Peer-to-patent: 1078 reviewers produced 32 pieces of prior art

IPJur notes that "1078 People Have Signed Up To Be Reviewers" for peer-to-patent and asks Should this figure be seen as a disappointing turnout or are roughly a thousand reviewers at the end of the first month of regular operation of the peertopatent.org website a sign of growing success? IPBiz says, why not take a look at the quality of the comments made by the reviewers?

A statistics page notes that there are now seven applications up, and 32 pieces of prior art have been cited. The statistics page notes two apps by Intel: 11/291378 and 11/286585.

IPBiz notes that the '378 app (published app 20070130448) was filed by CAVEN & AGHEVLI; c/o INTELLEVATE. The first claim of the '378 states: A method comprising: monitoring an access to a stack pointer to update a stack tracker structure; using information stored in the stack tracker structure to generate a distance value corresponding to a relative distance between a load instruction and a previous store instruction within a store buffer; and using the distance value to provide source data for the load instruction.

IPBiz notes that the '585 app (published app 20070118696) was filed by INTEL CORPORATION;c/o INTELLEVATE, LLC. The first claim of the '585 states: An apparatus comprising: a register tracker to generate a pre-computation slice; and a pre-computation engine to execute the pre-computation slice.

For those unfamiliar with intellevate, Intellevate is a leader in software and outsourcing services helping the intellectual property community. Based in Minneapolis and with offices in India, Intellevate employs 85 employees. Its subsidiaries include: FoundationIP, PortfolioIP, and Intellevate India.

Thus, Intel might be using peer-to-patent to evaluate the quality of outsourced patent applications.

IPBiz finds eight (8) applications up as of July 19. The GE application still leads the commentary.

***
See also

Bringing Peer Review to Patents


Inadvertent Argument Against Peer-to-Patent