This posts illustrates the challenges in overcoming 101 rejections at the USPTO by relying on the improvement of processing efficiency of the computer itself. Don’t fall into the trap of the computer being a mere tool when trying to secure protection for a software-related invention.

Read about a recent PTAB case where the particular presentation of data on a user interface is found patent eligible with help from Core Wireless and Example 37 of the USPTO Guidelines.

Read about a recent PTAB case illustrating how evidence can make or break the case when the examiner uses “legal precedent” as the basis for a rejection.

Be careful if you work in technologies that utilize layers, coatings, and/or substrates. See how these terms can lead to unintended interpretations where any one of them can mean any of the others.

Read the latest update about a precedential decision from the USPTO that affects the offensive use of US provisional applications.

The battle over claim term interpretation is a common challenge in patent prosecution. Read about a recent case at the PTAB and see the various ways that patent professionals can better combat an improper interpretation by an examiner.

Patent Drafting Tip - Even if it may seem verbose to explicitly describe detailed examples illustrating the inventive approach that seem obvious from the disclosure, failing to do so can severely limit amendment options when they are needed most during prosecution.

Read about how the problem-solution approach can enhance your software patent application, and see how the lack of such a strategy can lead to trouble at the PTAB.

Read about a recent PTAB case involving a baseball bat invention. The PTAB used the applicant’s specification to find an implicit definition of a claim term so as to reject the examiner’s overly broad interpretation.

Read the latest post about how to hunker down and push back against improper restrictions meant to tie your hands throughout prosecution.

While specifically claiming the training of machine learning models is one way to obtain patent eligible protection for machine learning inventions, it is not a silver bullet. Find out more in this post.

Can a generic statement that features from different examples can be combined qualify as disclosure sufficient the claim a specific combination of features across two examples? Find out what the PTAB thinks in a recent case.

Patent professionals often find themselves utilizing unexpected results as part of an argument. While unexpected results can be used as secondary considerations, the assertion that a claimed invention achieves an unforeseen outcome can sway the balance in favor of patentability even at the prima facia case. However, the subtle demarcation between "unexpected" and "different" is often muddled. Read the latest post and make sure you know the difference.

See the PTAB cite Schulhauser to require consideration of controller elements, showing that Schulhauser cuts both ways.

Check out the latest post on navigating the inherent ambiguity of language in patent claims that considers how trying to claim the performance of an action regardless of a condition is no limitation at all.

As illustrated by a recent PTAB case determining the patentability of an absorbent pad pattern, patent professionals must retain vigilance and adaptability, particularly when it comes to anticipating the potential application of the printed matter doctrine in novel contexts.

Read about a PTAB case where the term environment was interpreted broadly enough to cover anything in the surroundings of a user as a user surroundings. That means even the ants on the ground qualify. See if you agree!

When an examiner uses the result of a combination to justify an obviousness rejection, consider pushing back since the result, by itself, is not a proper reason to combine.

“Consisting of” in the body of the claim closes only the element preceded by it, and does not exclude adding additional elements. Read about a case applying that rule to find a claim unclear because the “consisting of” limited an element that was defined elsewhere in the claim as including additional elements.

Does labeling a figure or embodiment or related description as “schematic” mean that such disclosure is unavailable for establishing written description support under 35 USC Section 112? Surprisingly, some patent examiners, and some of the supervisors, think so.