December 15, 2023
Authored and Edited by Adriana L. Burgy; Stacy Lewis†
Examiner interviews are a highly useful tool for not only helping the examiner to understand the invention described in the application, but also for helping the practitioner understand the examiner’s concerns about patentability.
If many of your cases are assigned to a new examiner or one you don’t know, it can be very helpful to pick one or more cases that involve representative patentability issues and schedule an interview with that examiner. By doing so, one can learn which positions of the examiner are “hard” and which are “soft.” This can greatly reduce the cost of subsequent written responses since the focus can then be put on those issues most meaningful to that examiner.
Further, via an interview, you can learn what the examiner absolutely refuses to budge on or if they have unmovable positions on certain language. You are then in a position to advise the client that unless concessions are made, an appeal will be necessary.[1] Since appeals can be timely and costly, the client can then determine if there is business justification for appealing the particular case; otherwise, of course, concessions may be in order. Knowledge gained from interviews is not limited in usefulness to the specific case interviewed. In addition, such knowledge can help in the drafting of claims in future cases. By avoiding language that would likely elicit a rejection from the examiner, even if that rejection is erroneous, you avoid later claim amendments and accompanying arguments and unnecessary expense.
An interview is also an opportunity to create good will with an examiner. This facilitates prosecution not only in the case interviewed but in future cases. The importance of good will cannot be overstated: many decisions made by the examiner involve discretion. You want the examiner to exercise that discretion in a state of mind that is sympathetic, rather than hostile, to you and your client.
[1] An appeal of an examiner’s rejection goes to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
†Stacy Lewis is a Law Clerk at Finnegan.
Copyright © 2023 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
Webinar
Obviousness of Biologics Inventions: Strategies for Biologics Claims in the U.S., Europe, and China
May 28,2024
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.