On August 7, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision in Ex parte Koseoglu (Appeal 2019-002720) and reversed an obviousness rejection of a catalyst composition.
Read more
In determining “prior art” under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a reference is a “printed publication” if it is accessible to the public. As explained in the
Read more
In addition to the indefiniteness rejection, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in Ex parte Castellana (Appeal No. 2019-006605, July 20, 2020) (previously discussed here)
Read more
A product-by-process claim is a product claim that defines the claimed product in terms of the process by which it is made.  A product-by-process claim is
Read more
On July 30, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) ­reversed the Examiner’s obviousness rejection in Ex parte Lundberg. At issue was the meaning of
Read more
Ex parte Maeda is a 2009 decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) that is listed among the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s
Read more
On July 16, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Akeva L.L.C. v. Nike, Inc., Addidas America, Inc. (nonprecedential) in which the difference between removing a subject
Read more
In assessing the obviousness of chemical species when prior art teaches an encompassing genus, Section 2144.08 of the MPEP advises us to consider any teaching or suggestion in the reference
Read more
On July 1, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a decision in Ex parte Allen reversing an Examiner’s obviousness rejection for failing to
Read more
A rejection for obviousness must include “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re
Read more