From srctran@world.std.com Tue, 2 May 2000 02:36:18 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 02:36:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gregory Aharonian srctran@world.std.com
Subject: [Patents] PATNEWS: Patent examination system is intellectually corrupt

!20000501  Patent examination system is intellectually corrupt

On the eve of a whole bunch of changes to PATNEWS, here is a rough draft
of a sample of what is to come.  Please bash it as hard as you can.
Greg
                                       ==

(Cited as http://www.bustpatents.com/corrupt.htm)

             PATENT EXAMINATION SYSTEM IS INTELLECTUALLY CORRUPT
                          Greg Aharonian, 1 May 2000

    Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution includes the following
sentence about the patent system:

        "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by
        securing for limited times to authors and inventors the
        exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

What follows is a statistical analysis of twenty four years of US patent
bibliographic data, from which I argue that the patent system in practice
is unconstitutional: i.e., it promotes marketing, which is not 'progress',
and it is a registration process where no real determination of
'discoveries' is made, other than randomly in an environment where
patent quantity is all that matters.

    The intellectual corruption, then, is the publicly sanctioned but
privately ridiculed fiction that the average patent is novel, unobvious,
and enabled.  It is time for everyone to stop pretending that the PTO has
the resources and management capabilities to insure novelty, unobviousness,
and enablement.  Specifically I will argue that:

    - PTO management explicitly fosters a patent registration system
    - PTO ignores all but its large corporate customers
    - PTO advisory boards are impotent; NAS patent studies are underfunded

    - patent novelty/obviousness ignores significant number of prior
          patents, let alone most non-patent prior art
    - patent citations/concept mappings convey little information
    - patents incent marketing, not the constitutional inventing

    - patent quality has been and still is dropping as application
          volume overwhelms the PTO

    - reform of patent law contradictions is ignored by patent bar/IP schools
    - IP groups of accounting firms ignoring quality as well
    - decades of silence in the IP journals about all of these issues

    - small inventor status is a fiction


[NOTE 1: Numbers below that correspond to PTO data are within 1-5% of
PTO numbers.  This is due to assumptions I made about the raw data
(over 220 megabytes of data for the 24 years) so that I could do these
calculations in my spare time.  Such assumptions are applied uniformly
across all years, which shouldn't affect the nature of the more important
trend results.  For example, I calculate patent type (M,C,E) by which
section of the Gazette they appear in, while the PTO calculates patent
type by which class the patent is assigned to.  Similar results, but not
the same, and neither is perfectly accurate.]

[NOTE 2: A more rigorous analysis would require access to the full text of
patents, PAIR data, and random samplings of filewrappers.  Due to the PTO's
fraudulent overcharging for even just the fulltext data, $500,000 would be
needed to acquire all of this data.  In the near future, I hope to have
time to approach a private foundation (or seriously interested company) to
seek a few million dollars to do such a rigorous study.  Any serious reform
of the patent system will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, preceded
by this multimillion dollar study of the current and historical workflow
of the patent examination system.  Anything less is a waste of time and an
indication of a general lack of credibility in seeking real patent reform.]

All that said, here is the data and my comments.

                                      ====

    - PTO MANAGEMENT EXPLICITLY FOSTERS A PATENT REGISTRATION SYSTEM
    - PTO IGNORES ALL BUT ITS LARGE CORPORATE CUSTOMERS
    - PTO ADVISORY BOARDS ARE IMPOTENT; NAS PATENT STUDIES ARE UNDERFUNDED

The first set of data deals with the gross output of the PTO, starting
with the number of patents issued each year.  The number of examiners is
roughly determined by counting all of the examiners who appear on the
front pages of issued patents, and patent lawsuits are the number of
unique patents in the LITALERT database divided by the number of patents
issued.  These are rough approximations.

