Page 33 - 2018 Annual Report Taiwan Intellectual Property Office

amend comprehensive examination guidelines, review examinations, set up patent examination quality online feedback mechanism, implement fault notification mechanism, seek public feedback by holding patent examination quality review meetings, as well as strengthen professionalism for examiners.
Proposals for Improving Patent Examination Quality
• Patent Examination Quality Review Mechanism
To optimize patent examination quality, TIPO set up the Patent Examination Quality Management Task Force, which is in charge of cross-division review of patent examination.
In 2018, 374 invention patent applications were reviewed, which accounted for 5‰ of all invention office actions and disposals, and the reviews were very well implemented. In addition, TIPO holds the Patent Examination Quality Conference every six months to analyze review results which may be referenced to facilitate future improvements for examiners.
Furthermore, the Patent Examination Feedback Form will be put on TIPO’s website in first half of 2019 to collect public opinions on the examination of individual cases, which will be regularly analyzed.
In addition, TIPO launched the division-level patent quality review for individual technical workgroups in 2018, and 2,246 invention patent applications were reviewed. This accounted for 5.7% of all disposals.
Focusing on invention patent reexamination and utility patent technical evaluation reports, TIPO introduced a quality review mechanism of self-check and mutual check in 2018. 115 disposals were reviewed, which accounted for 2% of all disposals. In addition to correcting individual cases directly and screening out the common faults, TIPO holds the Review Case Discussion Conference every six months to analyze review results which may be referenced to facilitate future improvements for examiners.
• Consistency of Disposals in Examination and Reexamination
To ensure consistency of disposals in examination and reexamination, TIPO analyzed and discussed reexamination and invalidation cases with legal or technical disputes. Focusing on chemical engineering and polymer cases, examiners discussed topics including inventive step and written description requirements, and made comprehensive analysis and comparison of evidence and claim’s elements in the technology involved in contested cases. In biotechnology and medicine cases, examiners discussed issues such as service inventions and how to assess whether an invalidation requester has the right to apply for a patent. Through in-depth discussion, it is hoped that examiners can maintain consistency of disposals in examination and reexamination.
.
TIPO ANNUAL REPORT
31
II IPR EXAMINATIONS AND SERVICES