Both Noveck and the “Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Knowledge-Based Economy” indicate the USPTO as one of the key things to be improved as part of any reform of the patent system. If one wants to become a patent examiner one can go to USAJOBS and type in “patent examiner” to view the available openings. There one will probably end up at job announcement LD220981 for a Computer or Electrical Engineer at a rate of pay between  $41,350.00 and $77,722.00. As with many government jobs, this rate of pay for a regsitered professional engineer seems to be substantially lower than that in the private sector. Indeed pursuing a career as a patent examiner in the USPTO it appears one can reach a maximum paygrade of GS-13 which works out to around $113007 for the top grade. Given this it seems unlikely that the USPTO will attract many of the so called best engineers to review the patents that are submitted. Given that the US has limtied quantities of engineers to draw upon, we might not want the best going to the patent office to review patents rather than researching or creating new devices, but it needs to be the case that the examiners are provided the resources and the time to stay abreast of the developments in the field they cover.  A similar disparity in pay exists for attorneys in government service and in the private sector.

In the past (and possibly the present) there has existed the possibility that an attorney might be ordered to serve as the defense counsel for indigents. Taking this, and jury duty, as guides one might propose that in the interests of promoting the progress of science and technology that it be the duty of professional engineers to review patents as an adjunct to the USPTO. Engineers could be selected by lot on some sort of basis to review a patent in their field. Naturally there could be some minor problems with this related to engineers objecting to this being a requirement of being registered as an engineer. More serious problems would arise from having to take measures to prevent conflicts of interest or the leaking of secrets prior to publication.

Such a system with the inclusion of the peer to patent system would decentralize the process of approving patents so that those actually working or at least expert in a field would be analyzing related patents. Furthermore it would solve the problem of finding and retaining appropriately qualified patent examiners because anyone with the appropriate expertise might be chosen as an examiner for a particular patent. It seems likely that there is some expertise that is related to approving patents separate from that of knowledge in the field, so it would most likely be necessary to assign the chosen field experts to correspond with an offical at the USPTO who would have the appropriate knowledge regarding patent policy and law.

A more detailed study would need to be undertaken in order to examine the feasability of this rather vague proposal. The most obvious issues are as follows. From what groups would the potential patent examiners be chosen? How would impartiality be enforced? How would the chosen examiners be compensated? In what capacity would the potential patent examiners be chosen, simple assistance or making decisions? Would appointed examiners be less diligent or skilled? How would this system affect the quality of patents issued? Would this system cause substantial disruption of industry given the number of patent applications in a single year? Would simply increasing the number of patent examiners in the current USPTO be a better solution? Would industry have a disincentive to apply for patents as applying for more patents could mean less work from their employees (as there would be an increased probability of some employee being chosen as an examiner)?