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…

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.