The National Association of Patent Practitioners (NAPP) strongly endorses the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023, introduced by Senator Thom Tillis and Senator Chris Coons of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.

NAPP respectfully ask the USPTO to delay the effective date of the non-DOCX storage surcharge and, if NAPP’s concerns were not addressed, then the penalty for filing PDF documents should be removed. The @USPTO extended until further notice, exclusively in Patent Center, applicants have the option to upload a backup (auxiliary) PDF version of their application with their DOCX version. There are no fees associated with this auxiliary PDF.

NAPP opposed the escalation of specific fees—for extra claims, RCEs, TDs, IDSs, and AFCP 2.0 interviews. NAPP reasoned the USPTO had not provided cost analysis or transparent reasons for these increases, and the escalation of these fees would have unintended consequences.

NAPP’s amicus brief in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi NAPP argued the enablement standard in the case below “leaves patent practitioners guessing about how to advise client-inventors regarding the extent of disclosure required in patent applications to satisfy the court-established standards for enablement.”

NAPP thanks the Senate Judiciary Committee for the December 13, 2022 meeting to discuss NAPP’s rationale for its proposed amendments to S. 4734 Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022 and submits a correct proposed markup to S. 4724 from NAPP’s letter to Senator Thom Tillis dated October 28, 2022.

NAPP offers to meet with the Committee in the future to further describe NAPP’s rationale for its position on 35 U.S.C. § 101, S. 4734 Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022, or any other patent matters affecting NAPP members who focus their work on representing small businesses, startups, and individual inventors before the USPTO.

NAPP enthusiastically applauds your leadership in introducing your bill: S. 4734 Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022. The reforms in S. 4734 make significant advances toward the clarity of patent eligibility. These reforms will meaningfully improve the ability of inventors to protect their ideas and help spur innovation.

S. 4734 does an exemplary job of addressing patent issues facing the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. However, we suggest clarifications to S. 4734 to better address issues facing the computer and software engineering industries and to capture the bill’s restorative intent. Although NAPP’s proposal uses high-tech examples, we offer a unique perspective that should receive bipartisan support. NAPP’s proposal reflects its members’ decades of diverse experience representing a broad range of clients (considered in combination with all other requirements of patent law), and it is neither over-inclusive nor under-inclusive.

The most significant volume of 21st-century innovation is in computer applications: software, machine learning, data structures, and big data analytics. Therefore, 35 U.S.C. § 101 should embrace the inventions of the 21st-century, including computerized implementations that solve problems by nontraditional techniques or improve solutions to existing problems. A goal of S. 4734 should be to “first, do no harm” to the inventions that will power the 21st-century, e.g.: (i) the mathematics, algorithms, and software that drive 5G telecommunications, (ii) artificial intelligence, (iii) machine learning, (iv) medical imaging and diagnosis, (v) productivity improvements, and (vi) novel data collection and analysis. NAPP believes some of the current language in S. 4734 could lead to the under-inclusion of patent protection for significant technological innovations in these fields. NAPP proposes to remedy this as follows (and as outlined below): 1. removing or amending the “mathematical formula” exception (§ 101(b)(1)(A)), 2. removing or amending the “economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or arts” exception (§ 101(b)(1)(B)(i)), and 3. removing the “useful” definition (§ 100(k)).

NAPP believes there is a need for a small claims patent court. The monetary cost of a patent litigation in the US, often in excess of $5 million, exceeds the means for many small businesses and individual inventors. Furthermore, the monetary costs of US patent litigation make the enforcement of patent infringement untenable in small business matters, as the litigation costs could exceed the possible remedies. Accordingly, NAPP sees a need for a mechanism for small businesses and individual inventors to enforce their rights in a US patent to stop or obtain compensation for infringement for less than $1 million in litigation costs.

NAPP believes the venue for a small claims patent court should be within the USPTO, specifically at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), because of the PTAB’s technical and legal expertise. Housing the small claims patent court in this venue would provide the greatest efficiency, reduce costs over existing litigation paths, and result in the most satisfactory outcomes.

The costs in the US Patent litigation arise from discovery and multi-day trials. A small claims patent court that limits discovery, the time for argument, and the available damages would be of significant value to countless patent owners.

