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On July 16, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Akeva L.L.C. v. Nike, Inc., Addidas America, Inc. (nonprecedential) in which the difference between removing a subject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
On July 10, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) reversed the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness rejections in Ex parte Loveless. The rejections were based on the Examiner’s construction of certain claim limitations as relating to an intended use, rather than being structural
Read more
Ex parte Bobrowski is a 2008 decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) that is listed among the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s
Read more
On June 30, 2020, the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Pacific Coast Building v. Certainteed Gypsum, Inc. (nonprecedential) agreeing with the District Court that patentee’s own term
Read more
On May 13, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a decision in Ex parte Ismagilov reversing an Examiner’s rejection of original claims for
Read more