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.