GregNews: EPO patent examination worse than USPTO

[Hartmut Pilch <phm@a2e.de>]

GregNews quotes an anonymous examiner from the USPTO who doesn't like
the USPTO managment's plan to outsource examination work:

> !20040318  PTO examiners' contempt for PTO searching plans
 
>     Greg,
> 
>     Most examiners believe that they are efficient searchers and that
>     the quality of their searches is good for the amount of time allotted.
>     Given that an examiner's field of examination is typically limited
>     to one or two classes, most examiners believe that their searches
>     will be superior to searches done by a non-PTO searcher.
> 
>     The underlying assumption is that given the proposed fee schedule
>     for an outsourced search, the non-PTO searcher will be under similar
>     time constraints as the examiner is.  Which is why we are betting
>     PTO will raise the new search fees as soon as they get the chance.
> 
>     Most examiners I believe are not concerned about the prospect of
>     searches being outsourced overseas.  I suspect this is because our
>     exposure to searches done overseas is mostly limited to searches
>     done by the EPO.  Most examiners believe that our searches are
>     typically of equal or better quality than an EPO search.

Indeed EPO examiners whom I have talked to believe the same.

Only our corporate and governmental patent evangelists claim otherwise.

The belief of superior EPO examination quality may have some historical 
truth to it though.  15 years ago the EPO had fewer patents to examine and 
a staff of highly qualified people with enough time to do the work.  

Rants from some EPO examiners (partially in German) are collected at

        http://swpat.ffii.org/players/epo/

 
>     Consequently, I think most examiners view the PTO's plan for
>     outsourcing searches with
> 
>         a) doubt as to whether the plan will ever get implemented,
> 
>         b) deep skepticism as to the quality of outsourced searches,
> 
>         and c) a final comforting belief that if the plan to outsource
>         was successful, we would be the prime candidates for getting
>         the new outsourced positions.
> 
>     I don't believe that many examiners have considered the consequences 
>     of the outsourced search being done in, oh let's say for example,
>     India.
 
 
Greg then goes on to rant about a Berkeley conference on "patent reform" 
which is currently being planned:
 
> Not as if the point of these conferences is to seriously work to improve
> patent quality.  I mean, if you can get a group of patent lawyers and
> corporate patent lawyers to the Berkeley campus, the best thing to do
> would be to make them spend a few hours in the Berkeley science and
> engineering libraries.

[...] 
 
> P.S. - Yes, so you don't have to waste brain cells reading between the
> lines, I will be kicking everyone at Berkeley off my PATNEWS list.

If I got it right, the Berkeley conference is on April 15-16 and it will
be based on the FTC report and on the upcoming National Academy of
Sciences report.

Our conference

        http://plone.ffii.org/events/2004/bxl04/

intersects by starting just one day earlier.  Some people want to do a 
video conference between Brussels and Berkeley.

-- 
Hartmut Pilch, FFII & Eurolinux Alliance              tel. +49-89-18979927
Protecting Innovation against Patent Inflation       http://swpat.ffii.org/
300,000 votes 2000 firms against software patents    http://noepatents.org/