Polish Professor files a Preissuance Submission to prevent Google from gaining a patent.

Polish Professor files a Preissuance Submission to prevent Google from gaining a patent.

Patent law, in general, is interesting to only patent lawyers.  The general public has no interest in the details of patent prosecution.  But once a decade or so, a patent prosecution worth watching passes through the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Google has filed patent application US201615370840: “Mixed boolean-token ans coefficient coding”  you can review a copy of the entire patent application HERE.  Jarosław Duda has filed a Preissuance Submission asking the United States Patent and Trademark Office to reject the part of the application that relates to Asymmetric Numeral Systems.  Mr. Duda claims that he invented parts of the invention claimed in the Google patent application and that he dedicated what he invented to the public domain.  By dedicating his invention to the public domain Mr. Duda contends that no one may patent the technology.  You can read the full text of Mr. Duda’s Third-Party Preissuance Submission HERE.

The reason that this Third-Party Preissuance Submission should interest the average person is that Mr. Duda’s invention relates to video compression.  Mr. Duda’s research related to Asymmetric Numeral Systems has been adapted into algorithms that yield significantly high compression ratios, with lower data loss, and lower computational cost.  The use of Asymmetric Numeral Systems for data compression has been shown to be 3 to 30 times more efficient that traditional methods of data compression.  Essentially the application of Asymmetric Numeral Systems to video compression allows higher quality video data to be played on lower quality computers than other video compression methods.  Many internet companies have already adapted Mr. Duda’s research into Asymmetric Numeral Systems for use in their video compression technology.

In Mr. Duda’s Third-Party Preissuance Submission he brings up many issues including inventorship, prior art and obviousness. Although he presents some citations to written materials which may be considered publications, none of them are patents . And while he explains the substance of the publications he fails to specifically itemize the claims to which the publications relate.  This means that it is unlikely that the United States Patent and Trademark Office will ever actually review Mr. Duda’s submission.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office is not obligated to act on Third-Party Preissuance Submissions that do not comply with all the requirements.  Any items that are submitted as part of a pre-issuance submission must be accompanied by a concise description of the asserted relevance of each item that is identified in the submission.  A concise description of relevance should set forth facts explaining how a particular printed publication is of potential relevance to the examination of the application in which the submission has been filed. This is done, most effectively, by (i) pointing out relevant pages or lines of the respective printed publication where the relevant issues raised by the text are located; and (ii) providing a focused description of the import of the cited text to draw the examiner’s attention to the issues. The concise description may be presented in narrative or claim chart form.  A concise description of relevance does not permit third parties to submit arguments against patentability or set forth conclusions regarding whether one or more claims are patentable.  Because Mr. Duda’s Third-Party Preissuance Submission fails to give a concise description that complies with United States Patent and Trademark Office requirements it is unlikely his submission will ever be reviewed.

It is still early on in the Third-Party Preissuance Submission process. Google has yet to respond to Mr. Duda’s accusation. Google will have an opportunity to debate the merits of the Third-Party Preissuance Submission, if a compliant submission is made. It will be interesting to see what decisions the United States Patent and Trademark Office ultimately makes. The effect that Mr. Duda’s Third-Party Preissuance Submission has on Google’s the patent application will affect all internet users.