Of interest is that over the last twenty years, the PTO has achieved a
steady state issuance rate on the average of about 65% of the patents
filed (I assume naively that it takes about two years for a patent to
issue, so what is filed in 1997 issues in 1999), and that examiners issue
about one patent a week. I argue that this is NOT a result of the PTO
management policy, but IS the management policy of the PTO - a patent
registration system with some minimal examination constrained by the
examiners' two-point disposal system.  It's why patents will always take
over a year to issue - PTO management looks at patent applications in one
year to figure out how many examiners they will need the next year.  Given
the inadequate upfront patent fees, PTO management can't but be running
a registration system, since thorough examination is an unknown cost
harder to budget for, as opposed to patent registration-like activities.

"% Patents to Large" measures the percentage of patents going to the
largest 250 corporations lead by General Electric, IBM, Hitachi, Canon,
Toshiba, Kodak, ATT, US Philips, Du Pont, Siemens and Motorola. That about
half of all patents go to such large corporations explains why a) PTO
management always talks about its customers and cares only about their
views of quality, and b) why PTO management ignores everyone else.  Why?
When such companies are asked by Congress if they are happy, they will
answer "yes" as long as the PTO is issuing quantity over quality to them.
And as long as Congress hears "yes" and gets its campaign donations, it
leaves the PTO alone, which makes the bureaucrats at the PTO satisfied,
since Congress is the only outside influence with direct power over the PTO.
It is a nice triangle that works as long as we have a patent registration
system to support the needs of older-generation multibillion dollar
corporations.

Last year's patent reform bill included amongst other things the creation
of a Patent Public Advisory Committee (for which nominations just closed).
Yet, with no effective budget to gather data (such as mine below) to verify 
whatever PTO management will present to the Committee (even if the
large-company-dominated Committee cared to pursue issues of quality), it
is unlikely this Committee will be a force for fostering patent quality.
Not surprisingly, this same Congress that created this impotent patent
advisory committee also underfunded studies of patent quality, for which
the National Academy of Sciences is now seeking proposals, made worse by
the NAS choosing as reviewers of these proposals the very same people 
who have ignored the issue of patent quality for too many years.  So to
patent litigators around the country, I say, do not worry in the least,
these people are just going through the motions, and growth rates for
patent litigation will continue unabated.


       Number    Number     Patents per  %Patents per  %Patents    %Patents
Year  Patents  Examiners     Examiner     Filed(Y-2)   to Large    Litigated
1976   70186      1150         61.0           68                     0.94
1977   65205       870         74.9           64                     1.19
1978   66084       930         71.1           64                     1.15
1979   48839       850         57.5           48                     1.38
1980   61812       870         71.0           61                     1.37
1981   65766       800         82.2           65                     1.20
1982   57878       820         70.6           55                     1.25
1983   56862      1030         55.2           53                     1.68
1984   67214      1330         50.5           61                     1.38
1985   71668      1310         54.7           69          54         1.51
1986   70862      1310         54.1           63          54         1.39
1987   82961      1600         51.9           70          54         1.42
1988   77938      1640         47.5           63          53         1.16
1989   95565      2180         43.8           74          53         1.11
1990   90416      2270         39.8           64          53         1.16
1991   96550      2530         38.2           63          53         1.01
1992   97462      2440         39.9           59          53         0.89
1993   98356      2330         42.2           59          52         0.81
1994  101687      2400         42.4           58          52         0.85
1995  101430      2470         41.1           58          51         0.67
1996  109651      2420         45.3           57          50         0.70
1997  112019      2440         45.9           52          48         0.56
1998  147576      3210         46.0           75          47         0.36
1999  153588      3730         41.2           71                     0.13

The lower numbers for the Patents Litigated column for the 1990s just means
that there are large numbers of lawsuits yet to be filed, say 1/2% of the
1,000,000 patents issued in the latter part of the 1990s, i.e., about 5000
lawsuits (and patent busts) yet to come (many of which will be over crappy
software patents - I hope the PTO doesn't change a damn thing :-).


