We previously discussed “broadest reasonable interpretation” claim construction as featured in, but distinct from, obviousness rejections. Let’s consider one uncommon situation that clarifies this distinction.… Read More »Single-Reference Obviousness Rejections
In Ex Parte Schulhauser, Appeal No. 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) considered elements like “triggering an alarm state… Read More »“Conditions Precedent” Precedent
The best way to address errors in patent prosecution is to not make them. But what happens when mistakes inevitably occur? This question was most… Read More »Rescinding Errors
Anticipation generally requires one reference disclose all elements of a claim. (“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in… Read More »Role of BRI in Anticipation and Obviousness
米国以外の出願人による反論に、次の類があります。「審査官による先行技術の組合せが自明に思えた場合でも、実際は自明ではなかったであろう。その理由は、先行技術の組合せでは、～という特別な効果を得ることができないためである。」
Read More »自明性に対する不採算的反論Sometimes, non-US applicants will argue, “even assuming the Examiner’s proposed combination of prior art appears obvious, the proposed combination actually would not have been obvious. … Read More »Reverse Economic Arguments Against Obviousness
Historically, operations of elements of apparatus claims were written in present tense (e.g., “displaying”). Accused infringers sometimes argued their electronic devices did not infringe when… Read More »“Configured To”
American patent Examiners are professionals trained to apply American patent law in deciding whether to allow or reject applications. The Examiners are trained how to… Read More »Do You Agree?