SynBERC:MIT/Calendar/2008-2-14

From OpenWetWare
Revision as of 11:50, 12 February 2008 by Reshma P. Shetty (talk | contribs) (New page: <nonwikionly>Visit the [http://openwetware.org/index.php?title=SynBERC:MIT/Calendar/2008-2-14 wiki version of this page].</nonwikionly> Anyone in the synthetic biology community is welcom...)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

<nonwikionly>Visit the wiki version of this page.</nonwikionly>

Anyone in the synthetic biology community is welcome to attend.

Thursday February 14, 2008 at 1:00pm EST

68-180, MIT

Topic of discussion

Beth Noveck, Peer to patent project

Info about the Peer to Patent project from [1]:

On June 15, 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) opens the patent examination process for online public participation for the first time. With the consent of the inventor, the Peer-to-Patent: Community Patent Review pilot, developed by the New York Law School Institute for Information Law and Policy in cooperation with the USPTO, enables the public to submit prior art and commentary relevant to the claims of 250 pending patent applications in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security (TC2100). This historic initiative connects an open network of community input to the legal decision-making process.

Peer-to-Patent involves 1) review and discussion of posted patent applications, 2) research to locate prior art references 3) uploading prior art references relevant to the claims, 4) annotating and evaluating submitted prior art, and 5) top ten references, along with commentary, forwarded to the USPTO. The goal of this pilot is to prove that organized public participation can improve the quality of issued patents.

Anyone in the public can participate as a reviewer, a patent application facilitator, and by sharing information about the pilot with others. Inventors can submit a qualified patent application for open review. Public participation is crucial to demonstrating the value of openness and making the case for greater USPTO accountability to the technical community. A successful pilot will also make a case for expanding to other subject matter.