[Patentcenter] Declarations under 37 CFR 1.130 to Overcome 35 USC 102(a) rejections
David Boundy
DavidBoundyEsq at gmail.com
Thu Jan 11 18:33:22 EST 2024
Oh. Here's my longer essay on declarations/affidavits.
A "declaration" is a statement opining to facts that ends with a
penalty-of-perjury or 18 U.S.C. § 1001 paragraph. An "affidavit" is that
plus a notarized signature.
The dominant concern in declarations/affidavits, overshadowing and
governing everything else, is inequitable conduct. The Federal Circuit has
zero tolerance for error in declarations/affidavits--if something is
provably wrong, then the Federal Circuit all but says that both materiality
and intent are established. So if you are thinking about a
declaration/affidavit, the first thing you must do is choose a path that
guarantees zero risk of error, no matter what you don't know.
If you were ever an engineer for Boeing, or if you were a compiler writer,
or had some similar engineering role where small errors have outsize costs,
you have the mindset and developed some techniques to ensure zero-defect
engineering. You have to think the same way here.
- Be sure you're spot on with the specific fact to hit the examiner's
ground -- never use a declaration/affidavit to opine on something that's a
millimeter off hitting the exact, smallest, most-precise nail exactly on
the head. All declarations/affidavits are risky. An declaration/affidavit
that addresses the wrong point, or that misses the right point by a
millimeter is risk with no return. An declaration/affidavit has to inflict
a mortal wound via a single thrust of a short, sharp stilletto into a vital
organ , not 1000 hacks with a machete.
- You can only use an declaration/affidavit for issues of FACT, not
issues of LAW.
- (Almost) never use an declaration/affidavit where attorney argument is
legally sufficient (unless you have an examiner that is totally dug in to a
factual error and doesn't understand the concept of "burden of proof" and
you don't want to appeal). Attorney argument won't get you in inequitable
conduct trouble.
- Declarations/affidavits are especially warranted on issues where you
have the burden of proof, and rarely worth the risk on issues where you
don't.
- Declarations/affidavits can be useful to say "Examiner Jones's Action
states x. Examiner Jones is wrong." If you don't have the burden of proof,
your affiant doesn't have to opine on the true fact, only explain falsity
of the examiner's. Especially if the burden of proof is in your favor, if
you have an declaration/affidavit to say the examiner is wrong, then your
attorney argument controls the field.
- Choose wisely whether a declaration/affidavit is or is not the right
tool -- not every fact is suitable for treatment by declaration/affidavit.
Some are very low risk, some are very high.
· Declarations/affidavits are generally safe on issues where the
examiner has all the same information the declarant has. The danger with a
declaration/affidavit is where there's some possibility that during
discovery some doc will show up that contradicts the declaration.
· An expert's opinion on the ordinary usage of terms of art is low
risk.
· An expert's opinion on the interpretation of an ambiguity in a
technical document is low risk.
· An affidavit interpreting some other evidence, where all the
relevant information is there on the face of the page, and the question is
what it means, is almost always safe -- your affiant can't be accused of
hiding or distorting, just offering an opinion.
· An affidavit that opines that something didn't happen, and there's
a micro-chance that, in discovery, some document will show that it actually
did, is a high-risk affidavit. *eSpeed, Inc. v. BrokerTec USA, LLC*, 480
F. 3d 1129 (Fed. CIr. 2007)
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11175138575348740529
· An affidavit on a fact where there might be a contradictory
document that comes out in discovery is *extremely* dangerous.
- Choose an affiant with first-hand knowledge -- NEVER rely on one
affiant to report knowledge of some other person. See *eSpeed.*
- Proceed with great respect and fear of your own fallibility, and
things you might not know.
Then the content of the affidavit (See 16/278,112 Reply of June 16, 2023,
Exhibits A and B starting at pages 19 and 26. for examples):
- Establish expertise or basis to testify.
- If there's a milligram of potential conflict of interest, disclose it.
