May 6, 2022
Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., No. 2021-1864 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2022), is a recent decision of the Federal Circuit considering, inter alia,
Read more
April 28, 2022
Last month, in Almirall, LLC v. Amneal Pharm., No. 2020-2331 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2022) the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s holding of obviousness in an
Read more
April 21, 2022
Nine times out of ten a negative limitation satisfies the written description requirement when the specification positively describes the limitation to be excluded or better yet
Read more
April 15, 2022
Functional equivalence is a rationale that examiners often rely on in support of an obviousness rejection. However, as discussed in one of our previous blogs, examiners
Read more
April 7, 2022
U.S. patent claims typically use the terms “comprising” and “consisting of” when reciting components of a composition. “Comprising” indicates that the composition must include the recited
Read more
April 1, 2022
Ex parte Nakanishi, is a recent decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) addressing obviousness of a claim directed to a steel composition. The
Read more
March 24, 2022
Obviousness rejections of composition claims are often premised on an examiner’s assertion that it would have been obvious to replace a component in a primary reference
Read more
March 17, 2022
There is no requirement to provide unexpected results until the Patent Office establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. Seems simple, but Ex parte Popplewell shows
Read more
March 11, 2022
Applicants can traverse rejections by submitting evidence in the form of a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132. While factual evidence, such as additional experimental data, is
Read more
March 4, 2022
In Ex parte Abbott (Appeal No. 2021-000770), the examiner rejected the claims as obvious based on an optimization rationale. The PTAB reversed. Independent claim 1 recited
Read more