Examiner Gisel Gabriela Faccenda has allowed 10 of 21 decided applications (48%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Examiner Gisel Gabriela Faccenda maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 45 total applications, 21 have been disposed of (decided). Of those 21 decided applications, 10 were allowed and 11 were abandoned, yielding an allowance rate of 48% over the disposed count. The examiner works within a single art unit. This pooled record reflects outcomes across all applications handled in TC 2100 and does not predict results in any individual case.
This record aggregates all applications across the examiner's art units in TC 2100. The allowance rate of 48% describes the proportion of decided applications that have been allowed and reflects past outcomes only. Aggregate statistics do not indicate the outcome of any specific application, nor do they account for differences in application complexity, claim scope, or prosecution history. The pooled figure is descriptive of the examiner's historical record, not predictive.
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.
Based on 45 applications — too small a sample to characterize the rejection mix reliably; shown for completeness.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Gisel Gabriela Faccenda 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: 45 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