Patent Professionals have to deal with writer’s block just like any other professional writer. Read some tips specific to patent drafting!

A Reply Brief can be an important tool where the examiner presents new (or “clarified”) explanations in the Answer. Failure to respond to those new arguments can spell trouble..

Airbnb confronts Schulhauser at the PTAB.

Look out for new Section 101 rejection even after you have won a reversal.

An applicant gets a raw deal when the PTAB judges overlook examiner error as “harmless”.

When an examiner groups claim elements together and cites to hundreds of paragraphs without more specificity, they likely fail to give the applicant proper notice, and thus fail to establish a prima facia case of unpatentability.

See how Conair avoids burning food in their BBQ, and how they argued against impermissible hindsight in the context of an “obvious to try” rejection.

Sometimes an examiner can show that a claimed feature is inherently provided by prior art that uses the same ranges as disclosed by the applicant. However, just because a range looks to be overlapping because of the values, make sure that what the values represent is really the same parameter. Read a case here about how Wisconsin was able to win protection for their cheese IP because the prior art disclosed a range of a slightly different parameter.

Ice cream and IP law - perfect for summer. Read about how to use the “reasonable expectation of success” requirement of obviousness to your advantage when trying to overcome an improper rejection.

Some tips for Multi-National patent application drafting that could save your application in the US.

These two are not the same.

Reminder on “capable of” language - do not let examiners double talk you into accepting an improper rejection.

Fresenius’ NMR sensor appeal comes up short.

The claim is the name of the game - some practice tips.

Avoid giving the examiner another reason to re-open prosecution after a successful reversal.

Read about an interesting invention related to measuring fluid flow through a blood vessel using imaging techniques where the PTAB dives into the technical details.

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.