In manufacturing and services industries, quality management has long been a central concept in business operations. As a result, many quality management systems have been developed to improve processes in everything from management to manufacturing. One such example, Six Sigma, developed by the famous Bill Smith of Motorola in 1986, has had significant influence on improving technology manufacturing (A perfect Six Sigma process produces only 3.4 defective parts per million opportunities).
Yet, in the patent industry, the concept of “Patent Quality” remains a contentious subject. The majority of people perceive patent quality as difficult to gauge, even something that cannot be objectively and consistently measured on any substantial scale. Many remain accustomed to viewing patent quality assessment as some sort of subjective, esoteric art. But is the quality of a patent indeed so difficult to appraise? Is determination of a patent as “Good” or “Bad” forever prey to the subjective "instincts" of reviewers and department managers? This article will attempt break out of the traditional, restrictive views on patent quality, and offer new perspectives and ideas on patent evaluation, setting forth the principles for measuring—and eventually improving—patent quality.
Suggested Principles for Patent Quality Assessment
Principle 1 – Patent Quality is Neither Black Nor White, But a Shade of Gray
First, patent quality cannot be measured in absolutes like black or white. It is always a shade of grey. And that “grey”, or assessment of patent quality, is determined by factors such as the reviewer’s experience and standards, the basic elements of the patent, and the specific needs of the company. From this perspective, patent quality can no longer be simply classified as “Good” or “Bad”.
Principle 2 – Assessment is Dependent Upon Creation of a Patent Quality Index
In providing any sort of assessment, there first must be a standard. Therefore any assessment of patent quality must be based on a reliable index. Only then will the concept of ranking patent quality achieve acceptance on a larger scale and provide effective methods to track improvements in patent quality.
Principle 3 — Patent Quality Index Scoring Methods
The Patent Quality index is based on the following topics:
A. Patent Validity (Tests 1~6)
B. Difficulty of Design Around (Tests 7~9)
C. Adherence to Patent Law & Best Practice (Tests 10~14)
D. Efficiency & Robustness for Actual Use
Patent Quality Examination
Below are 14 tests, developed from the ideas posited above, that can be used to derive a numerical figure to assess patent quality. To best utilize this patent quality index, begin by assigning each patent to be evaluated a starting point total of 20. As each test is applied, deduct points based on the answers to arrive at the final point total.
# |
Test |
Answer |
Deductions |
A. Patent Validity (Tests 1~6) |
1. |
Determine by reviewing prosecution history if the Teaching–Suggestion–Motivation (TSM) test was previously used as the main reason for patentability. |
If YES,
Continue to Question #2 |
-1pt |
If No,
Skip to Question #3 |
None |
2. |
Determine, if using existing cited prior art, whether the allowed claims would pass the 7 Obviousness Rationales proposed by the USPTO as based on the US Supreme Court's KSR decision.
1) |
Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. |
2) |
Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. |
3) |
Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way. |
4) |
Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. |
5) |
"Obvious to try" - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. |
6) |
Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. |
7) |
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. |
|
If Yes,
Continue to Question #3 |
-6~10 pts |
If No,
Continue to Question #3 |
None |
3. |
Determine by reviewing prosecution history if a sufficient number of foreign patent literature were cited in the rejections, IDS(es), or prosecution history (3+, including at least 1 from an office rejection). |
If Yes,
Skip to Question #5 |
None |
If No,
Continue to Question #4 |
-1 pt |
4. |
Conduct a search using class/subclass information and keywords/Boolean searches of patent literature databases from Japan, EPO, WIPO and China (e.g. www.patentlens.net) to determine if at least “secondary” prior art exists. |
If Yes,
Continue to Question #5 |
-5 pts |
If No,
Continue to Question #5 |
None |
5. |
Conduct a search using “clusters” from sparkip.com using leads from important patents in each cluster category and keyword/Boolean searches to determine if relevant prior art(s) exist(s). |
If Yes,
Continue to Question #6 |
-3 pts |
If No,
Continue to Question #6 |
None |
6. |
Conduct searches using Scirus, Google Scholar, Google, Rice University Connexions, etc… to determine if relevant non-patent literature prior art exists. |
If Yes,
Continue to Question #7 |
-2 pts |
If No,
Continue to Question #7 |
None |
B. Difficulty of Design Around (Tests 7~9) |
7. |
Based upon the claim scope of all claims, can a potential infringer get away with only “partial infringing” by meeting just some, and not all of the features/limitations of the respective claims? (If so, take note of how) |
If Yes,
Continue to Question #8 |
-3 pts |
If No,
Continue to Question #8 |
None |
8. |
Based upon the claim scope of all claims, can a potential infringer get away with a clever modification of one or more element/feature/limitation even when considering the doctrine of equivalents rule? (If so, take note of how) |
If Yes,
Continue to Question #9 |
-4 pts |
If No,
Continue to Question #9 |
None |
9. |
Is the “key” design-around feature/element equivalent but not the same as an element/feature that had been subject to a narrowing amendment during prosecution, as well as not only being "tangentially related" to the accused equivalent? (ref. Festo Decision) |
If Yes,
Continue to Question #10 |
-4 pts |
If No,
Continue to Question #10 |
None |
C. Adherence to Patent Law & Best Practice (Tests 10~14) |
10. |
Do all claim elements abide by requirements in the first and second paragraphs of 35 USC 112, especially those relating to clarity, conciseness and precision? |
If Yes,
Continue to Question #11 |
None |
If No,
Continue to Question #11 |
-2 pts |
11. |
Does the disclosure contain poor English, and/or is it difficult to read and understand? |
If Yes,
Continue to Question #12 |
-2 pts |
If No,
Continue to Question #12 |
None |
12. |
Is there a good balance of coverage among the claims (broad/narrow claims of varying scopes), and are all embodiments described properly covered in the claims? (exceptions allowed) |
If Yes,
Continue to Question #13 |
None |
If No,
Continue to Question #13 |
-3 pts |
13. |
Are the claim preamble(s) or independent claim scope too unnecessarily narrow or are there too few claims? |
If Yes,
Continue to Question #14 |
-1~2 pts |
If No,
Continue to Question #14 |
None |
14. |
Are there mistakes relating to form, antecedent and multiplicity of claims, a lack of proper incorporation by reference, or other errors? |
If Yes, |
-1~2 pts |
If No,
|
None |
Conclusion
After completing the 14 tests above, calculate the number of quality index points a patent has. The higher the number, the higher the quality of the patent. However, at which score a patent “passes” and is considered of acceptable quality, is an open issue that remains to be explored.
The 14 tests in this article are intended to help stimulate the creation of a new mechanism that will aid in improving patent quality. Much of this proposed test method remains to be improved and augmented, and we welcome any suggestions. For a more detailed look and an example of how to apply these tests to a patent, this article will be continued in next month’s edition of NAIPO IP News.
|