NAPP nominates Richard A. Baker, Jr. for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Public Advisory Committee (PPAC).

NAPP congratulates Dr. Vidal on the confirmation to serve as the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Founded in 1996, NAPP is a nonprofit trade association composed of hundreds of patent practitioners throughout the United States and worldwide. Most of our members are patent agents, and many are solo practitioners or practice in small firms. NAPP’s primary purpose is to represent member and stakeholder interests by fostering professionalism in the patent practitioner community, enhancing the day-to-day practice of practitioners, and aiding patent agents and patent attorneys in staying current in matters relating to practice before the USPTO and foreign jurisdictions.

NAPP offers its support and looks forward to working with you and your office. Representatives from the NAPP Board of Directors would be pleased to attend an in-person stakeholder meeting with you to share NAPP’s perspective on critical issues impacting patent practitioners.

NAPP also formally invites you to attend the NAPP July 2022 annual meeting in Denver, CO, and July 2023 annual meeting in Alexandria, VA.

NAPP proposes the USPTO consider options for the MPEP that are available without accessing premium subscription-based online legal databases such as Lexis or Westlaw, and that there is an issue that some cases cited in the MPEP are not readily available to the public via electronic means.

NAPP suggests that one solution may include creating an online appendix to the MPEP with a repository of the case law decisions cited in the MPEP. Alternatively, the case law decisions listed in Appendix II of the MPEP could include hyperlinks to an accessible online repository of cases to improve access. Such a repository might be economical as digital storage costs are at historic lows. Such a repository would: (i) improve the quality of work by practitioners and inventors by reducing inefficient research time, (ii) improve equitable access to patent case law, (iii) increase transparency of subject matter potentially covered in the Registration Examination, and (iv) further reduce the cost of pursuing patent protection by enabling small and solo practitioners to avoid unnecessary research expenses.

NAPP advocates for the USPTO to expressly adopt the position that patent agents acting within their authorized scope of practice before the USPTO must be treated as lawyers for the purposes of rules governing professional independence, eligibility for fee sharing, and law firm ownership (such as ABA Model Rule 5.4).

NAPP believes this will help make the patent agent profession much more appealing to qualified candidates unable to pursue law degrees. NAPP believes this will also bring US practice more in line with that of other global actors and make the field more attractive to those in disadvantaged communities.

NAPP endorses the suggestion that the USPTO support increased visibility and availability of patent agent career paths that avoid the burdensome time and financial commitments of a traditional Juris Doctorate (J.D.) degree program.

NAPP further endorses the suggestions to open up the Patent Drafting Competition and the Law School Clinic Certification program to all those persons eligible to pursue a patent agent registration, not just students seeking J.D. degrees.

NAPP suggests that steps be taken to increase the capacity for web traffic across Private and Public PAIR. NAPP suggests fixing IT issues with the PAIR systems and EFS-Web system.

NAPP suggests the USPTO may want to consider implementing a way to receive and record feedback on the workings of its various IT systems.

NAPP does not support adding a patent practitioner fee in the form of annual USPTO bar dues because the justification is inadequate.

NAPP supports the USPTO’s position of not requiring inactive members in good standing to retake the USPTO exam.

NAPP does not support charging an inactive fee for members not actively practicing. NAPP supports adding voluntary continuing legal education for patent practictioners.

NAPP would like to generally support the 2019 Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, published in the Federal Register on January 7, 2019, with a few suggestions.

NAPP supports the PTO taking action to improve Section 101 procedures.

NAPP requests that the USPTO move beyond the Guidance to support changes in Congress and in the Courts to resolve the issues with the interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 101.

The Guidance says that applicants cannot enforce the Guidance by appeal or petition (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 4 , p 51). NAPP believes that presents a problem and recommends that the PTO delete those comments.

NAPP suggests that the PTO take care to write any finalized Guidance in ways that correspond closely to court cases.

NAPP provides specific suggestions in this document on how to improve regularity in applying Step 2A.

NAPP is in support of neither party.

NAPP urges the Court to review and reverse the Federal Circuit’s erroneous affirmance of a final judgment holding Regeneron’s U.S. Patent No. 8,502,018 (“’018 patent”) unenforceable by adverse inference.

