Comments from Tom Eastep

----------------------------------------
FROM RESPONDENT 033:
     NAME:	TOM EASTEP
     COMPANY:	THE ALLIANCE FOR AMERICAN INNOVATION 
     ADDR-1:	1100 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1200
     CITY, STATE ZIP:	Washington, D.C 20036-4101
     TELEPHONE:	202-293-1414
     FAX:	202-467-5591
     REPRESENT:	ALLIANCE FOR AMERICAN INNOVATION
     

----------------------------------------
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:
     -------
     033-Q01.TXT
     ALL OFFICIAL APPLICATION RELATED MATERIALS SHOULD BE DELIVERED TO ONE
     PLACE.

----------------------------------------
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:
     -------
     033-Q02.TXT
     A STANDARD APPLICATION FORMAT IS NOT NECESSARY.

----------------------------------------
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:
     -------
     033-Q03.TXT
     INFORMATION TO BE PUBLISHED MAY INCLUDE THE FILING DATE, BUT NOT MORE
     THAN THE ABSTRACT.

----------------------------------------
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:
     -------
     033-Q04.TXT
     THE PATENT APPLICANT SHOULD ABSOLUTELY RECEIVE A COPY OF THE
     PUBLISHED INFORMATION UPON PUBLICATION.

----------------------------------------
QUESTION 05:
     Should the PTO permit an accelerated examination? If so, under
     what conditions?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 05:
     -------
     033-Q05.TXT
     ACCELERATED EXAMINATION UNDER THE PRESENT CONDITIONS SHOULD BE
     PERMITTED.

----------------------------------------
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:
     -------
     033-Q06.TXT
     THERE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE NO CHARGE TO THE APPLICANT FOR FILING, AND
     ALL COSTS SHOULD BE BORNE BY THE PTO.

----------------------------------------
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:
     -------
     033-Q07.TXT
     THE ANSWERS TO QUESTION 7 ARE YES, NO, AND SHOULD BE DEFINITE, IN
     THAT ORDER.

----------------------------------------
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:
     -------
     033-Q08.TXT
     SHOULD PRIORITY OR BENEFIT BE LOST IF NOT MADE WITHIN A REASONABLE
     TIME AFTER FILING? THE ANSWER IS NO.

----------------------------------------
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:
     -------
     033-Q09.TXT
     THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 9 IS THAT WE DO NOT CARE WHAT IS REMOVED NOR
     WHAT IS ENCLOSED ON THE ISSUED PATENT.

----------------------------------------
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:
     -------
     033-Q10.TXT
     YES.

----------------------------------------
QUESTION 11:
     11.  After publication, should assignment records of a published
          application also be made accessible to the public?

----------------------------------------
COMMENT ON QUESTION 11:
     -------
     033-Q11.TXT
     YES.

----------------------------------------
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:
     -------
     033-Q12.TXT
     YES.

----------------------------------------
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:
     -------
     033-Q13.TXT
     OUR AFFILIATES SUGGEST YOU TELL US OF THE PROBLEMS YOU ANTICIPATE IN
     QUESTION 13.

----------------------------------------
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:
     -------
     033-Q14.TXT
     LAST BUT NOT LEAST, PROTEST PROCEDURES SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO PERMIT
     THIRD PARTY SUBMISSION AS SUGGESTED, BUT OUR QUESTION IS HOW?
     UNTIMELY SUBMISSIONS BY A THIRD PARTY SHOULD BE HANDLED AS THEY ARE
     NOW.

----------------------------------------
GENERAL COMMENT:
     IN WASHINGTON, THE ALLIANCE FOR AMERICAN INNOVATION REPRESENTS OVER
     3,000 INDIVIDUALS FROM COAST TO COAST, BORDER T0 BORDER THROUGH THEIR
     AFFILIATES; SERVING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF INDEPENDENT INVENTORS, A
     NUMBER OF VENTURE CAPITALISTS, AND SMALL BUSINESSES INCLUDING
     NUMEROUS BIOTECH FIRMS. WE ARE THE FASTEST GROWING, AND ONLY GROUP
     WITHIN WASHINGTON REPRESENTING THE INDEPENDENT AND SMALL BUSINESS
     INVENTOR.
     
     WE BELIEVE THAT DISCUSSION OF THE EIGHTEEN MONTH PUBLICATION ISSUE IN
     ISOLATION OF DISCUSSING THE INTERACTION WITH OTHER PTO SPONSORED OR
     ENDORSED LEGISLATION REGARDING THE PHONY TWENTY YEAR TERM AND PRIOR
     USER RIGHTS. IS IMPROPER. ADDITIONALLY, THE REFERENCE TO THE
     PUBLICATION EFFORT IN TERMS OF EIGHTEEN MONTHS IS FURTHER MISLEADING,
     AS THE PTO IS SUGGESTING THAT INDEPENDENT INVENTORS USE THE NEW
     PROVISIONAL APPLICATION OPTION AS THEY LOBBY IN PRESENTATIONS AROUND
     THE COUNTRY. THE REALITY IS THAT PUBLICATION WILL LIKELY OCCUR UNDER
     THOSE CONDITIONS AT SIX YEARS OR EARLIER. DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT
     THE MAJORITY OF AMERICA'S INVENTORS REALLY WANT TO SEE THEIR PATENT
     APPLICATIONS PUBLISHED SHORTLY AFTER FORMAL SUBMITTAL? I GUARANTEE TO
     YOU THAT THIS NATIONS INNOVATIVE COMMUNITY DOES NOT. IF YOUR PENDENCY
     TIME IS REALLY 19.5 MONTHS, AS YOU SAY, THEN WHY GO TO THE EXPENSE OF
     PUBLISHING AT 18 MONTHS?


Last Modified: March 1995