tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post5715079046612488974..comments2023-11-05T06:06:12.057-06:00Comments on The 271 Patent Blog: Dudas and Others Testify Before CongressTwo-Seventy-One Patent Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02481083706071978817noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-34875382516595555562008-02-29T05:19:00.000-06:002008-02-29T05:19:00.000-06:00Eight years ago, the "allowance rate" was high and...Eight years ago, the "allowance rate" was high and there was no disconcerting backlog, with significantly fewer RCEs and continuations being filed than today.<BR/><BR/>Today, the "allowance rate" is low, so applicants file RCEs and continuations to get their patent anyway, and the backlog is skyrocketing.<BR/><BR/>So what's causing the backlog, I rhetorically wonder?<BR/><BR/>[If you accounted for RCEs and continuations in the allowance rate (determined as "issued patents"/"original applications filed"), I suspect it hasn't changed much....]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6851300.post-4539109074824793072008-02-28T19:23:00.000-06:002008-02-28T19:23:00.000-06:00When the PTO refers to allowance rate they count a...When the PTO refers to allowance rate they count a final rejection, even though there is a subsequent RCE, as a disallowance. As I recently pointed out to PTO personnel following a presentation in California, if every final rejection results in an RCE and that RCE results in an issued patent the originally filed application should be counted as allowed, which results in an allowance rate of 88%, not 44%. They are using doctored statistics to support their conclusion that Quality of patents improved because more applications are rejected. In reality these statistic show that quality of examination as been significantly reduced.<BR/><BR/>MJR CaliforniaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com