In the recent oral argument of In re Collins, App. No. 2011-1293 (Fed. Cir. 2012), Judges Moore and Reyna took the PTO to task for a sloppy rejection of a claim. An exasperated Judge Moore would remark “I think this is a terrible rejection. I think you all [USPTO] have done a really sloppy job. . . . This is ridiculous. This is a bad rejection. There’s a good rejection you could have made. This isn’t it.” [Listen] and [Listen]. I suspect that patent prosecutors everywhere who have had to explain sloppy rejections to their clients are thinking to themselves “Welcome to my world, Judges Moore and Reyna.”
Judge Moore would remark that she probably shouldn’t say that the PTO did a sloppy job and that she appreciates that the PTO is stressed and trying to incorporate new appellate judges. However, my take is that if the PTO is not put on notice when it is doing a sloppy job, it can’t improve itself. So, hats off to Judge Moore for calling it as she sees it.
The panel issued a Rule 36 opinion, presumably finding that the deferential standard that must be applied to Board decisions required an affirmance.
You can listen to the entire oral argument here: [Listen].
You can read the court’s opinion here: [Read].