There are claim scope differences between “configured to” and “capable of” at the USPTO.

Coca-cola strategically uses dependent claims to obtain coverage of their new beverage supply device.

One way to help non-inventors appreciate obviousness (and non-obviousness).

Sometimes when an examiner piles on every possible rejection as to a specific claim element, they are telling you that is the limitation they cannot find in the prior art.

Applying the Printed Matter Doctrine to Software Claims

Patent practitioners have a multitude of tools in their belt to deal with obviousness rejections. The trick is picking the right tool for the right set of facts. Teaching away is one tool that can be powerful for the right set of facts. It is one of the clear ways to attack even an amorphous…

Intended use is a shorthand for multiple distinct concepts in patent law – read about an example illustrating that even examiners can get them confused.

Some patent applicants may gain a better understanding of what Juliet was going through.

When arguing for practical integration in response to a Section 101 rejection, be careful not to merely argue for an advantage that is nothing more than a characteristic of the abstract idea/algorithm.

Some examiners will try to defend improper interpretations in the most strange ways. Read about a recent case in the biotech arts.