Skip over navigation

Untitled Document

Sent: Friday, August 17, 2001 5:53 PM
To: AB37 Comments
Subject: Premature Elimination of CPA - Proposed Rule

    The USPTO summary is inaccurate and the proposed cure is likely to
be worse than the disease.

    With regard to the first point, the summary of the proposed rule
states "The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) enacted
provisions for the continued examination of a utility or plant application
at the request of the applicant (request for continued examination or RCE
practice).  Therefore, there no longer appears to be a need for continued
prosecution application (CPA) practice as to utility and plant
applications."  This, however, does not match the concerted education effort
by the PTO to elaborate on the differences between a RCE and an CPA.  These
differences highlight that a CPA may be preferred over an RCE in some cases.
Consequently, until the CPA is phased out for utility and plant applications
(AS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED), it may indeed still serve an important purpose.
    Secondly, abruptly terminating the CPA will likely lead to the
inappropriate filing of CPA's.  This result is likely to be more problematic
than addressing the current issue with CPA's.
    If the problem with CPA's is with publication, then consideration
should be given to limiting the CPA's to those applicants who OPT OUT of
publication.    Further, OPTING IN in a CPA may require an EFS submission to
address the PTO concerns.  Regardless, premature cancellation of the CPA
procedures may not be beneficial.

Blynn L. Shideler
The Webb Law Firm
700 Koppers Building
436 Seventh Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1818
Phone (412) 471-8815
Fax   (412) 471-4094

United States Patent and Trademark Office
This page is owned by Office of Patent Legal Administration.
Last Modified: 7/4/2009 5:52:51 PM