Reasons for making and not making a proposed combination must be weighed against one another to determine obviousness.

Transitional phrases are not “weasel words” so do not let examiners use them as such.

It is important to provide evidence contradicting an examiner’s overly-broad interpretation.

Whether an invention is directed to or related to an abstract idea can make all the difference.

There is a difference. Read about some strategies for the latter.

Burden shifting and inherency interplay with functional claim language.

Be careful with examiner citations of additional evidence and inherency rejections under MPEP 2131 lurking in the background.

Be careful in your PTAB appeal brief Summary – PTAB judges really do look carefully at how you map you claim elements to the specification.

New USPTO appeal pilot program to fast-track ex parte appeals.

The interaction between obviousness and simplicity can be counterintuitive for those not familiar with how inventors invent.