    - PATENT NOVELTY/OBVIOUSNESS IGNORES SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PRIOR
          PATENTS, LET ALONE MOST NON-PATENT PRIOR ART
    - PATENT CITATIONS/CONCEPT MAPPINGS CONVEY LITTLE INFORMATION
    - PATENTS INCENT MARKETING NOT THE CONSTITUTIONAL INVENTING

With regards to 102/103 patent quality, over the long term, patent
examination has mostly ignored the non-patent literature, with slightly
less than half of all patents citing no non-patent prior art, and the
average patent citing about two non-patent prior art items (while the
length of literature bibliographies [such as the IEEE] are in the many
dozens and growing).  And, in citing less than a dozen prior patents,
patent examination considers less than all relevant patents. In short,
insufficient amount of prior art is being provided to justify patents
being given a presumption of validity with regards to novelty, obviousness
and enablement - the courts should stop respecting this intellectually
unsupportable belief.

Indeed, the column (Mech+Elec)/NewINSPEC is the ratio of new Mechanical and
Electrical patents to new articles in the INSPEC abstract, one of the few
databases that abstract most scientific and engineering conferences and
journals outside the CAS/MEDLINE world.  The ratio seems to indicate that
the PTO thinks that about 1/3 of everything published in any one year is
novel and unobvious.  That is nonsensical.

Additionally, with patents citing few if any non-patent prior art, and
non-patent prior art rarely if ever including patent citations, there is
almost a complete disconnect between patent literature and non-patent
literature.  Such a disconnect makes it hard to accept that patent
literature inspires and educates, so scientists and engineers in their
real publications make little if any mention of patents as references.
This is not surprising to patent searchers, who are asked to find patent
references after the research and development has been done and the patent
application is being prepared (to be augmented by patent references made
by the patent examiner).  In short, patent citations are extremely
unreliable measures of information flows and patent concept maps fairly
useless in many fields for determining key players.  Any correlations
are not causal, because there is no understanding of the statistics of who
is actually citing those patents that are cited.

Part of this disconnect was due to the Patent Office's apathy throughout
the 1980s and 1990s to provide convenient access to the public to patent
abstract and fulltext data.  How can scientists and engineers search for
inspirational patent data they don't have access to?  They couldn't and
didn't.  So that part of the Constitution where the public gives patent
rights in order to get disclosed information that they can learn from 
hasn't been working too well.  And between government funding of R&D
(such as the DoD/DoE/NASA/NIH) and altruistic efforts (open source
movement, public consortia to sequence the human genome), and even more
simply the tens of millions of scientists and engineers around the world
who invent if for no other reason than to overcome boredom, it is hard to
accept that what drives much inventing is the constitutionally provided
patent right.  Rather, patents are driving the marketing of invented
technologies, which, while beneficial and a legitimate reason to provide
a property right, is NOT the property right specified by the Constitution
- in short, the patent system is no longer constitutional.


Average number of patent and non-patent prior art references
                                             (Mech+Elec)   Articles
                           %Zero      IEEE   -----------    citing
Year  Patent Non-Patent   Non-Pats   BibLen  New INSPEC    patents
1976   4.81     0.34        76.5      14.2      0.35         <1%
1977   4.94     0.38        75.0      17.6      0.34         <1%
1978   4.98     0.44        71.6      14.1      0.34         <1%
1979   5.11     0.50        69.6      16.2      0.26         <1%
1980   5.51     0.60        66.4      18.4      0.33         <1%
1981   5.76     0.72        63.6      19.7      0.31         <1%
1982   5.90     0.84        61.2      18.7      0.26         <1%
1983   5.98     0.89        59.7      25.9      0.24         <1%
1984   6.10     0.97        57.5      19.1      0.26         <1%
1985   6.39     1.09        55.0      25.4      0.27         <1%
1986   6.48     1.12        53.9      21.0      0.26         <1%
1987   6.74     1.23        52.0      25.2      0.29         <1%
1988   6.99     1.37        49.8      29.3      0.25         <1%
1989   7.37     1.50        49.3      26.8      0.31         <1%
1990   7.37     1.53        49.2      26.0      0.28         <1%
1991   7.43     1.58        48.9      27.0      0.29         <1%
1992   7.81     1.67        47.8      28.0      0.27         <1%
1993   8.17     1.83        46.0      29.0      0.27         <1%
1994   8.72     1.99        44.9      30.0      0.27         <1%
1995   9.29     2.14        44.3      31.0      0.25         <1%
1996   9.81     2.26        44.4      32.0      0.26         <1%
1997  10.30     2.37        44.9      33.0      0.24         <1%
1998  10.52     2.40        47.3      34.0      0.33         <1%
1999  10.72     2.39        48.8      35.0      0.32         <1%


