Shared publicly  - 
A study conducted by the Intellectual Property Research Institute of Australia (IPRIA) has compared the results of examination of nearly 500 equivalent patents filed in each of Australia, the US and Europe, and found that in well over half of all cases there were meaningful amendments made to the claims as a result of the work done by patent office examiners.

A more-detailed study of a subset of 116 of these patent families established that in the vast majority of cases in which applications were amended, the amendments were narrowing in scope, i.e. examination resulted in limitations to the extent of patent rights granted.  Australia generally granted the broadest patents, and the US the narrowest.

Interestingly, the rate of meaningful change to claims as a result of examination was substantially technology-independent.

While the results of this study tell us nothing about patent 'quality' (i.e. whether broader or narrower patents 'should' have been granted in any particular case), they do tell us that examiners have an impact on outcomes, and that applicants are frequently not being granted the broad scope of rights for which they often apply!
Add a comment...