Examiner David Silver has allowed 187 of 311 decided applications (60%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
David Silver has a public record across 3 art units in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Over 311 disposed applications, he allowed 187, for an overall allowance rate of 60%. The allowance rate ranges from 59% to 64% across his art units. This pooled figure represents his historical record of decided cases—those allowed or abandoned—and does not account for pending applications. The range reflects variation in allowance rates among the individual art units where he maintains a substantial record.
A pooled, cross-art-unit record aggregates the examiner's performance across multiple art units into a single overall rate. The 60% allowance rate describes past decisions on 311 applications and is a historical aggregate. It is not a prediction of the outcome of any specific application, nor does it account for individual application facts, claims, or prosecution history. The range (59%–64%) shows variance among art units but does not identify which art unit produced which rate.
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 machine learning, and neural-network / biological-model computing.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 47 decided applications with an interview and 164 without.
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 18 decided applications with an interview and 73 without.
Primarily examines neural-network / biological-model computing, and machine learning.
Based on 9 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 Silver 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: 311 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