Examiner David M Rogers has allowed 42 of 68 decided applications (62%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
David M Rogers maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 68 disposed applications, his allowance rate is 62%, meaning 42 applications were allowed and 26 were abandoned. This record spans a single art unit. The allowance rate reflects historical outcomes on decided cases and does not represent a prediction for any specific application or pending matter.
This pooled record aggregates dispositions across all art units where the examiner has worked. The 62% allowance rate describes past outcomes on 68 decided applications and is correlational data only—not a forecast of any particular case. Pooled figures smooth variation across art units but do not explain individual application circumstances or pending prosecution.
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.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 36 decided applications with an interview and 32 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner David M Rogers 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: 68 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