Is the goal of issuing only clear and inventive patents one that should trump all other issues?

Examiner obfuscation of a rejection does not play well at the PTAB

Just because something is called “typical” does not mean its scope is clear to the USPTO.

An example of how to ensure proper consideration of AFCP requests.

The PTAB does not take kindly to attacks on the Examiner’s technical skill level.

Read about two sides of the analogous art coin.

Enjoy some social media stories courtesy of Facebook and the PTAB

Examiner speculation, if present, can be a weak point of a rejection on appeal, as illustrated in a recent PTAB decision.

A new informative decision on Section 101 shows how an invention using a neural network is patentable under Section 101 and the most recent USPTO guidelines on subject matter eligibility.

United Technologies tackles Section 112 rejections relating to enablement and possession regarding a claim limitation for an open-ended gear ratio.