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 Grillo-Lopez, is a 2020 decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that is listed among the Board’s precedential decisions. Ex parte Grillo-Lopez,
Read more
While a judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, such a reconstruction is improper if it includes knowledge gleaned
Read more
In Ex parte Song, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) reversed an Examiner’s obviousness rejection after finding the Examiner failed to establish that it would
Read more
Section 101 broadly recognizes patent eligibility for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” However, the U.S. Supreme Court has identified exceptions
Read more
Ex parte Jud, is a 2007 decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) that is listed among the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s
Read more
Applicants are not always required to present evidence of unexpected results in a § 1.132 declaration. If the specification identifies a result as unexpected or surprising,
Read more
A threshold issue for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) to resolve is often claim interpretation.  It is well-settled that claims must be “given their
Read more
Patent claims often recite structural limitations in combination with one or more properties. In the chemical arts, for example, a claim might recite a copolymer comprising
Read more
Ex parte Sami Chems. & Extracts, Ltd., is a 2009 decision of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) that is listed among the Patent
Read more