Page:Thaler v. Hirshfeld.pdf/8

 . The decision also explained why plaintiff’s policy arguments as to the effects of the agency’s interpretation were rejected, and the decision reached a reasonable conclusion regarding the proper construction of the statute. Plaintiff has pointed to no USPTO policies with which the decision is inconsistent. Accordingly, the USPTO’s interpretation that an “inventor” must be a natural person is entitled to deference.

Even if no deference were due, the USPTO’s conclusion is correct under the law. The question of whether the Patent Act requires that an “inventor” be a human being is a question of statutory construction. Accordingly, the plain language of the statute controls. ,, 364 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2004). As the Supreme Court has held: “The preeminent canon of statutory interpretation requires us to ‘presume that [the] legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.’ Thus, our inquiry begins with the statutory text, and ends there as well if the text is unambiguous.”, 541 U.S. 176, 183, 124 S.Ct. 1587, 158 L.Ed.2d 338 (2004) (quoting, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992)) (internal citations omitted).

Using the legislative authority provided by the Constitution’s Patent Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8, Congress codified the Patent Act in 1952,, 448 U.S. 176, 180, 100 S.Ct. 2601, 65 L.Ed.2d 696 (1980), and has amended the Patent Act a number of times in the ensuing sixty years. In 2011, Congress promulgated the America Invents Act, which, as relevant here, formally amended the Patent Act to provide an explicit statutory definition for the term “inventor” to mean “the individual, or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 100(f). The America Invents Act also added that “joint inventor” means “any one of the individuals who invented or discovered the subject matter of a joint invention.” § 100(g). Additionally, Congress has required that “[a]n application for patent shall be made, or authorized to be made, by the inventor … in writing to the Director.” 35 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). “[E]ach individual who is the inventor or a joint inventor of a claimed invention in an application for patent shall execute an oath or declaration in connection with the application” which “shall contain statements that— … such individual believes himself or herself to be the original inventor or joint inventor of [the] claimed invention.” § 115(b). An applicant may also submit a “substitute statement” to the USPTO “in lieu of” the oath or declaration: "A substitute statement under paragraph (1) is permitted with respect to any individual who—
 * (A) is unable to file the oath or declaration under subsection (a) because the individual—
 * (i) is deceased;
 * (ii) is under legal incapacity; or
 * (iii) cannot be found or reached after diligent effort; or
 * (B) is under an obligation to assign the invention but has refused to make the oath or declaration required under subsection (a)."

§ 115(d)(2). The “substitute statement” must also “identify the individual to whom the statement applies” as well as the circumstances triggering the exception to the oath or declaration requirement. § 115(d)(3).

As the statutory language highlights above, both of the definitions provided by