It is time to take a deeper look and derive or strengthen some strategies to argue for patentable subject matter eligibility during patent prosecution, now that the first round articles on the USPTO Memorandum April 19, 2018,...more
5/3/2018
/ Claim Construction ,
CLS Bank v Alice Corp ,
Guidance Update ,
Litigation Strategies ,
Mayo v. Prometheus ,
MPEP ,
Patent Examinations ,
Patent Prosecution ,
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ,
Patents ,
Prior Art ,
Section 101 ,
Section 102 ,
Section 103 ,
USPTO ,
Young Lawyers
Claim terms are given a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification, ideally. Occasionally, a USPTO examiner interprets a claim term in a manner different from what the applicant in a patent...more
USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) rejection of a patent claim, alleging the claim is not significantly more than an abstract idea under 35 USC §101, is a frequent and often frustrating occurrence during patent...more
A patent claim can be rejected for inherency over a reference. An inherent property cannot be claimed, even if that property was not known at the time a prior art composition was disclosed or prior art invention was made....more
Suppose your client’s patent application is rejected as allegedly obvious under 35 USC §103, and the Examiner cites one or more references and sets forth an “obvious to try” rationale in an Office action. Here are some tools...more