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 I came upon a super interesting Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision issued today. I found the Smucker v. Mack-Ray case interesting for both educational and entertainment reasons. The decision involves the effect an infringement action may have on a re-exam. But the BPAI used uncharacteristically harsh words to reject the Appellant’s arguments, which made it amusing. It’s rare to see any emotion in a BPAI decision, so when you see Jones Day get a verbal spanking, you can’t help but write about it. In the Smuckers v. Mack-Ray case, the patent owner had sued the defendant for patent infringement
Written by Mark Terry Terms of degree – such as “easily,” “readily,” and “aesthetically pleasing” – can be subjective and therefore problematic when used as claim language. But the recent Federal Circuit decision of Hearing Components, Inc. v. Shure Inc., 600 F. 3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) provides some guidelines on how to properly use terms of degree in claim language without worrying about a 35 U.S.C. §112 indefiniteness rejection. As a Florida Patent Attorney, I write claims almost every day, so this case is topical for me. Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, the “specification shall conclude with one or
Written by Mark Terry In it’s first decision of the day this sleepy Monday morning, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) rejected a novel “market forces” argument in favor of a Patent Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection. As a Miami Patent Lawyer, I found the Ex parte Scherschel decision interesting because I like to read the novel arguments asserted by patent attorneys when they have a dog of a case. And sometimes the BPAI’s response is even more interesting. The case of Ex parte Scherschel involved an invention related to cell phone communications systems. This case was on re-hearing, which means the
Written by Mark Terry In the last decision of this past Thursday, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) reiterated the rule that attorney argument is not enough to meet certain burdens in course of patent prosecution. As a Board Certified patent lawyer in Miami with a sizable docket of cases, I’m constantly staying abreast of the current state of the law on issues relating to patent prosecution. The Patent Examiner in the Ex parte Zechlin case asserted that a characteristic of the claimed chemical process was found in a prior art patent. Specifically, the Patent Examiner found the claimed cyclic ketone removal characteristic was
Written by Mark Terry Today’s first Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision involved an eloquent exposition of the relationship between claim construction and ordinary dictionary meaning. The case of Ex parte Benson involved a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of a claim that turned on the construction of the claim term “embedded.” As a Patent Attorney in Miami with a full docket of patent cases, BPAI decisions that involve claim construction are highly topical for me. In Ex parte Benson, the BPAI explored the issue of how the claim term “embedded” should be construed. The Applicant argued the claim term should be given the
Written by Mark Terry On Friday, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) rejected the well-known “intended use” argument in favor of a Patent Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 102 anticipation rejection. As a Miami Patent Lawyer, I found the Ex parte Crabtree decision interesting because it confirmed my own abandonment of the “intended use” argument in the course of patent prosecution. The Ex parte Crabtree decision involved a claim for a mattress spring that performed a specific task. Specifically, the mattress spring “deflects debris.” The Appellant found a prior art reference that had the same structure as Appellant’s claim, but did not disclose a
Written by Mark Terry In short, the answer is “by a preponderance of the evidence.” The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision of Ex parte Hochsmann did a good job of highlighting this axiom. As a Miami Patent Lawyer, I found the Ex parte Hochsmann decision interesting because it reminded me of the burden I must carry when I practice before the BPAI. The case of Ex parte Hochsmann involved a chemical process including salt crystals. The principal issue in this appeal was whether Appellant had established that the Examiner erred in finding that the prior art reference would have disclosed a salt crystal. But
Written by: Mark Terry Yesterday’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision in Ex Parte Lin reveals a common patent prosecution error -especially before the BPAI – failing to properly address a rejection. The case of Ex Parte Lin involved a photolithography invention. The Examiner rejected the claims under the 1st paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to comply with the enablement requirement. According to the Examiner, the Specification disclosure would not enable a person with ordinary skill in this art (POSITA) to make or use, without undue experimentation, a “photomask with wavelength-reducing material throughout the full scope of the claimed
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) decision of Ex parte Yufa affirmed a Patent Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st paragraph, rejection. This was an interesting case for me, a Miami Patent Attorney, because it illustrated a type of rejection I don’t deal with much. The case of Ex parte Yufa involved an apparatus for detecting particles using beams of light. At issue was a claim element that did not appear to be present in the original specification. The Board found the disputed claim element did not have support in the initial disclosure and therefore the 35 U.S.C. 112, 1st
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