Applying the Printed Matter Doctrine to Software Claims

Patent practitioners have a multitude of tools in their belt to deal with obviousness rejections. The trick is picking the right tool for the right set of facts. Teaching away is one tool that can be powerful for the right set of facts. It is one of the clear ways to attack even an amorphous…

Intended use is a shorthand for multiple distinct concepts in patent law – read about an example illustrating that even examiners can get them confused.

Some patent applicants may gain a better understanding of what Juliet was going through.

When arguing for practical integration in response to a Section 101 rejection, be careful not to merely argue for an advantage that is nothing more than a characteristic of the abstract idea/algorithm.

Some examiners will try to defend improper interpretations in the most strange ways. Read about a recent case in the biotech arts.

Failing to give sufficient structure in the specification for certain claim elements leads to invalidity even though novelty and inventiveness are established.

See an example where the PTAB confirms the examiner fell victim to improper hindsight.

Spot the red flag where the argument you want to make (because it is the strongest) does not match the claim language.

Mutual exclusivity is commonly alleged, but rarely present, in restricted claims.