    - PATENT QUALITY HAS BEEN AND STILL IS DROPPING AS APPLICATION
          VOLUME OVERWHELMS THE PTO

A measure of the decreasing quality is the decreasing number of months
spent per claims measured by dividing the number of claims by the time
from patent filing to the patent appearing in the Official Gazette.  (For
the most part, these pendencies are only for non-divisional, non-continued
patent applications - determining effective pendencies of things like CIPs
is always subjective.)  The drop is due to more claims being sought, as
average pendency hasn't changed much over the decades (again, PTO
registration system policy).  Thus given the low amounts of non-patent
prior art cited (and missed prior patents) as a percentage of all available
non-patent prior art, and the decreasing time spent per claim, it is not
unreasonable to conclude that patent quality is dropping as the PTO is
overwhelmed with patent applications.  (NOTE: I assume that the ratio of
independent claims to dependent claims has remained constant over the
decades, so that I can then divide the total claims by pendency months to
get an "average" amount of time spent per claim.  Only analyzing full-text
patent data can verify this assumption.)


      Average pendency(mon.)  Average Number Claims        Months/Claim
Year    Mech   Chem   Elec      Mech   Chem   Elec      Mech   Chem   Elec
1976    19.8   24.0   22.5       9.1    9.6    9.9      2.18   2.50   2.28
1977    19.4   22.5   21.0       9.2   10.2   10.1      2.12   2.20   2.08
1978    20.0   21.7   21.5       9.5   11.3   10.4      2.11   1.93   2.06
1979    21.5   21.6   23.0       9.6   11.3   10.5      2.24   1.91   2.19
1980    24.2   24.1   27.5       9.7   11.3   10.6      2.51   2.13   2.58
1981    24.4   22.9   26.0       9.7   11.4   10.5      2.51   2.01   2.46
1982    25.9   23.0   27.5       9.9   11.2   10.4      2.62   2.06   2.63
1983    27.1   23.6   28.6       9.9   11.5   10.6      2.75   2.05   2.70
1984    26.7   23.3   28.6      10.0   11.8   10.7      2.67   1.96   2.66
1985    24.9   23.0   28.3      10.3   12.2   11.0      2.42   1.89   2.58
1986    23.3   22.5   27.7      10.5   12.5   11.1      2.22   1.80   2.48
1987    21.5   23.5   25.3      10.7   12.6   11.4      2.00   1.86   2.23
1988    20.7   23.0   23.2      11.0   12.8   11.7      1.88   1.79   1.98
1989    19.7   22.5   22.1      11.4   12.9   12.6      1.73   1.75   1.76
1990    18.7   22.2   21.4      11.7   12.7   12.9      1.60   1.75   1.66
1991    19.1   22.5   21.6      12.1   12.9   13.2      1.58   1.74   1.64
1992    18.7   22.5   22.4      12.2   13.0   13.7      1.53   1.73   1.64
1993    18.6   22.3   23.5      12.4   12.8   13.8      1.50   1.74   1.70
1994    19.2   21.7   23.4      12.7   13.0   14.2      1.51   1.66   1.65
1995    19.6   21.6   23.1      13.1   13.3   14.6      1.50   1.62   1.58
1996    21.0   22.6   24.0      13.4   13.7   15.3      1.57   1.65   1.57
1997    22.4   25.5   25.5      13.7   14.6   15.8      1.63   1.75   1.61
1998    23.2   26.5   26.4      14.2   15.3   16.6      1.63   1.73   1.60
1999    23.8   27.6   27.5      14.6   16.0   17.1      1.64   1.73   1.61

