BTLJ Comments

Proposal 1 Under Pillar 1: OPQA Review
Richard B. Almon

Use PTO’s Critics to Enhance Patent Quality
Donald L. Champagne

Opening the Prosecution History’s Black Box
Bernard Chao

Adding to PLUS: The Promise of Automated Pre-Examination Search
Andrew Chin

Common Knowledge and Non-Patent Literature in the Internet Age
Jorge L. Contreras

Provisional Patent Applications as Prior Art
Dennis Crouch

Re: Comments in response to USPTO’s Request for Comments on Enhancing Patent Quality
Tracy Durkin, Daniel A. Gajewski

Revising Patent Examiner’s Time Allocations
Michael D. Frakes, Melissa F. Wasserman

Reducing Patent Application Backlog to Improve Patent Quality
Michael D. Frakes, Melissa F. Wasserman

In Person Interview Capability with All Examiners
Thomas Franklin

Improving Patent Examination at the US Patent and Trademark Office
David J. French

“Final” Versus “Non-Final” Office Action
Kate S. Gaudry

Pre-Search Interview Program
Kate S. Gaudry

Regarding USPTO Proposal 2: Automated Pre-Examination Search
Adam J. Gianola

Proposal: Training for Examiners on Compact Prosecution—Interview/Mediation Training
Adam J. Gianola

Standardizing Patent Examiner Training and Qualifications
H. Whei Hsueh

Untitled
Raph Younghoon Kim, Sarah Frank, and Alexandra El-Bayeh

Comment Regarding USPTO Proposal 3: Clarity of Record
Matthew T. Kitces

Taking Functional Claiming Seriously
Mark A. Lemley

To Improve Patent Quality, Let’s Use Fees to Weed Out Weak Patents
Brian J. Love

Re: Comments and proposals for improving patent quality
Bernadette Marshall

Promoting Patent Claim Clarity
Peter S. Menell

Improving the Compact Prosecution Model through a Count Deduction System
C. Wook Pak, Mark D. Nielse

Untitled
David L. Schwartz

Focus on Economically Important Patent Applications to Enhance Patent Quality
Ted Sichelman

Comments on Pillar 1, Proposal 2: Preventing the Potential Perils Associated with Automated Pre-Examination Search
Brenda M. Simon