University:
Boston University
Course:
GMS BC 630 | Ethical & Policy Issues in Health and Medical Services Emergency Management
Academic year:

2022
Views:

467

Pages:

7
Author:

Tara Guerrero

Tables and Figures Table 1. Summary statistics for words present in the first independent claim. Table 2. Regression model correlating measures of patent scope with survey rater responses. Table 3. Broader patents are more valuable. Table 4. Predicting survey narrowing via other measures of patent scope. Table 5. The effect of examiner toughness on words added by examiners in different USPTO technology centers and overall. Table 6. Balance table comparing Student’s T-Test results for the claims at filing by patents issued by examiners in the top 25% and bottom 25% of toughness. Table 7. The relationship between examiner toughness and observable patent examination outcomes. Table 8. The effect of examiner toughness on the likelihood that a patent application will issue. Table 9. Change in willingness to pay the first maintenance fee to keep their patent in force (by firm type). Table 10. Change in willingness to pay the second maintenance fee to keep their patent in force (by firm type). Table 11. Words-added as predicted by different measures of examiner toughness. Figure 1: Patent Value at Filing (based on Gambardella et al., 2005). Figure 2. Number of words in first independent claim before and after prosecution. Figure 3. Number of patent examiners per USPTO art unit by Technology Center. Figure 4. Average words added for examiners in the 10 largest art units within each USPTO Patent Technology Center. Figure 5. Survey responses as compared with measure for changes in patent scope. Figure 6. Survey responses as compared with measure for final patent scope. Figure 7. Likelihood of paying renewal fees as a function of patent scope. Figure 8: Causal Graph showing the endogeneity problem of inference with Scope without an instrument. Figure 9. Average words in the first independent claim at filing by toughest and most lenient examiners. Figure 10: Average words in the first independent claim at issuance by toughest and most lenient examiners Figure 11. Number of words in the first independent claim (at issuance) as a function of examiner toughness. Figure 12. Increased likelihood of letting patent protection lapse (by not paying the first or second renewal fee) from getting a one standard deviation tougher examiner. Figure 13. Scatterplot of examiner abandonment rate against examiner scope toughness.24 Figure 14. Scatterplot of mean examiner pendency vs. wordsadded toughness. Figure 15. Permutation test of the effect of a tougher examiner on a patent being declared standards essential. Histogram is the null distribution, line at 7.1% is the observed coefficient. In this scatterplot some examiners appear to have a 100% abandonment rate, but also scope toughness, which would seem to be contradictory because scope toughness is constructed from words added to issued patents. This discrepancy is due to only incomplete abandonment data being available, not any error in calculation. Despite the confusion this may cause, we present the data this way since these are values that other empiricists would calculate if they used these methods in practice. 24