Again I ask, why in the last twenty years has the PTO not published the
above three sets of data (or something similar)?  If I can do it with a
PC, why can't the PTO do it with its mainframes and statistical analysis
packages?  Such data can be calculated both historically, and in realtime,
for example, the number of months per claim for patents issuing in the
month of April 2000, all easily presented on the PTO web pages.  And the
same question for the AIPLA, ABA, IPO, and IP law schools.  How come none
of these "professional" organizations have been and are publishing such
data?  I pose the same question to the IP magazines and newspapers,
publications that get lots of advertising dollars from members of the AIPLA,
ABA and IPO.

But the most blame is directed towards the PTO, with its Office of Patent
Quality Review, Center for Quality Services, Quality Assurance Specialists,
and office for statistical analysis.  What numbers do they publish each
year?  Patent quantity numbers (who got the most, how many by each state,
how many went to large corporations, etc.)  Nothing relevant to patent
quality, so their use of "Quality" should honestly be translated as
"Quantity" - Office of Patent Quantity Review, Center for Quantity Services
and Quantity Assurance Specialists.  It is totally unprofessional for the
PTO not to be publishing these statistics, and more detailed statistics
based on the full-text data - it has no credibility when it comes to patent
quality as defined by those skilled-in-the-art.


    - REFORM OF PATENT LAW CONTRADICTIONS IS IGNORED BY PATENT BAR/IP SCHOOLS
    - DECADES OF SILENCE IN THE IP JOURNALS ABOUT ALL OF THESE ISSUES
    - IP GROUPS OF ACCOUNTING FIRMS IGNORING QUALITY AS WELL

    Given that the majority of patents are either not valid or should
have much narrower claims, one would naively guess that the majority of
independent patent claims include the Jepson phrase "the improvement
comprising", which would be the intellectually honest style to use to
reflect the minimal evolutionary nature of most new inventions.  Yet a
decreasing number of patent claims use the Jepson format (the Percnt Jepson
column in the table below) to the point that it will probably be abandoned
in the years to come, mostly due to warnings provided in books like Landis.
Why then doesn't the patent bar and/or IP schools try to resolve this
contradiction so a language can be found for patent claims that allows
the improvements to be clearly indicated?  And why doesn't the patent bar
and/or IP schools try to resolve the equally idiotic contradiction between
encouraging scientists and engineers to look at and learn from new patents,
and discouraging them from doing so out of fear of being liable for triple
damages in an infringement lawsuit?

    Why not?  Because the patent bar and patent law schools have neglected
the issue of patent quality over the last thirty years.  I did a survey of
the articles in three patent-law-rich publications, IDEA (the IP journal
of the Franklin Pierce Law Center), JAIPLA (Journal of the American
Intellectual Property Law Association), and JPTOS (Journal of the Patent
and Trademark Office Society), from 1976 to 1999.  Of approximately 1700
articles over this twenty-four year time period, only about two percent
dealt with issues of patent quality (such as problems with prior art,
problems with examiners, problems with checking for enablement, problems
in claim analysis).  It is clear then the apathy of the IP law schools
and patent bar to this issue.  Two of the very few critical articles
appeared in JPTOS - "Is Rule 56/57 leading us to a registration system?
Can automation help?" (Dec 1988 JPTOS), and "Is the United States automating
a patent registration system for software? A critical review of information
management in the USPTO" (Sep 90 JPTOS).

    One explanation for the silence of the IP schools is due, indirectly,
to Prof. John Barton of Stanford Law School, who in an article in Science
magazine, 17 March 2000, page 1933, argues for patent reform. In the middle
of the article is a graph of the number of patent lawyers (measured using
ABA data) divided by R&D expenditures in billions of dollars, as measured
by the NSF.  The first sentence of his article? "The number of intellectual
property lawyers in the United States is growing faster than the amount of
research."  No wonder IP schools too busy turning out IP lawyers don't
have enough time to do critical studies of the patent system.

