Love Letters
Applicants sometimes file letters with continuation (“child”) applications. We briefly touched on this topic in August. Back then, we mentioned the Applicant in Hakim v.… Read More »Love Letters
Prosecution
Splitting the Advisory
We recently uploaded an informal video about prosecution after a final Office Action from the USPTO. The video touches on key issues like cost, timing,… Read More »Splitting the Advisory
Seriously, Bro
Frequently, an Applicant will amend an independent claim based on a feature from a dependent claim. The next Office communication seems to consider more thoroughly… Read More »Seriously, Bro
Nodal, Session 3, Follow-Up
Nodal, Session 3, considered the rejection under 35 USC 101 in PTAB Appeal No. 2020-006023. Viewers will know we recommended amending Claim 1 to incorporate… Read More »Nodal, Session 3, Follow-Up
What Counts
USPTO Examiners are evaluated partially on their production. This production is largely determined by the count system. The count system is not discussed in the… Read More »What Counts
On Burden-Shifting
During our US Prosecution Study Group, Session 20, we discussed shifting the burden back to the Examiner. On the other hand, we privately considered problems… Read More »On Burden-Shifting
Teaching Toward “Teaching Away”
Last week, we considered what “teaching away” is not. What is teaching away? “Teaching away” requires criticizing, discrediting, or discouraging investigation into the claimed invention. … Read More »Teaching Toward “Teaching Away”
Teaching Away From “Teaching Away”
“Teaching away” is a topic frequently misunderstood at (almost?) all levels of patent review. It is not a surprise that non-US Applicants and Examiners make… Read More »Teaching Away From “Teaching Away”
Principle of Operation Arguments
Last week, we briefed In re Ratti. 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959); MPEP 2143.01 VI. Ratti clarifies that a secondary… Read More »Principle of Operation Arguments
On In re Ratti
We recently considered arguments directed to rendering the prior art inoperable. A related conclusion, articulated In re Ratti, clarifies that a secondary reference cannot modify… Read More »On In re Ratti
- « Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next »