In assessing obviousness rejections, a threshold issue is whether the cited reference(s) qualify as prior art. A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination
On September 30, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a decision in Ex parte Drozdenko (Appeal No. 2020-001293) reversing an Examiner’s obviousness rejection
An examiner sometimes raises an obviousness rejection under the “design choice” doctrine, alleging a claimed feature, such as a certain dimension, shape, or arrangement, is merely
U.S. patent examiners sometimes rely on the theory of inherency to fill gaps in the prior art. This usually occurs when patent claims recite structural limitations
A threshold issue in the context of double patenting is whether the applications/patents in question have (i) at least one common applicant, and/or are (ii) commonly
On September 29, 2020, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) issued a decision in Ex parte Brinhaus (Appeal No. 2019-006794) and reversed an Examiner’s obviousness
It is well-settled that if a proposed modification or combination of prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified,
U.S. patent claims usually contain the term “comprising.” This term indicates that an item in the claim must include certain specified components, but that the item