Examiner David Faber has allowed 346 of 652 decided applications (53%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
David Faber's public record spans 4 art units within Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 652 disposed applications, his allowance rate is 53%, meaning that of decided cases (allowed or abandoned), 53% resulted in allowance. His allowance rate varies across these art units, ranging from 40% to 79%. This pooled figure represents the aggregate record across all four art units and does not isolate performance in any single unit or predict outcomes in specific applications.
A pooled, cross-art-unit record aggregates data from multiple examination areas into a single overall allowance rate. This aggregate describes the examiner's historical performance across all assigned art units combined. The range shown reflects variation among individual art units but does not identify which rate applies to which unit. Aggregate figures describe what has occurred; they are not predictions about future applications or specific cases.
These are aggregate statistics from this examiner's past public record — not predictions about any specific application. The per-art-unit figures below show how the record varies across art units. Our approach to patent prosecution →
Each section benchmarks this examiner against that art unit's average. Figures are this examiner's own public record within the art unit; the overall rate above pools them.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 276 decided applications with an interview and 114 without.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 82 decided applications with an interview and 30 without.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 41 decided applications with an interview and 88 without.
Primarily examines artificial-intelligence and machine-learning methods.
Based on 21 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner David Faber has a public record within Technology Center 2100. Statistics are computed from publicly available USPTO records, refreshed on a recurring schedule. This page's data was last updated June 25, 2026. The overall allowance rate is total allowed divided by total decided applications (allowed plus abandoned) across all art units — not an average of the per-art-unit rates; pending applications are excluded. Figures are rounded for display. Pooled sample: 709 applications.
Lynch LLP is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Examiner statistics are derived from publicly available USPTO data.
These statistics describe past examiner behavior and do not predict the outcome of any particular application. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Where this page compares an examiner's allowance rate to an art-unit average, that comparison is a factual description of the public record, not a characterization of any individual examiner's conduct or competence.
This page is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by viewing it. Full disclaimers →
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING — Sean Lynch, Partner, Lynch LLP