Comments from Ralph E. Jocke

----------------------------------------
FROM RESPONDENT 013:
     NAME:	Ralph E. Jocke
     COMPANY:	Walker & Jocke
     ADDR-1:	231 South Broadway
     CITY, STATE ZIP:	Medina, Ohio 44256-2601
     TELEPHONE:	(216) 722-3143
     FAX:	(216) 722-6446
     REPRESENT:	unclear
     

----------------------------------------
QUESTION 01:
     Should the PTO require that all Official application related
     materials be delivered to a central location? Specifically, what
     problems would a requirement that all official application-related
     materials be delivered to a central location cause?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 01:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 02:
     Should the PTO adopt a standard application format? If so, what
     portions of the application papers should the PTO require be
     submitted in a standard size and/or format, and what sanction
     (e.g., surcharge) should be established for the failure to comply
     with these requirements?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 02:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 03:
     If the entire application is not published, what information
     concerning the application should be published in the Gazette of
     Patent Application Notices?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 03:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 04:
     Should the patent applicant receive a copy of the published
     application -- either published notice and/or application content
     at time of publication?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 04:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 05:
     Should the PTO permit an accelerated examination? If so, under
     what conditions?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 05:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 06:
     Since the cost for publishing applications must be recovered from
     fees, how should the cost of publication be allocated among the
     various fees, including the possibility of charging a separate
     publication fee?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 06:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 07:
     Should the PTO require an affirmative communication from a patent
     applicant indicating that the applicant does not wish the
     application to be published, or should failure to timely submit a
     publication fee be taken as instruction not to publish the 
     application? That is, should an application be published unless
     the applicant affirmatively indicates that the application is not
     to be published, regardless of whether a publication fee has been
     submitted? What latitude should the PTO permit for late submission
     of a publication fee?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 07:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 08:
     The delayed filing of either a claim for priority under 35 U.S.C.
     119 or 120 may result in the delayed publication of the
     application. Should priority or benefit be lost if not made
     within a reasonable time after filing? What latitude should the
     PTO permit for later claiming of priority or benefit?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 08:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 09:
     Once the patent has issued, should the paper document containing
     information similar to that published in the Gazette of Patent
     Application Notice, i.e., the Patent Application Notice, be
     removed from the search files, and should publication information
     be included on the issued patent?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 09:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 10:
     After publication, should access to the content of the
     application file be limited to the originally filed application
     papers? If not, what degree of access should be permilted? Should
     access be limited to the content before publication, or should it
     extend to materials added after publication?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 10:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 11:
     11.  After publication, should assignment records of a published
          application also be made accessible to the public?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 11:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 12:
     After publication, should access include the deposit of
     biological materials as set forth in 37 CFR 1.802 et seq.?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 12:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 13:
     What types of problems will be encountered if all amendments must
     be made by (a) substitute paragraphs and claims, (b) substitute
     pages, or (c) replacement of the entire application?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 13:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
QUESTION 14:
     Should protest procedures be modified to permit the third party
     submission of prior art only prior to a specific period after
     publication of the application?  What action should be taken with
     respect to untimely submissions by a third party?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 14:
    No comments supplied
----------------------------------------
GENERAL COMMENT:
     I am currently serving as the Chair of the Intellectual Property Law
     Section of the Ohio State Bar Association.  I wanted to let you know
     that the Board of Governors of the Section voted at its January 14,
     1995 meeting to support HR359 that was introduced in the U.S. House
     of Representatives on January 4, 1995.  As you know, HR359 requires
     that pending patent applications not be published earlier than the
     date of grant of 60 months from the earliest filing date.
     
     In supporting HR359 the Intellectual Law Section Board of Governors
     expressed oppositions to the 18 month publication proposal upon which
     a public hearing will be held on February 15, 1995.  The sentiments
     of the Board of Governors expressed at the meeting indicated that the
     option that U.S. patent applicants currently enjoy maintain their
     inventions as trade secrets until the date of grant would be unduly
     limited by the 18 month publication proposal.  It was felt that the
     mandatory 60 month publication provisions in HR359 would both
     adequately protect the rights of the patent applicant as well as
     timely notify the public of the existence of potential "submarine
     patents".
     
     The recommendation of the Intellectual Property Law Section of the
     Ohio State Bar Association is currently working its way through the
     approval process and is expected to eventually be adopted as a formal
     position of the Ohio State Bar Association. Unfortunately, due to the
     time required to complete the process, the Section's recommendation
     will not be formally acted upon by the Association prior to the date
     of the public hearing.
     
     I will notify you if the Section's position is adopted as a formal
     position of the Association.  In the meantime, if you have any
     questions please do not hesitate to give me a call.


Last Modified: March 1995