NAPP believes there is no basis is law or equity for drawing an adverse inference of specific intent to deceive the PTO during patent prosecution, for the subsequent misconduct of others having nothing to do with practice before the PTO.

NAPP believes the court sua sponte drew an adverse inference that “Regeneron” had committed fraud on the PTO in order to procure the ‘018 patent over a year before the litigation began. Id. The court cited to no actual evidence of fraud or specific intent to deceive the PTO in making that inference.

NAPP believes the district court was still under an obligation to review the specific intent component of inequitable conduct and that it improperly ignored that obligation.

NAPP believes the district court abused its discretion by imputing fraudulent intent to those who took no part in the litigation misconduct, thereby punishing the wrong parties.

NAPP believes, without reference to any authority (aside from its inherent power), the court decided to treat that evidence-gathering exercise as optional.

NAPP respectfully submits that it was not, and that the court had a duty to mandate and conduct the discovery required to either establish or disprove specific intent.

NAPP believes the Regeneron decision obliterates all forms of guidance on how a United Stated patent practitioner and a patent applicant are to comply with their duty to disclose under 37 C.F.R. 1.56 (“Rule 56”).

NAPP is in support of Network-1.
NAPP believes The Panel commits clear error in the methodology that is used to construe the term “non- exhaustive search”. The Panel ignores wellestablished precedence established in Phillips that defines how claim construction should be construed. Further, the Panel improperly broadened Google’s definition when a limiting term was added.

NAPP believes the Panel Opinion ignores the Phillips hierarchy of claims construction evidence.

NAPP believes the broadest reasonable interpretation must be applied to the term “nonexhaustive”, not the converse of the term.

NAPP believes Google’s definition “a search that locates a match without conducting a brute force comparison of all possible matches,
and all data within all possible matches” is unduly narrow and misconstrued.

With noted reservations, NAPP agrees with and supports the USPTO’s shift from survey-based metrics to focused metrics, which may yield a rich data about “trends and outlier behavior” within the examination process.

NAPP recommends a significant expansion of the Master Review Form to enquire about the examiner’s responsiveness to the applicant’s arguments.

NAPP recommends a continuation, and indeed expansion, of the collection of customer feedback in the measurement of patent quality.

NAPP recommends, as an additional signal to enhance the objectivity of examination quality metrics, an evaluation of applicants’ decisions in response to office actions.

NAPP recommends reviewing applicants’ choices following to office actions as an additional, objective information source about patent examination quality.

NAPP recommends updates to the questions and types of answers for some questions in the Master Review Form (MRF).

With noted reservations, NAPP agrees with and supports the USPTO’s shift from survey-based metrics to focused metrics, which may yield a rich data about “trends and outlier behavior” within the examination process.

NAPP recommends a significant expansion of the Master Review Form to enquire about the examiner’s responsiveness to the applicant’s arguments.

NAPP recommends a continuation, and indeed expansion, of the collection of customer feedback in the measurement of patent quality.

NAPP recommends, as an additional signal to enhance the objectivity of examination quality metrics, an evaluation of applicants’ decisions in response to office actions.

NAPP recommends reviewing applicants’ choices following to office actions as an additional, objective information source about patent examination quality.

NAPP recommends updates to the questions and types of answers for some questions in the Master Review Form (MRF).

Read the Letter

NAPP advocates that the PTO should evaluate the quality of rejections (particularly art rejections, but also other substantive (non-form) rejections such as 101 or 112) by collecting and reporting statistics concerning the nature of responses of applicants to the rejection.

NAPP advocates that the PTO should evaluate the presence in issued claims of relative terms such as “substantially.”

NAPP advocates that the PTO should evaluate the quality of obviousness rejections, specifically the “motivation to combine” discussion.

NAPP advocates that the PTO should evaluate the prevalence of the “extension” of a reference under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) to supplement its literal teaching with the knowledge of persons of ordinary skill in the art, as an alternative to taking “official notice.”

NAPP advocates that the PTO should evaluate the frequency of the sua-sponte withdrawal of an office action or notice of allowance and issuance of a substitute office action or notice of allowance.

NAPP advocates that the PTO should evaluate the quality of rejections by evaluating Office practices after final rejection (without applicant filing an RCE or similar applicant-initiated reopening).

