When you paraphrase claim elements in arguments, any perceived narrowing can open the door to the USPTO ignoring the your point.

The USPTO proposes electronic issuance of patents.

Read about how examiners use specification language against the applicant to turn alternatives into equivalents.

An application on a great new way to delivery easy and ready to use dough is found unpatentable because of a broad interpretation of “impact mixing.”

Make sure you know how to spot this common examiner tactic

Sometimes being too close to your drafting can lead to undesirable claim interpretations under BRI.

Know to how to push back against an examiner relying on an erroneous machine translation.

See how to recognize the difference between improper hindsight and "hindsight that is acceptable at the USPTO. Arguing improper hindsight when you do not have the right facts makes for an easy affirmance by the PTAB>

It is important to not only understand the technical advantages and improvements offered by an invention, but also to consider how claim terms may be interpreted (overly) broadly by the USPTO. Extra description at various levels of abstraction can create amendment opportunities that can help when unexpected interpretations and/or prior art are applied by the examiner.

The many benefits of signaling diagrams in your patent application.

Fox News confronts the Printed Matter Doctrine

If there is a chance your priority US application is heading to the EPO, it is good practice to consider the crazy idea of using multiple dependent claims in (the detailed description ) of your US application.

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.