U.S. examiners often combine two or more references in making an obviousness rejection. Sometimes, a possible argument against obviousness is that there would not have been
Read more
In Ex parte Langenfeld (Appeal 2021-004075), the Examiner rejected the claims as obvious over a combination of prior art references and based on the theory of
Read more
Mylan Pharm. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., No. 2021-2121 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 29, 2022), is a recent decision of the Federal Circuit considering, inter alia,
Read more
In Ex parte Makarova (Appeal No. 2022-002730), the examiner rejected the claims as obvious based on a combination of references. The PTAB reversed, finding important differences
Read more
On June 21, 2022, the Federal Circuit decided Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., No. 2021-1070 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2022) finding that a negative limitation
Read more
Ex parte Ihn is a recent decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) addressing obviousness and enablement of a claim directed to an organic
Read more
This summer the Supreme Court denied certiorari in (i.e., declined to review) American Axle & Mfg. Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC. To many patent practitioners in the
Read more
Ex parte Bhatnagar is a recent decision in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reversed an obviousness rejection because the Examiner’s reason for modifying
Read more
Examiners often make § 112(b) indefiniteness rejections when claims include relative terms. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in Ex parte Rehder (Appeal 2021-003607) considered
Read more
In Ex parte Whiteman (Appeal No. 2021-003736), the examiner rejected the claims as obvious based on a hypothetical particle distribution consistent with the prior art. The
Read more