    The Sloppy Claims column is a ancedotal estimation of the percentage
of claims each year that are sloppily issued, by which I mean patents where
one or more of the following conditions are true: the antecedent basis is
violated, the issued abstract/claims have one or more spelling errors,
uses claim language that explicitly violate one or more MPEP rules (like
using "for example" in a claim, or use "means for" only once), or where
too many "means" clauses are being used, or where the independent claim
is excessively long (usually drafted by pro-se inventors who don't
realize such claims are easily circumvented).  These are sloppy patents
in that the errors are unambiguous and semantic free, easily checked with
simple computer programs automatically (I have a prototype of such a
program at my Web site, which only needs convenient access to the fulltext
data to become a real effective tool, a tool which sadly infringes a
pathetic patent issued to Aurigin which claims, get this, automatic
antecedent basis checking).  If I have such a program, it should be quite
trivial for the PTO to prepare such a program, and automatically apply it
to all issued patents before the Notice of Allowment is sent out.  The PTO
doesn't, yet another measure of their apathy towards patent quality.

    And to be snide, little if any of all of this patent quality data and
critical commentary has its parallel in the publications coming out of
Yale Law School or the patent staff of Xerox Corporation. Their credentials
are lacking when it comes to being involved with patent quality studies
(especially Xerox, which came close to being sanctioned for Rule 56
violations for one of its patents).

                                      Patent Lawyers
       Percnt   Percent Critical      --------------       Sloppy
Year   Jepson     Law Articles        R&D (billion$)       Claims
1976    12.8        1% (1/90)              54               ~3%
1977    13.1        6% (4/71)              55               ~3%
1978    13.7        2% (1/62)              53               ~3%
1979    13.7        6% (4/69)              55               ~3%
1980    14.5        3% (2/58)              54               ~3%
1981    14.4        0% (0/70)              53               ~3%
1982    14.1        7% (4/60)              53               ~3%
1983    13.1        2% (4/68)              52               ~3%
1984    11.9        2% (1/54)              48               ~3%
1985    11.1        3% (2/65)              47               ~3%
1986    10.5        0% (0/53)              48               ~3%
1987     9.6        2% (1/64)              46               ~3%
1988     9.2        7% (6/83)              50               ~3%
1989     8.4        2% (2/80)              53               ~3%
1990     7.8        0% (0/73)              58               ~3%
1991     7.2        1% (1/72)              62               ~3%
1992     6.6        1% (1/83)              64               ~3%
1993     5.8        0% (0/86)              70               ~3%
1994     5.3        1% (1/80)              73               ~3%
1995     4.6        1% (1/90)              75               ~3%
1996     4.1        0% (0/83)              72               ~3%
1997     3.7        1% (1/72)              75               ~3%
1998     3.1        1% (1/68)                               ~3%
1999     2.8        1% (1/67)                               ~3%
                      (39/1721)

    I find the interest of the intellectual property groups of accounting
and management firms just as bad.  You would think that people trained in
quantitative analysis would be applying such skills to patent data to
better inform their clients.  But you will find little if any critical
quantitative analysis in the publications of these firms, even something
as minimal informative as the low probability of finding a patent "Rembrandt
in the attic", as opposed to the higher probably of finding a patent "pipe
bomb in the neighbor's basement".  That's the advice corporate clients need.

                              ====================

The following table shows the percentage of patents examiner by primary
examiners solely, around 60% or so for mechanical and chemical patents,
around 50% or so for electrical patents, reflecting the greater turnover
of examiners in those arts.  Again, the minimally fluctuating averages
in the 1990s is more evidence of PTO management trying to maintain steady
rates of patent issuances as a percentage of filed applications.

