A head-scratcher of a case comes down from the PTAB as to Section 101. Read about how a technical improvement that reduces memory requirements for a battery monitoring system is nevertheless deemed too abstract because the improvement memory allegedly merely benefited abstract math.

An example PTAB appeal illustrates the substantial hurdles to those trying to protect novel and inventive smartphone apps.

This post explains and illustrates a common USPTO practice of side-stepping your arguments with a red herring response.

Be aware that some PTAB judges can interpret “configured to” claim elements more broadly (and thus more easily rejected in view of prior art) than “adapted to” claim elements.

Read about improper hindsight, and different ways it can show up in obviousness rejections.

Whether or not claimed features are conventional, that does not, by itself, constitute a reason to combine them. Read the latest post that discuses a common flaw in obviousness rejections - improper motivation to combine.

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.