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 night I had the pleasure of attending a South Florida Intellectual Property Law dinner in Miami, Florida that featured a presentation by Commissioner Robert Stoll. Super nice guy, by the way. In a word, he killed. He knew exactly what to present to a group of patent practitioners and he has really changed my outlook regarding the Patent Office. Just some of the good news he presented: a program to decrease pendency to first action to 10 months a program to decrease TOTAL pendency to 20 months a First Action Interview program to encourage Examiner’s to initiate an
Written by: Mark Terry Last week, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) upheld a Patent Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) of a patent application for an invention that was claimed too broadly. As a Miami Patent and Trademark Attorney I follow BPAI decisions on a daily basis, and I constantly seek wisdom from the mistakes of others. At issue in Ex parte Tosey was a claim to enhance the initiation of a coupling between a wireless digital device and an “interconnected network”. The applicant argued that the terms “interconnect network” and “wireless network” are not synonymous as pertains to a
Written by: Mark Terry What happens when you only disclose a larger range of values in the specification and later amend the claims to recite a smaller range of values encompassed by the larger range? Do you run into a 112 written description problem? That was the issue in today’s Ex Parte Moraes Barros (BPAI 2010-006399) decision at the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) where a Patent Examiner was reversed. As a Florida Patent Attorney, I stay updated on the latest decisions of the BPAI, so as to provide my clients with the best representation on appeal. In the Moraes Barros case, the
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
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
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:
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