In re Schulhauser is being cited by the USPTO for more than the mere idea that conditional limitations can be ignored in method claims.

Many applicants do not want an automatic printed copy of their patent grant upon issuance. Is there a way to save some time, money, effort, and natural resources?

Do not underestimate the value of technical reasoning in the obviousness analysis.

It’s not the drawings in isolation when looking at 1.83(a) Drawing Objections.

Sometimes examiners stretch things too far – read about a recent case discussing speculative rejections in the case of swim paddles.

Get your nominations ready! The USPTO is accepting them now..

Reasons for making and not making a proposed combination must be weighed against one another to determine obviousness.

Transitional phrases are not “weasel words” so do not let examiners use them as such.

It is important to provide evidence contradicting an examiner’s overly-broad interpretation.

Whether an invention is directed to or related to an abstract idea can make all the difference.