It doesn't seem obvious to me. I would think that expedited examinations don't increase the workload of an examiner but only alter the order in which the applications are examined. In other words, it seems that expedited examination doesn't tell the examiner how to examine an application, only which application to examine.
All of the examiners I've met seem highly professional and take the law seriously. Let's hope these stories of personal convenience trumping well-established law are quite rare indeed.
Regards.
restriction practice is a perfect example of reducing the burden on the examiners - this practice is set forth in the MPEP, but, it is ultimately the decision of the primary examiner whether to apply and maintain a restriction (assumining that the restriction is not sucessfully traversed) - the primary examiner is NOT REQUIRED to restrict an application - it is an example of a practice that can be regarded as a "personal convenience" in many instances (especially genus/species and combination/subcombination), yet is certainly professional
it is important to distinguish between examining practice that is merely convenient and that which is required - restriction practice and decisions on petitions for accelerated examinations can often appear to be merely convenient, when the practice is actually intended to maximize the examination process by minimizing burden on the examiner - if you ask examiners who have had signatory authority for the past 10 years, you may find that new burdens are placed on the examiners in the form of added layers of quality review
Fran Lorin
Author
Topic: Is searching the USPTO enough? (Read 4173 times)
