Some recent PTAB decisions on the possession requirement are presented to help those dealing with the USPTO’s new focus on this ground of rejection.

Beware of Examiners improperly relying on drawings as showing relative dimensions. The PTAB will look for actual evidence that the figures show scale. 

A recent Federal Circuit case illustrates that sometimes, the key to an overcoming an obviousness rejection (even one affirmed by the PTAB) is simply explaining an overall story of the invention, with supporting evidence.

While trademark law may offer attractive options for protecting tire tread designs, design patents are also offer an avenue for protection and can be used as a predicate to later trademark protection. 

The recent headlines from Apple are that you can have taxes or you can have jobs, but you can’t have both. What does this have to do with patents? Everything.

Highlighting the important of design patents to the Outdoor industry, a group of outdoor gear companies filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the Apple v. Samsung battle.

The Federal Circuit provides some much needed guidance on limitations in using “common sense” to support an obviousness rejection. 

I just returned from the 2016 summer OR show in Salt Lake City where I was invited to speak on intellectual property issues as they relate to the outdoor industry.

In a recent ex parte appeal to the PTAB (13/296,787), BMW challenged a rejection related to a way to utilize an electronic braking system upon actuation of an operative element (e.g., a parking brake)

In a recent IPR appeal at the Federal Circuit, the Court reviewed the Board’s claim construction de novo and found that the Board improperly added an element to their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) of the claim terms