Both Dennis Crouch and Stephen Albainy-Jenei have posted excellent summaries of the Tafas v. Doll case. If you’re looking for more information on this complex case – and the uncertain future of the proposed rules that would limit continuations, Requests for Continued Examination, and claims – be sure to check out both the Patent Baristas post and the PatentlyO post.

As I’ve re-read the case several times, Judge Bryson’s concurring opinion continues to draw my attention. His open wondering about the ability of the Office to limit serially-filed continuations is very interesting…especially when considered in light of the Office’s recent efforts to explore the possibility of implementing a deferred examination system.

Could a deferred examination system that allows an applicant to file, in parallel, several continuations while the original application remains pending provide a compromise to the competing concerns over late-filed continuations and an applicant’s ability to claim that which he disclosed?

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in the Tafas v. Dudas case (now styled as Tafas v. Doll).

I provided several updates on Twitter as I read the opinion, and reproduce them below for the wider audience:

1. CAFC: Tafas v. Dudas – CON limit contrary to patent act; all other rules, including RCE and ESD, are not –> BASED ONLY ON ARGS PRESENTED.

2. CAFC: Tafas v. Dudas – Bryson concurrence – opinion does not decide whether limit on SERIALLY-FILED CONS would be consistent with patent act

3. CAFC: Tafas v. Dudas – Judge Rader dissents, would strike down all proposed rules as substantive limitations carrying “startling change”

4. CAFC: Tafas v. Dudas – Next – request for panel reh’g and for reh’g en banc. At this point, two judges decided a major patent policy issue.

5. CAFC: Tafas v. Dudas – Meanwhile, USPTO sits without a Director…without a policy leader. What comes of the new rules and this decision?

6. CAFC Tafas v. Dudas (Doll) opinion: http://is.gd/ocWP

I’ll provide a more detailed analysis when I post my full review of the case.