There are several diverse activities with respect to patent reform, each appearing to attack different problems (or perceived problems):

The patent reform proposed in the house in the current version of H.R. 2795 would alter patent rights through changes related to injunctive relief and willfulness, along with a number of other significant changes including moving from a first-to-invent to first-inventor-to-file system.

Proposed legislation in the Senate (S. 1020) and in the House (H.R. 2791) would eliminate fee diversion. However, the USPTO would not necessarily have more funds since excess money would be returned to applicants rather than kept in the USPTO to increase quality through having more resources (perhaps more staff and better searching tools).

In KSR v. Teleflex, a case where KSR recently petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, there is a potential for significant changes to the interpretation of the obviousness standard, as is articulated by PFF’s amicus brief.

One area where there seems to be universal agreement is the PTO’s inability to keep up with the increasing number of applications (a wait of four years for a first office action response is possible in some technologies) and their lack of access to certain types of prior art (e.g. publications and product literature). The NAS report points this out, as do many companies such as Microsoft, IBM, Apple Computer, Intel, and Hewlett-Packard (represented by the Business Software Alliance).

Although ending fee diversion would certainly be a first step in improving patent quality, an explicit fix to the patent quality problem may be necessary before tackling the more complex issues of patent reform.