THE PLUS IP FIRM
We are board-certified intellectual property attorneys, inventors, and engineers that help small-size inventors, entrepreneurs, and businesses register and protect patents, copyrights, and trademarks so you can profit from them faster.
Call Now: 786.443.7720
Written by: Mark Terry Last week’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision of Ex Parte Lim , which affirmed a Patent Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection, teaches an important lesson – obviousness rejections must address both references – not just one. As a Miami Patent Attorney that reads BPAI decisions frequently, I’m surprised that any practitioners even try this argument anymore. The case of Ex Parte Lim involved a mobile communications network, such as those used by cell phone providers. The Examiner issued a 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection based on two references – Lipsanen and Siren. The Appellant argued that Lipsanen did
Written by: Mark Terry The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) recently handed down an influential decision when it reversed an obviousness-type rejection (Ex Parte McManamy, Appeal 2009-008781) entered by a patent examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The 103(a)-obviousness rejection statute indicates that a patent may not be obtained if it would have been obvious to someone practicing ordinary skill in the “art” at the time of the invention. The wording of the statute clearly leaves room for subjective interpretation, and as a Miami-based Patent Attorney I constantly stay abreast of new holdings that can strengthen my clients’ positions in pursuing a
Written by: Mark Terry Today, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) reversed an Examiner’s rejection based on the “well-known prior art” argument. This Quick Post highlights the obligations that must be met by an Examiner when utilizing this form of rejection. Recall that M.P.E.P. §2144.03 states: “Official notice without documentary evidence to support an examiner’s conclusion is permissible only in some circumstances. While ‘official notice’ may be relied on, these circumstances should be rare when an application is under final rejection or action under 37 CFR 1.113. Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence should only be taken by the examiner
Written by Mark Terry In its first decision on this Friday the 13th, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), reversed an Examiner’s 103 obviousness rejection based on the Examiner’s faulty inherency logic. I like this reversal because it highlights the Examiner’s burden and the consequences of not meeting that burden – i.e., a win for the Applicant. With regard to inherency, recall M.P.E.P. 2112 states that where an Applicant claims a composition in terms of a function, property or characteristic and the composition of the prior art is the same as that of the claim but the function is not explicitly disclosed
Written by Mark Terry In a quick decision today at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), the Board reversed an Examiner’s 103 obviousness rejection in two sentences (Analysis section only). Quick work for a usually wordy Board. The case of Ex parte Erhan (Appeal No. 2011-008127) involved a method of making fatty acid ester derivatives. The claims involved processes of production of a ketal product in combination with the hydroxyl ester product. The Examiner rejected the claims based on 35 U.S.C. 103(a) for obviousness but wrote a sparse explanation of where the claim elements were found in the prior art. The Board began by
Written by Mark Terry In a decision today at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), the Board reversed an Examiner’s 103 obviousness rejection based on the unreasonableness of the Examiner’s interpretation of the word “on.” The case of Ex parte Goruganthu (Appeal No. 2010-005235) involved a method of making lenses. The claims involved methods for forming solid immersion lenses on a resist film. One of the central issues was the meaning of the claim term “on.” What does the term “on” mean? The Board began by first contruing the claim term: We begin by noting that while the term “on” is
Written by Mark Terry Today, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) affirmed a Patent Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection of a commonly used “product-by-process” claim, supporting my theory that product-by-process claims are useless. As a Miami Patent Lawyer, I found the Ex parte Lockemeyer decision interesting because it confirmed my own abandonment of product-by-process claims in the course of patent prosecution. Ex parte Lockemeyer involved a product-by-process claim of a chemical composition made using a new process. The Examiner issued a 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection of the product-by-process claim based on a prior art reference that disclosed the chemical composition, but did
Written by Mark Terry Yesterday’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision in Ex Parte Peng highlighted the most effective way of reversing a Patent Examiner’s 103 obviousness type rejection – contesting the presence of one of the claim elements in the cited prior art. I, a Patent Lawyer practicing in the City of Miami, am always interested in reading about how other attorneys have gotten rejections reversed at the BPAI. The Ex Parte Peng case involved a method claim performed by a GPS receiver. The claim element at issue involved the storage of certain data in sample RAM, followed by a reallocation of
Written by Mark Terry Today’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision of Ex parte Nakamura et al , which reversed a Patent Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection, was remarkable because it illustrated a method for reversing an obviousness rejection. As a Miami Patent Lawyer with a large patent docket, the Ex parte Nakamura was educational because it showed me where I might find a hidden structural limitation in an apparatus claim. Ex parte Nakamura involved a box-like positioning apparatus that included various moving parts. The claim element at issue stated that the amount or distance a particular moving member can be moved was limited
Written by Mark Terry Last week’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision in Ex Parte Byers discredited a flawed 1.132 Affidavit presented by the Applicant and affirmed a Patent Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection. As a Miami Patent Lawyer, I found the Ex parte Byers decision interesting because it showed a common pitfall when using 1.132 Affidavits. The case of Ex parte Byers involved an online marketplace for selling healthcare products. The Applicant submitted a 1.132 Affidavit in support of its arguments and the Board found it insuficient to rebt the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Specifically, the Board stated: “the conclusory statements in the
THE PLUS IP FIRM
We are board-certified intellectual property attorneys, inventors, and engineers that help small-size inventors, entrepreneurs, and businesses register and protect patents, copyrights, and trademarks so you can profit from them faster.
Call Now: 786.443.7720