Patents examined only by Primary Examiners
      %  %  %    #       #       #   
Year ME CH EL  Mchncl  Chemcl  Electl
1976 52 59 67   17529   15172    7751
1977 59 66 73   19421   13793    8832
1978 65 72 73   21490   15638    8444
1979 71 76 74   17834   11939    6120
1980 76 80 76   24384   15792    7948
1981 78 82 78   25443   18292    8878
1982 78 84 79   21766   15617    9267
1983 70 81 77   19645   15020    8317
1984 62 76 63   21465   15496    8190
1985 60 72 57   21905   15113    8417
1986 57 72 53   20939   13764    8215
1987 55 68 50   23505   14759    9792
1988 57 64 46   21719   14056    8694
1989 59 61 45   26577   16928   10840
1990 61 60 50   26248   15888   11005
1991 56 52 48   25618   14529   11383
1992 54 46 47   23627   13536   11912
1993 54 47 47   21425   15031   13008
1994 56 49 45   23585   14131   14243
1995 61 54 44   24136   16137   14322
1996 66 63 46   27280   19700   17165
1997 67 68 48   26682   24081   18218
1998 69 70 52   35075   28234   29997
1999 60 68 53   34038   29127   29082


Data on the distribution of patents by general type.  Over the decades,
about a third of the patents have been chemical, with little change. But
while mechanical patents used to dominate (about 50% in the 1970s and
early 1980s), and electrical patents were 20%, they are both now about
equal in their percentages, reflecting the growing importance of
electronics and computing and diminishing importance/value of mechanical
inventions (New Economy versus Old Economy).


      Number  %  %  %  Number  Number  Number
Year  Patent ME CH EL  Mchncl  Chemcl  Electl
1976   70186 47 36 16   33414   25299   11473
1977   65205 49 31 18   32491   20713   12001
1978   66084 49 32 17   32938   21623   11523
1979   48839 51 32 16   25035   15636    8168
1980   61812 51 31 16   31859   19552   10401
1981   65766 49 33 17   32346   22063   11357
1982   57878 48 31 20   27844   18402   11632
1983   56862 48 32 18   27777   18352   10733
1984   67214 50 30 19   34168   20172   12874
1985   71668 50 28 20   36196   20776   14696
1986   70862 51 26 21   36543   19024   15295
1987   82961 50 25 23   42130   21447   19384
1988   77938 48 28 23   37480   21909   18549
1989   95565 46 28 24   44540   27359   23666
1990   90416 46 28 24   42480   26112   21824
1991   96550 46 28 24   45292   27616   23642
1992   97462 44 29 25   43450   28820   25192
1993   98356 39 31 28   39294   31423   27639
1994  101687 40 28 30   41635   28812   31240
1995  101430 38 28 32   39526   29406   32498
1996  109651 37 28 34   41241   31103   37307
1997  112019 35 31 33   39448   35039   37532
1998  147576 34 27 38   50365   40261   56950
1999  153588 36 27 35   56207   42532   54849


    - SMALL INVENTOR STATUS IS A FICTION

Corporations (large and small) continue to be assigned the vast majority
of patents, over 90% of the electrical and chemical patents, but,
reflecting that independent inventors are more likely to be mechanical
tinkerers, only about 70% of the mechanical patents.  Given that PTO
application fees are a fraction of what applicants pay their lawyers,
that most applicants work for corporations, and that the concept of a
small entity beyond a few individuals is meaningless (is a Web startup
of 30 employees with a billion dollar valuation a small entity?), why not
get rid of the small entity distinction?  It wouldn't affect the economy,
probably save some individual inventors from wasting their money, and
simplify PTO operations.


Patents assigned to Corporations
      %  %  %    #       #       #   
Year ME CH EL  Mchncl  Chemcl  Electl
1976 70 91 89   23592   23113   10218
1977 68 92 88   22186   19185   10611
1978 68 92 87   22571   19984   10121
1979 68 92 87   17272   14395    7180
1980 68 91 87   21780   17852    9110
1981 68 91 87   22247   20166    9954
1982 69 91 88   19468   16901   10261
1983 72 92 90   20263   16976    9680
1984 73 93 90   25148   18796   11669
1985 73 93 91   26749   19353   13460
1986 72 93 91   26583   17693   14033
1987 72 92 92   30729   19937   17846
1988 71 93 91   26978   20425   16964
1989 70 93 91   31440   25452   21555
1990 70 92 91   29906   24266   19901
1991 70 93 91   31896   25778   21660
1992 71 93 92   31045   26860   23200
1993 70 93 92   27767   29450   25561
1994 70 93 93   29261   26980   29091
1995 69 92 92   27623   27296   30081
1996 69 92 92   28810   28901   34678
1997 70 93 93   27774   32662   34905
1998 70 93 93   35501   37562   53234
1999 72 92 93   40931   39549   51480


