This Thanksgiving, I’m grateful for PTAB decisions that keep obviousness grounded in evidence. In a recent turkey-decoy appeal, the Board rejected an examiner’s broad “manufacturing cost” motivation as unsupported. A downward-facing tail may fool a gobbler, but vague rationales won’t fool the PTAB.

When “wired vs. wireless” looks obvious, think again. A recent PTAB appeal shows how differences in environment, structure, and reasonable expectation of success can defeat an obviousness rejection — and why prosecutors should put those facts front and center

Examiners sometimes rely on unfinished products to reject device claims—but as a recent PTAB decision shows, “almost” isn’t enough. We break down the case and share practical tips for responding to these nuanced rejections.

It is not uncommon for examiners to dismiss dimensional claim limitations—especially relative dimensions—as mere design choices that don’t patentably distinguish over the prior art. Examiners often cite MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(a), which explains that a change in proportions of a prior art device is obvious unless there is some new function achieved. It’s an easy move…

Mr. IP Law is pleased to announce it has migrated to WordPress with a new look. Look out for new posts to again keep you up to date on all of the latest patent prosecution trends.

Non-limiting statements do not necessarily mean that there is no limit at all in terms of the scope of disclosure.

See how examiners try to combat “consisting of” language in obviousness rejections.

Read about a recent PTAB decision on the Hard Rock Cafe’s Golden Solo Experience.