This Thanksgiving, I’m grateful for PTAB decisions that keep obviousness grounded in evidence. In a recent turkey-decoy appeal, the Board rejected an examiner’s broad “manufacturing cost” motivation as unsupported. A downward-facing tail may fool a gobbler, but vague rationales won’t fool the PTAB.
Claiming what does not happen can have issues, but there are options to making it work. Read about a recent PTAB decision illustrating one possible approach.
A recent PTAB decision highlights a common pitfall in obviousness practice — focusing on the wrong reference when arguing about modification of a reference making it unfit for its intended purpose.
When “wired vs. wireless” looks obvious, think again. A recent PTAB appeal shows how differences in environment, structure, and reasonable expectation of success can defeat an obviousness rejection — and why prosecutors should put those facts front and center
Examiners sometimes rely on unfinished products to reject device claims—but as a recent PTAB decision shows, “almost” isn’t enough. We break down the case and share practical tips for responding to these nuanced rejections.
This Thanksgiving, I’m grateful for PTAB decisions that keep obviousness grounded in evidence. In a recent turkey-decoy appeal, the Board rejected an examiner’s broad “manufacturing cost” motivation as unsupported. A downward-facing tail may fool a gobbler, but vague rationales won’t fool the PTAB.
Claiming what does not happen can have issues, but there are options to making it work. Read about a recent PTAB decision illustrating one possible approach.
A recent PTAB decision highlights a common pitfall in obviousness practice — focusing on the wrong reference when arguing about modification of a reference making it unfit for its intended purpose.
When “wired vs. wireless” looks obvious, think again. A recent PTAB appeal shows how differences in environment, structure, and reasonable expectation of success can defeat an obviousness rejection — and why prosecutors should put those facts front and center
Examiners sometimes rely on unfinished products to reject device claims—but as a recent PTAB decision shows, “almost” isn’t enough. We break down the case and share practical tips for responding to these nuanced rejections.
Mr. IP Law 