-owned applications or patents and must fie a terminal disclaimer or explain how the applications (or they have the same application and patent) contain only patentably distinct claims if effective filing date and contain substantial overlapping disclosure.

The analysis estimates that there wil be no costs associated with the indistinct claims the rule. The intention of the provision is to close a loophole that might portion of
otherwise open after the ESD provisions are promulgated. That is, to avoid preparing an

ESD, an applicant might otherwise be able to divide his or her claims among two
simultaneous applications ("parallel prosecution"). The indistinct claims provision would

prevent this by forcing applicants to justify the indistinct claims in the applications, submit a terminal disclaimer (the costs ofwhich are associated with existing rules) or,
more likely, abandoning one of application. USPTO staff

the applications and adding its claims to the other

believe it would not be possible to successfully justify the dual

applications in this case. The applicant, too, would realize this and therefore would not
advance, the effect of

submit such applications. Thus, given that the final rule would establish these rules in the indistinct claims provision would be to prevent the dual application scenario from being used as a means of avoiding the ESD requirement.
not generate incremental costs in this situation

Applicants currently fie dual applications for reasons other than avoiding the prospective
ESD requirement. This final rule would

because 37 CFR L.78(b) currently provides that applicants can be required to eliminate patentably indistinct claims from all but one application and the double patenting doctrine requires a terminal disclaimer ¡fthe patentably indistinct claims are not eliminated from all but one application.

5. Impacts Assessment
To comply with the Regulatory Flexibilty Act, agencies must determine whether proposed actions wil have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of the action wil not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. If small entities, then the agency may certify that this is the case instead of preparing a regulatory flexibilty analysis, as would otherwise be required under the Act.
This section considers whether the costs of the rule wil lead to a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Section 5,1 describes the methodology

used in this assessment. Section 5,2 presents the results of

the analysis. Finally, Section

5.3 draws conclusions regarding whether certification is appropriate.

19

A08291

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 24 of 38

5.1 Methodology
the rule wil lead to a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, this analysis proceeds in four general steps. To assess whether the costs of

(I) Select an appropriate indicator for measuring impacts;
(2) Estimate the incremental compliance costs of

the final rule;

(3) Quantify the impacts and the number of entities impacted; and

(4) Evaluate the impacts.
Each of

these steps is described below.

5.1.1 Selection of Impact Measure
The analysis evaluates impacts based on the ratio of annualized incremental cost ås a percent of total revenue. This measure was selected after evaluating the following six candidate measures:

. Incremental Cost. This measure considers the increase in cost (present value) to a given entity resulting from the rule. The incremental cost is equivalent to the cost of obtaining a patent under the new rule minus the cost of obtaining a patent under the current rules. While intuitively simple, this measure does not address
the significance of the cost relative to any characteristic (e.g., size) of the small entity that incurs the cost. Therefore, incremental cost is used in this analysis only as an intermediate result.

. Annualized Incremental Cost. This measure calculates what the annual

the incremental cost (as described above) incremental cost of the rule would be if were financed and paid off in annual installments. This measure can be useful in situations where it is reasonable to allocate costs over a multi-year period. Spreading costs over time is generally appropriate for capital investments (e.g., equipment) that wil contribute to income over an extended period. In the case of patents, for example, it is reasonable to allocate the cost of obtaining a patent over the 20-year life of the resulting patent, because the patent holder retains exclusive rights over the patent during that time. In fact, generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for amortizing patents require patents to be amortized over the life of the patent.16 Nevertheless, this measure by itself does not address the significance of the cost relative to the entity that incurs it. Therefore, annualized incremental cost is used in this analysis only as an intermediate result.
. Percent Increase in Costs. This measure calculates the incremental cost as a

percentage increase relative to the "baseline" costs, which are the costs applicable
in the absence of

the rule. The percent increase in costs can be useful,

16 See, for example, Statement of Accounting Standards No. J 42, Goodwil and Other Intangible Assets,

Financial Accounting Standards Board, June 2001.

20

A08292

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 25 of 38

particularly when percentage increases are smalL. However, this measure does not
address the significance of

the cost relative to the entity that incurs the cost. For

example, even if a rule leads to a 100 percent increase in costs, that increase might not be significant to an entity ifthe original cost is suffciently smalL. In addition, estimating the "baseline" cost of preparing a patent application is diffcult due to the difference between applications with respect to the complexity prior art, and the skils and experience of the of the invention, the state of applicant.
. Cost as a Percent of the Expected Value of

the Patent. This measure considers
the expected value of

the incremental cost as a fraction of

the patent. In theory,

this measure should be very useful in evaluating whether impacts are likely to be significant. In practice, however, this approach presents significant challenges. For example, it would not be possible to identitY the expected value ofindividual
patent applications, which would be ideal from" a theoretical standpoint. Instead,

it would be necessary to apply one or more average values and make related assumptions. This study evaluated the literature to find information on the value of patent applications and identified estimates ranging from $220,000 to $ 1.3 this millon. These finding do not appear suffcientiy robust to support use of measure for the present purposes (see Appendix B for further discussion). value that patents and Finally, this measure would not recognize other types of patent applications can provide to applicants (e.g., by providing enhanced competitive protection to existing business lines).
. Incremental Cost as a Percent of Revenue, and Annualized Incremental Cost as a

Percent of Revenue. These measures consider cost as a percentage of an entity's total revenue - a common measure ofan entity's size - and are common screening measures for evaluating whether costs are significant. All else equal, costs that are small relative to a firm's size are less significant than costs that are larger. Although other factors also influence whether a given cost is significant to an entity, such as the entity's profitabilty and its abilty to "pass through" costs to its customers, these two ratios both are useful screening measures that are applicable to most types of entities.
. Incremental Cost as a Percent of Profits. Incremental cost relative to profits is

often considered a useful measure of impacts because profit represents "net" revenue after all expenses have been paid. This measure raises some unique issues, however, including the "adequacy" of any given return on equity, the effect of tax incentives on small entities, and whether a cost should be considered "more significant" to firms that are managed poorly as opposed to firms that are managed more effectively. From a more mechanical perspective, profits data are relatively diffcult to obtain, particularly when affected entities span numerous industries, as is the case with patent applicants.
This study focuses on annualized incremental cost as a percent of

revenue for several

reasons: (i) it considers costs on an annualized basis, which is consistent with the

21

A08293

Case 1:07-cv-00846-JCC-TRJ

Document 143-33

Filed 12/21/2007

Page 26 of 38

generally accepted recognition that a patent is an asset conveying a multiyear earning potential; (2) it evaluates impacts relative to revenue, which is a useful and relevant an entity; (3) it can be applied readily across many industries and the size of measure of entity types; (4) data availability typically is not an impediment to analysis; and (5) most people understand it without diffculty.

5.1.2 Estimation of Incremental Compliance Costs
The analysis estimates incremental costs resulting from the requirements of

the final rule

using the information and sources described in Section 4 and Appendix A. These sources include USPTO staff, AIPLA, and the USPTO fee schedules. The resulting costs are summarized in Section 5.2. The incremental costs are annualized the patent) using an interest rate of over a period of20 years (to coincide with the life of
seven percent.

5.1.3 Quantify Impacts and Number of Entities Impacted
the final llle and the number of In the next step, the analysis quantifies the impacts of entities impacted at the identified thresholds (described in Section 5.1.4). Impacts are based on incremental cos