- Be 1000% accurate. Affidavit error very quickly becomes affidavit
fraud, and that makes the whole patent *family* unenforceable.
- State enough basis (hard to give guidelines), and not one word more.
Know who has the burden of proof on that fact, and say enough, and then
stop. What you *don't* say is as important as what you do. Often, the
point is "Examiner Jones is wrong" and you don't have to say very much
about what's right. Usually, the less you say the better.
- Word the statement using the relevant standard of proof. For example,
if your affidavit is directed to an examiner's misreading of a claim, you
have to address "broadest reasonable interpretation:" "In my opinion,
Examiner Jones' interpretation is not just wrong, it it entirely
unreasonable." or "In my opinion, no person [in my field] would reasonably
understand the language as Examiner Jones posits." If you are opining on
the *Wands* factors for enablement, use the very words of those factors,
and walk through them one by one.
- If something is the affiant's opinion, state it as "my opinion" --
subjective opinion is unassailable fact, even if the opinion turns out to
be wrong!
- Nail the fact you need to nail. No dancing around it. Many patent
attorneys, when confronting a plain old error by an examiner, dive deep
into non-confrontational, deferential language. NOT HERE. In most cases,
the purpose of an affidavit is to rebut an examiner's mistake. Use a
hard-edged word in a short sentence that leaves no wiggle room: "in my
opinion, Examiner Jones is wrong." Not "Few people would agree with
Examiner Jones."
- Close with the section 1001 paragraph.
If you do a google search, you'll find good articles. E.g.
https://www.foley.com/en/insights/publications/2018/01/three-things-to-know-about-rule-130-declarations
and
https://www.aipla.org/docs/default-source/committee-documents/bcp-files/bcp-130-declarations_kfonda.pdf?sfvrsn=7eea5de_2
Examples:
- 09/611,548, January 25, 2018 (understanding of terms to one of
ordinary skill)
- 11/024,729, November 16, 2008 (definitions, interpretation of a
reference)
- 15/068,899, June 7, 2022 (enablement)
- 16/658,072, November 8, 2021 (obviousness secondary indicia)
- 16/278,112 Reply of June 16, 2023, Exhibits A and B starting at pages
19 and 26 (ordinary meaning of claim terms, interpretation of references)
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 5:42 PM Andrew Berks via Patentcenter <
patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
> If anyone has filed a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130 to overcome a
> rejection under 35 USC §102(a)(1) or §102(a)(2) (or has seen such a
> declaration) (see also MPEP 2152.06), please send me a serial no. that I
> can pull from Patent Center.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Andrew Berks, Ph.D., J.D. | Partner
>
> Patent Attorney and IP Licensing
>
> FRESH IP PLC
>
> 28 Liberty St 6th Fl
>
> New York NY 10005 (US)
>
> Main office: 11710 Plaza America Drive, Suite 2000, Reston, VA 20190 USA
> e: andrew at freship.com | w: www.freship.com berksiplaw.com
>
> Direct: +1-845-558-7245
> <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245>
> <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245>
> <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245>
> <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245>
> <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245>
> <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245>
> <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245>
> <http://voice.google.com/calls?a=nc,%2B18455587245>
>
> --
> Patentcenter mailing list
> Patentcenter at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com
>
--
<https://www.iam-media.com/strategy300/individuals/david-boundy>
*David Boundy *| Partner | Potomac Law Group, PLLC
P.O. Box 590638, Newton, MA 02459
Tel (646) 472-9737 | Fax: (202) 318-7707
*dboundy at potomaclaw.com <dboundy at potomaclaw.com>* | *www.potomaclaw.com
<http://www.potomaclaw.com>*
Articles at http://ssrn.com/author=2936470 <http://ssrn.com/author=2936470>
<https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
Click here to add me to your contacts.
<https://www.keynect.us/requestCardAccess/USA500DBOUN?>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentcenter_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240111/1de3d6ea/attachment.htm>
More information about the Patentcenter
mailing list