Examiner Shirley D. Hicks has allowed 71 of 112 decided applications (63%) in Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security.
Shirley D. Hicks maintains a public record in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security). Across 167 total applications, 112 applications have been decided (allowed or abandoned). Of those 112 decided applications, 71 were allowed, yielding an allowance rate of 63%. The examiner's record spans a single art unit. This pooled figure reflects outcomes across all work in that art unit and describes the past record only.
This profile aggregates the examiner's complete work history across all art units in TC 2100. The allowance rate is computed from decided applications only (allowed plus abandoned), excluding pending cases. Aggregate historical figures describe patterns in closed applications and are not predictions about any specific pending or future application. Individual art-unit records may show different rates and are available separately.
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 information retrieval and database structures.
Allowance rate for applications with an examiner interview versus without one.
A correlation, not proof that interviews cause allowances. Based on 78 decided applications with an interview and 34 without.
Methodology. This page pools every art unit in which Examiner Shirley D. Hicks 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: 167 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