The registration of a document is not a measure of the impact of the document on the chain of ownership. The effect of a title document is determined by the Agency at the time the property must be established to allow the alleged assignee to act in connection with a patent or application. See MPEP 324 and 325. With increased interest and activity, there is an increased risk of error on the part of the creditor, particularly with respect to the necessary financing statements. This risk is due in large part to the degree of detail required to develop a security interest and the uncertainty as to the location and nature of registration as a result of federal pre-purchase issues. Any unregistered document that, in the sender`s opinion, is nevertheless an unusual case justifying registration, may be submitted to the Petitions Office by a petition under 37 CFR 1.181 requesting the registration of the document. While the case law suggests that perfection by the USPTO is not necessary for trademarks and services, patent law is clear that 35.C. assignment) anticipates the rules of state priority for buyers. See e.g.B. Rhone-Poulence Agro, S.A. v.
DeKalb Genetics Corp., 284 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (indicating that a secured creditor should register its patent security interests with the USPTO in order to improve against a good faith buyer); In re Transp. Design – Tech., Inc., 48 B.R. 635, 639 (Bankr.C.D. callus. 1985) (by asserting that a good faith buyer who registered his transfer of ownership to the USPTO will win the interests of an insured party who does not denounce his security interest with the USPTO). Given preventive patent legislation, a creditor who takes trademarks or service marks as collateral may one day see a court use a pre-regulatory patent procedure to set guidelines for securitization of trademarks. Therefore, if a party attempts to assert that the failure to file the USPTO for a mark or service mark leads to ineffective perfection, that party may defend its position by referring to patent cases.