Read the Letter

NAPP suggests that to improve software patent application quality, the USPTO should publish guidelines for standard claims (or specification style and content) that are generally acceptable to the USPTO and should make clear to its examiners and to applicants in published guidelines that applicants can vary from the standards, such as by establishing specific definitions in their specifications to support other acceptable claim language.

NAPP believes that the USPTO should establish a study (constructed to keep Office judgments about specific patents secret) to determine whether the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for providing corresponding structure to perform the claimed function are typically being complied with by applicants and are such requirements being applied properly during examination. Moreover, without clear guidelines from the USPTO on what would be acceptable disclosure of structure, it is not possible for anyone to judge whether the requirements are typically complied with.

NAPP believes the USPTO should follow the CAFC’s conclusion that the specification can express an algorithm “in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.”

NAPP believes the USPTO should establish guidelines for applicants as to how to invoke 112(f) and how to avoid it as well as instruct examiners to make objections, inquiries, or even rejections to force applicants to clarify whether they intend to use 112(f) style if it is in doubt.

NAPP believes it should be entirely up to applicants to control whether 112(f) is being invoked.

NAPP believes the proposed amendments to Rules 56 and 555 are generally worthwhile.

NAPP believes Rules 56 and 555 should not explicitly refer to the Therasense case.

NAPP believes the new rules should include a “safe harbor” toaddress McKesson.

NAPP believes Rule 56 should be amended to terminate the duty of disclosure at the time the issue fee is paid.

NAPP believes Rules 56 and 555 should not drop the phrase “consistent with the specification”.

NAPP believes concerns about “first to file” have not been addressed.

NAPP believes concerns about post-grant review have not been addressed.

NAPP is concerned that the legislation in its current form (either as passed by the House or as presented to the Senate) will make U.S. patents less strong and would reduce patent-owners’ ability to enforce U.S. patents.

NAPP believes the legislation would make patents harder to get, more subject to challenge, harder to enforce, and able to justify only lower infringement damages.

NAPP believes major proposals in the current bill (either form) on inequitable conduct, damages apportionment, post-grant opposition, PTO rule authority, publication, third party participation in prosecution, first inventor to file, venue, interlocutory appeals, exceptions, marking, and best mode would weaken patents.

NAPP believes that the proposed changes are unduly punitive to applicants and will lead to increasingly inadequate and piecemeal patent protection for American innovators at higher cost.

NAPP believes that the proposed rule changes have no basis in the statute and that they conflict with controlling case law.

NAPP believes there is a recent PTO pattern of shifting PTO work onto patent applicants and erecting substantial procedural barriers to obtaining patent protection. NAPP objects to this PTO policy trend in general, and to its embodiment in the present proposed rule package in particular.

NAPP believes no new information would be made available under proposed Rules 41.37(q), (r), and (s), however, those proposed rules would impose a substantial additional burden on the Appellant, both in terms of effort and cost required for preparing an Appeal Brief.

NAPP believes that if restrictions on the length or content are appropriate to impose on an Appellant, similar restrictions should be imposed on the Examiner in Proposed Rule 41.39.

NAPP believes the limitations on an appellant’s ability to reply to the examiner during briefing creates a bias in favor of reopening prosecution and returning the case to the examiner once it has been placed before the Board, in contrast to an Appellant’s (and, presumably, the PTO’s) desire for a timely resolution of the appeal.

NAPP believes that the misconduct and sanctions enumerated in proposed Rule 41.56 are vague and ill-defined.

NAPP believes that the PTO analysis of the potential financial impact of the proposed rule changes is flawed.

NAPP believes that the PTO should create one form patent assignment document (or a few such documents) and relax the rules to allow agents to recommend the form in a narrow but frequently encountered set of circumstances, which the PTO would clearly define. Providing such a “safe harbor” would allow wider access to proper assignments, at lower cost, without materially increasing the risk to the public from faulty assignments.

NAPP believes that the PTO’s training program should include training in the English language for examiners for whom English is not their first language.

NAPP supports allowing an applicant to delay examination of an application (and payment of the examination fee), provided that safeguards are put in place to ensure that the public can view applications whose examination is deferred, to avoid tactical abuse of the procedure.

