Claim terms that appear to provide a frame of reference might require something more to carry weight at the USPTO.

How having a different purpose can be used in forming arguments against obviousness at the USPTO.

Some PTAB judges are already citing Bard as a way to reject GUI inventions.

Keep a sharp focus on the actual claim language to avoid making arguments that improperly assume a more specific claim scope than what is actually set forth.

In re Schulhauser is being cited by the USPTO for more than the mere idea that conditional limitations can be ignored in method claims.

Many applicants do not want an automatic printed copy of their patent grant upon issuance. Is there a way to save some time, money, effort, and natural resources?

Do not underestimate the value of technical reasoning in the obviousness analysis.

It’s not the drawings in isolation when looking at 1.83(a) Drawing Objections.

Sometimes examiners stretch things too far – read about a recent case discussing speculative rejections in the case of swim paddles.

Get your nominations ready! The USPTO is accepting them now..