More detailed data on prior art references.  Insufficient number of
foreign patents (particularly from EPO/PCT/JPO) are being cited.
Electronic patents have and continue to do worst at citing non-patent
prior art, though all three technology areas have inadequate levels.


Average number of prior art references
         Mechanical            Chemical            Electrical       IEEE
Year   USA   FOR   NON      USA   FOR   NON      USA   FOR   NON   BibLen
1976  5.40  0.07  0.51     4.42  0.46  0.36     4.62  0.19  0.16    14.2
1977  5.48  0.07  0.55     4.59  0.50  0.39     4.75  0.20  0.19    17.6
1978  5.53  0.08  0.64     4.77  0.55  0.46     4.63  0.22  0.23    14.1
1979  5.59  0.10  0.67     5.00  0.62  0.55     4.74  0.27  0.30    16.2
1980  6.02  0.13  0.77     5.30  0.72  0.67     5.19  0.35  0.34    18.4
1981  6.28  0.16  0.88     5.65  0.83  0.84     5.36  0.42  0.43    19.7
1982  6.55  0.20  1.01     5.67  0.94  0.94     5.49  0.46  0.57    18.7
1983  6.56  0.23  1.07     5.89  0.93  0.99     5.49  0.52  0.62    25.9
1984  6.82  0.25  1.16     5.90  1.05  1.04     5.59  0.59  0.70    19.1
1985  7.03  0.26  1.29     6.21  1.15  1.14     5.93  0.67  0.83    25.4
1986  7.15  0.28  1.36     6.27  1.28  1.16     6.00  0.71  0.85    21.0
1987  7.52  0.32  1.49     6.46  1.46  1.28     6.24  0.72  0.93    25.2
1988  7.85  0.35  1.63     6.66  1.58  1.45     6.46  0.78  1.02    29.3
1989  8.29  0.39  1.68     6.93  1.83  1.67     6.88  0.91  1.15    26.8
1990  8.34  0.43  1.68     6.86  1.95  1.75     6.90  0.97  1.16    26.0
1991  8.59  0.42  1.71     6.86  2.13  1.83     6.85  0.94  1.20    27.0
1992  9.07  0.50  1.80     7.04  2.33  1.91     7.32  1.03  1.30    28.0
1993  9.72  0.49  1.89     7.33  2.88  2.20     7.47  1.16  1.41    29.0
1994 10.36  0.59  2.00     8.03  3.14  2.47     7.77  1.38  1.52    30.0
1995 11.01  0.68  2.10     8.53  3.69  2.71     8.35  1.48  1.62    31.0
1996 11.25  0.70  2.10     9.21  4.75  2.97     8.95  1.63  1.70    32.0
1997 11.87  0.79  2.11     9.60  6.24  3.35     9.42  1.87  1.66    33.0
1998 12.16  0.87  2.14     9.57  7.05  3.36     9.83  1.99  1.71    34.0
1999 12.48  0.91  2.06     9.72  6.90  3.43     9.96  1.91  1.67    35.0

                              ====================


The conclusions above are most pertinent to Electronics patents (which
should be presumed to be invalid), which is my area of expertise, a
technology area where patent examination is far worse off than for Chemical
or Mechanical patents.  Also, I suspect these statistics will hold true
for the European and Japanese Patent Offices if their data were similarly
analyzed, especially as their volumes and practices converge to those of
the United States.  In short, no patent office around the world has really
ever mastered the process of large scale patent examination.


Greg Aharonian
Internet Patent News Service
www.bustpatents.com