NAPP continues to support an end to fee diversion.

NAPP supports the PTO’s efforts to recruit and retain highly qualified examiners. NAPP believes that “hoteling” and the concept of regional patent centers should be explored and given serious consideration

NAPP opposes PTO’s suggestions for addressing backlog by adjusting the rules by placing limits and restrictions on claiming. The proposed rules, if passed, would leave a large number of questions open, make adequate protection for patents more difficult, yet achieve only marginal improvement in – indeed, more likely worsen – the backlog problem.

NAPP urges the PTO to shelve, or at least more carefully reconsider, this ill-conceived attempt at backlog improvement.

NAPP believes the concept of forcing applicants to choose between limiting claims and preparing examination support documents is misguided.

NAPP believes that the procedure in issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking has been inadequate and requests the PTO to reconsider its procedure.

NAPP believes that limiting claims in the way specified in the proposed rule (as is or with any small modifications) will not achieve the purposes that the proposal was designed to achieve, especially with respect to purported reduction of backlog or average pendency.

NAPP believes that the proposed rule contains a variety of other defects or open issues that require change or clarification.

NAPP believes that the calculation of the cost of the rule in the PTO’s notice of proposed rulemaking underestimates the cost that the rule would impose on the public.

NAPP believes that the rule will cause significant harm to a significant number of small business entities.

NAPP believes that backlog reduction and pendency shortening, which is presented as the main purpose of the proposed rule, can be achieved far more effectively, at lower cost and adverse impact, through a variety of alternative strategies.

NAPP opposes the PTO’s suggestions for addressing backlog by adjusting the rule on continuations.
NAPP urges the PTO to shelve, or at least more carefully reconsider, this ill-conceived attempt at backlog improvement.
NAPP believes that the benefits of limiting continuation filings are far outweighed by the disadvantages of passing this proposed rule at all.
NAPP believes that the procedure in issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking has been inadequate and requests the PTO to reconsider its procedure.
NAPP believes that limiting continuation filings in the way specified in the proposed rule (as is or with any small modifications) will not achieve the purposes that the proposal was designed to achieve, especially with respect to purported reduction of backlog or average pendency.
NAPP believes that the procedure for securing exceptions to the restrictions on continuation filings is entirely undefined and excessively restrictive.

NAPP believes that, aside from the petitions process, the proposed rule contains a variety of other defects that require change.

NAPP believes that the calculation of the cost of the rule in the PTO’s notice of proposed rulemaking disingenuously ignores major categories of cost that the rule would impose on the public, through excessive focus on the cost of the petitions that would occur when people considered it necessary to seek an exception to the rule.

NAPP believes that the rule will cause significant harm to a significant number of small business entities.

NAPP believes that backlog reduction and pendency shortening, which is presented as the main purpose of the proposed rule, can be achieved far more effectively, at lower cost and adverse impact, through a variety of alternative strategies.

NAPP suggests that should Congress decide to move to a first-to-file system, such a decision should be made under advisement and with regard to establishing an internationally accepted grace period.
NAPP supports the changes in the Bill regarding oaths and assignee filings and believes that such changes will improve our present patent system.
NAPP supports the changes in the Bill regarding the duty of candor.

NAPP remains opposed to the proposed amendments to 35 USC §122(b), requiring publication of all applications at 18 months. Should Congress decide to move to universal publication, such a decision should address concerns about provisional remedies and speed of Patent Office examination.

NAPP is opposed to the provisions in proposed 35 USC §315(c) that cramp the estoppel against parties who try but fail to invalidate an issued patent through inter partes reexamination.

NAPP supports post-grant opposition with several reservations.

NAPP supports the provisions in proposed 35 USC §122(e), allowing for preissuance submissions by third parties.

NAPP believes that many Examiners restrict claims based on alternative embodiments, or restrict between combination and subcombination claims, and that many practitioners and applicants view these types of restriction as artificial and arbitrary. Accordingly, reforms to current restriction practice are urgently required.
NAPP urges the PTO to follow the law and apply the “independent and distinct” standard for restriction, rather than risk the possibility of facing challenges in court.

