Tafas v. Dudas et al

Filing 178

NOTICE of Submission by Polestar Capital Associates, LLC, Norseman Group, LLC re 173 Memorandum in Support, Exhibits 21-27 to Amici Brief in Support of Summary Judgment (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 21# 2 Exhibit 22# 3 Exhibit 23# 4 Exhibit 24# 5 Exhibit 25# 6 Exhibit 26# 7 Exhibit 27.1# 8 Exhibit 27.2# 9 Exhibit 27.3)(Franco, Craig) Modified text on 12/31/2007 (klau, ).

Tafas v. Dudas et al

Doc. 178 Att. 5

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

Document 178-6

Filed 12/27/2007

Page 1 of 5

Exhibit 25
Boundy v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Defendant [Patent Office's] Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Civil Action 03-CV-557-A (E.D.Va. Apr. 23 2004) (excerpts)

Dockets.Justia.com

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

Document 178-6

Filed 12/27/2007

Page 2 of 5

P000729

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

Document 178-6

Filed 12/27/2007

Page 3 of 5

claim construction, etc.).

D.

As " Q u a s i - J u d i c i a l " Officials, E x a m i n e r s H a v e I n d e p e n d e n t Decision M a k i n g A u t h o r i t y W h e n R e j e c t i n g o r Allowing C l a i m s

B o u n d y ' s a l l e g a t i o n that, b e c a u s e e x a m i n e r s a r e " q u a s i - j u d i c i a l " o f f i c i a l s h e s h o u l d s o m e h o w be permitted to have his claim rejections and merits issues o f patentability reviewed on petition, rather than having to seek review b y appeal to the Board is incorrect. See B o u n d y ' s Opp. at 12. See also Western Electric Co., Inc. v. Piezo Technology. Inc., 860 F.2d 428, 431 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("Patent examiner's are quasi-judicial officials" citing Butterworth v. U.S., 112 U.S. 5 0 , 6 7 (1884)). In stark contrast to B o u n d y ' s argument, the fact that e x a m i n e r ' s are "quasi-judicial" officials, supports the fundamental policy protecting an e x a m i n e r ' s freedom to independently decide whether to reject or a l l o w claims. T h i s w e i g h s a g a i n s t r e v i e w o f s u b s t a n t i v e r e j e c t i o n s o n p e t i t i o n b e c a u s e , w h i l e C o n g r e s s intended to subordinate examiners and the Board to the Commissioner's overall supervision, it did not intend for the Commissioner to inhibit the "free exercise o f their judgments in the matters submitted for their examination and determination." See In re Allappat, 33 F. 3 d 1526, 1534, n. 9 (Fed. Cir.
1 9 9 4 ) Y Such a policy is consistent with C o n g r e s s ' s intent to limit review o f rejection to the exclusi~e

to resolve the issues o f whether the rejections on appeal were compliant with the law o f the Federal Circuit, appellant resolved that problem b y specifically referring the Board to pages 17 through 32 thereof." A I 0 8 7 , n. 7.
13 The Alappat court explained that the C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s supervisory r o l e did n o t change after the 1927 patent act, which included protection o f examiners and Board members from influence " i n the free exercise o f their j u d g m e n t s in the matters submitted for their examination and determination." Alappat at 1534, n. 9 ("The Commissioner's supervisory authority . . . p r i o r to the 1927 [patent] Act was described aptly as follows: The law has provided certain official agencies to aid and advance the

16

P000730

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

Document 178-6

Filed 12/27/2007

Page 4 of 5

jurisdictionofthe Board. 35 U . S . c . § 134; 37 C.F.R. § 1.181. Just like this C o u r t ' s judicial independence is protected from micro-management during its decision making process while its ultimate decisions are subject to appeal to an appellate court, similarly, an e x a m i n e r ' s claim rejections and merits determinations are to b e free from administrative micro-management during proceedings before the examiner, b u t are subject to an administrative appeal to the Board. Violating this statutorily designed process that protects the examiner and the Board from executive micro-management o v e r merits issues, as B o u n d y suggests, w o u l d cut against the fundamental policies grounded in judicial r e v i e w , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e v i e w , o b j e c t i v i t y a n d f a i r play.

E.

This C o u r t Does Not H a v e J u r i s d i c t i o n to Review t h e E x a m i n e r ' s Rejections o r M e r i t s Issues o f P a t e n t a b i l t y N o r Does i t Have t h e A u t h o r i t y to Act as a S u p e r P a t e n t E x a m i n e r t o M i c r o M a n a g e t h e R e W r i t i n g o f C l a i m Rejections

C o n t r a r y t o B o u n d y ' s a s s e r t i o n , t h e P T a d o e s n o t " m i s u n d e r s t a n d the n a t u r e o f review and r e l i e f requested" b y Boundy. See B o u n d y ' s Opp. at 14. Regardless o f how he frames it, the crux o f B o u n d y ' s c o m p l a i n t i s t h a t h e w a n t s t h i s C o u r t to r e v i e w t h e l e g a l s u f f i c i e n c y o f h i s c l a i m r e j e c t i o n s . B o u n d y ' s o w n words m a k e clear that he is dissatisfied with the e x a m i n e r ' s application o f the legal standards o f anticipation (§ 102), obviousness (§ 103) and indefiniteness (§ 112), as well as the e x a m i n e r ' s analysis o f the p r i o r a r t and the claim construction. While continuing to argue that he wants "procedural" relief, his actual allegations o f error directly contradict this assertion. See P T a ' s CMSJ at 19 (notes 13 and 14 listing B o u n d y ' s allegations o f error w i t h t h e merits his claim rejections). As B o u n d y a d m i t s i n h i s o p p o s i t i o n , t h e c r u x o f h i s g r i e v a n c e is t h a t t h e " e x a m i n e r a p p l i e d i m p r o p e r reasoning and applied improper law o f patentability" i n rejecting his claims. See B o u n d y ' s Opp. at 14.

work o f t h e Patent Office, such as Primary Examiners . . . and Examiners-in-Chief; b u t they are all subordinate, and subject to the official direction o f the Commissioner o f Patents, except in the free exercise o f t h e i r judgments in the matters submitted for their examination and determination . . . " ) ( e m p h a s i s added). 17

P000731

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

Document 178-6

Filed 12/27/2007

Page 5 of 5

P000732