Examiner Emily Gorman Leathers has allowed 5 of 9 decided applications (56%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Emily Gorman Leathers has a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Her pooled record spans one art unit. Across 43 total applications, 9 have been disposed (decided). Of those 9 disposed applications, 5 were allowed and 4 were abandoned. The allowance rate over disposed applications is 56%. This rate describes outcomes in the examiner's past record and is not predictive of the outcome of any specific application.
This pooled record aggregates data across one art unit. The allowance rate of 56% is computed from decided applications only—allowed and abandoned—and does not include pending cases. Pooled figures describe the examiner's historical record across all their art units combined. The rate is a summary of past outcomes and does not predict the result of any individual application.
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 computer-aided design (CAD).
Based on 43 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Emily Gorman Leathers 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: 43 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