Section 112(f) claims might be something to reconsider – precisely because infringers seem to think its still a scary benefit for patent applicants.

Patent searching for drafting is not the same as patent searching for examination. Special thanks to Eugene Lhymn for the inspiration related to this post.

Check out this conference opportunity at the USPTO Detroit Office.

Follow up post for “Not in the MPEP”

AFCP and Examiner Data

Not in the MPEP? No problem.

One of the great things about patent law is that there is never just a single way to do anything.

The double-edged sword of 112(f).

Is the identification of a far-afield reference on an IDS or in the application an admission that the reference would be obvious to apply in the inventor’s field, or is that hindsight?