While specifically claiming the training of machine learning models is one way to obtain patent eligible protection for machine learning inventions, it is not a silver bullet. Find out more in this post.

Can a generic statement that features from different examples can be combined qualify as disclosure sufficient the claim a specific combination of features across two examples? Find out what the PTAB thinks in a recent case.

Patent professionals often find themselves utilizing unexpected results as part of an argument. While unexpected results can be used as secondary considerations, the assertion that a claimed invention achieves an unforeseen outcome can sway the balance in favor of patentability even at the prima facia case. However, the subtle demarcation between “unexpected” and “different” is…

See the PTAB cite Schulhauser to require consideration of controller elements, showing that Schulhauser cuts both ways.

Check out the latest post on navigating the inherent ambiguity of language in patent claims that considers how trying to claim the performance of an action regardless of a condition is no limitation at all.

As illustrated by a recent PTAB case determining the patentability of an absorbent pad pattern, patent professionals must retain vigilance and adaptability, particularly when it comes to anticipating the potential application of the printed matter doctrine in novel contexts.

Read about a PTAB case where the term environment was interpreted broadly enough to cover anything in the surroundings of a user as a user surroundings. That means even the ants on the ground qualify. See if you agree!

When an examiner uses the result of a combination to justify an obviousness rejection, consider pushing back since the result, by itself, is not a proper reason to combine.

“Consisting of” in the body of the claim closes only the element preceded by it, and does not exclude adding additional elements. Read about a case applying that rule to find a claim unclear because the “consisting of” limited an element that was defined elsewhere in the claim as including additional elements.

Does labeling a figure or embodiment or related description as “schematic” mean that such disclosure is unavailable for establishing written description support under 35 USC Section 112? Surprisingly, some patent examiners, and some of the supervisors, think so.