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 In an educational opinion today, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) reversed a Patent Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, rejection as failing to comply with the enablement requirement on the grounds that the Appellant provided sufficient “evidence” that the Examiner was wrong. As a Florida Patent Attorney that deals with § 112 rejections frequently, this BPAI decision illustrates a plan of attack for Appellants. See the BPAI decision in Ex Parte Schaefer here . The Appellant, a chemical company, was appealing a 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, enablement rejection wherein the Examiner concluded that one
Written by Mark Terry Today’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) decision in Ex Parte Michelle illustrates just how useless the non-analogous art argument really is. Not to beat a dead horse, since much has been written about the uselessness of this argument by my fellow patent prosecution bloggers , but seriously, don’t use this argument anymore. I have yet to see it succeed even once. The Ex Parte Michelle case involved a telecommunications network claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) for being obvious. The Appellant tried his hand at the “non-analogous art” defense. The Board summarily dismissed this argument in one sentence:
Written by Mark Terry It is often the case that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will issue a 35 U.S.C. § 103 obviousness rejection based on what an Examiner believes is material that is known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. That is, the Patent Examiner will often state that such-and-such claim element (or some combination of claim elements) are well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). As a patent practitioner, you can respond with “attorney argument” and/or you can respond with hard evidence. The attached Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
Written by Mark Terry Today, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) reversed an Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) anticipation rejection of a key Macrovision patent application directed to watermarks for videos. As a Miami Patent Attorney who reads BPAI decisions almost daily, I enjoyed the Ex Parte Ryan decision because it showed a rare smack-down of a Patent Examiner (as far as BPAI smack-downs go). At issue in this case was whether the cited reference, Collier, disclosed a method for inserting watermarks into a video. Collier, however, did not disclose inserting watermarks into a video but rather detecting watermarks in a video. In a rare
Written by Mark Terry In its first decision of today, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) affirmed a Patent Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. sec. 112, first paragraph, rejection of a key Sony Corp. invention. As a Patent Attorney practicing in Miami, Florida, this case was interesting because it illustrated how a 35 U.S.C. sec. 112, first paragraph, rejection can be upheld on appeal. Sony’s invention was a heat-sink apparatus for computer or camera microprocessors. At issue was the disclosure in the specification of a single glass with a substrate bonded to it. The specification also disclosed “a main body with a plurality of
Written by Mark Terry Using strong words, today the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) affirmed a Patent Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §102(e) anticipation rejection of a Tokyo Electron invention, claiming that the Appellant’s attorney’s arguments alone held no weight. As a Miami Patent Attorney who reads BPAI decisions almost daily, I enjoyed the subtle drama of this decision and also learned something. At issue in Ex parte Willis , was a claim to a laboratory measuring device that measured spectral data. In response to the Patent Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §102(e) anticipation rejection, the Appellant’s attorney, from the firm of Oblon Spivak, provided one particular
Written by Mark Terry Today the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office reversed a Patent Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. sec. 103(a) obviousness rejection because the Examiner did not adequately explain why the ordinary artisan would have combined the cited prior art references. As a practicing Miami Patent Lawyer who responds to 35 U.S.C. sec. 103(a) obviousness rejections weekly, today’s decision of the BPAI is instructive because it illustrates a method for attacking obviousness rejections. The patent application at issue belongs to International Specialty Products, a global supplier of pharmaceutical products. The Patent Examiner found multiple prior art references
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