Section 101 specifies four patent eligible categories: process, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter.  However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted § 101 to exclude
Read more
In Ex Parte Mitani, Japan Tobacco took a creative approach in attempting to overcome a non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection before the Patent Trial and Appeal
Read more
U.S. patent examiners often use an optimization rationale when rejecting claims as obvious. Such situations typically arise when a claim recites a range of possible values
Read more
Ex parte Ha, is a recent decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) addressing the sufficiency of an examiner’s rationale for combining references and
Read more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision in Ex Parte Shaw in which an Examiner’s choice of lead compounds (i.e., prior art compounds identified
Read more
When faced with a limitation involving an open-ended numerical range, an examiner will not only analyze for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) but also scrutinize
Read more
Ratios can be useful when claiming a subset of two well-known components or variables, particularly when the subset (defined by a ratio) provides a new and
Read more
In an anticipation rejection, every element and limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art reference, arranged as in the claim.
Read more
Ex parte Yim, is a recent decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) addressing whether claimed properties were inherent in prior art compositions. In
Read more
In February, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. concerning the obviousness of a chemical compound. Perhaps the most
Read more