NAPP suggests that the PTO should consider a modified unity standard, whereby current restriction practice would be maintained but applicants would be given the option to rejoin any withdrawn claims that share a common technical feature with a claim of the elected group, after allowance of the elected claim (as occurs in present rejoinder practice).

NAPP suggests, as an improvement to the implementation of Option 2, initial examination could be restricted to independent claims.

NAPP suggests that the PTO should consider allowing an applicant to present one or more multiple dependent claims depending from a multiple dependent claim.

NAPP suggests that the PTO should implement a policy of examining restricted claims immediately after a parent application is allowed or finally rejected, thereby avoiding lengthy delays while the divisional application proceeds through OIPE and Examiner queues.

NAPP believes that some (but not all) of the provisions are ill-conceived and fail to take into account sufficiently the process of how patents are obtained in the Office.
NAPP believes some provisions of the bill would make it more difficult for inventors to gain meaningful patent protection and turn the system into a lottery, where chance considerations, timing, practitioner skill, and outright luck become more important to secure valuable patent protection than the merits of the invention.
NAPP opposes the provisions relating to “first to file” priority, broadended claim scope, universal 18-month publicaction, inter partes reexamination estoppel, damages limitations to components, tangible component requirement (overruling the case of Microsoft v. Eolas), and elimation of the joint research exception.

NAPP supports, with some reservations and suggested changes indicated in the detailed discussion, the provisions relating to post-grant opposition, assignee (rather than inventor) filings, elimination of the “best mode” requirement, duty of candor, some changes to prior art definitions (other than those arising from “first to file”), and elimination of “statutory invention registrations”.

As an organization, NAPP takes no position with respect to the provisions relating to willfulness or injunctions (Secs. 6 and 7 of the Bill) or the expansion of prior user rights (Sec. 9(b) of the Bill), because these do not invoke significant patent-prosecution issues. However, those NAPP members who are also patent litigators have expressed opposition or reservations with respect to these issues.

NAPP supports the concept that English-language translations of provisional applications should be required to be filed in the provisional application file, as opposed to the files of the nonprovisional application or applications claiming benefit of the provisional.

NAPP believes the following language could be added as an initial sentence to 1.78(a)(5)(iv): “Benefit to a provisional application may not be granted in any nonprovisional application or any international application designating the United States of America unless the provisional application is in English or an English-language translation is provided with a certification of the accuracy of the translation.” to recify issues with the rule.

NAPP believes that the consequence for a translation not being provided in response to notice should be that the claim to benfit should be waived.

NAPP is concerned that, without clarification in Rule 1.78(a)(5)(iv), the period of time selected may be insufficient to obtain a translation or may be variable depending on the opinion of the particular USPTO official sending the notice in any given case.

NAPP believes that the quality and timeliness of patent examinations has degraded in some technology areas and patent pendency is on the rise.

NAPP members are reluctant to file patent applications electronically for many reasons, with the main reason being that the software packages provided by the USPTO are not user-friendly and there is poor technical support.

NAPP believes that the USPTO needs to work harder on attracting qualified patent examiners and retaining these examiners. In particular, the USPTO should require the patent bar examination as a pre-requisite to applying for a position as a patent examiner.

NAPP believes other issues of concern include outsourcing patent searches, fee schedules, and mandatory publication of applications at 18 months.

NAPP proposes that the USPTO construe the term “application” broadly and in accordance with the definition in the Patent Act and allow applicants to place the names of the parties to joint research agreements in the application by filing original or supplemental oaths or declarations containing that information.

NAPP suggests the USPTO should implement the CREATE Act in a way that ensures that its practice with respect to 35 USC §103 is consistent throughout, viz, applicants should be permitted to submit inventors’ oaths or declarations during the course of prosecution – without fees – to overcome prior art rejections that would fall within the scope of the CREATE Act.

NAPP suggests Congress’s concern about public notice is satisfied by the terminal disclaimer notice that would be printed on the face of patents issuing where the safe harbor provision of the CREATE Act was invoked and by public access to file histories.

NAPP suggests that, with respect to the dates and scope of invention, the USPTO should require no more than the CREATE Act specifically requires.

NAPP has provided other, specific suggestions with respect to certain wording of the proposed rules and the USPTO’s apparent interpretation thereof.