U.S. examiners often combine two or more references in making an obviousness rejection. Sometimes, a possible argument against obviousness is that there would not have been
In Ex parte Langenfeld (Appeal 2021-004075), the Examiner rejected the claims as obvious over a combination of prior art references and based on the theory of
Mylan Pharm. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., No. 2021-2121 (Fed. Cir. Sep. 29, 2022), is a recent decision of the Federal Circuit considering, inter alia,
In Ex parte Makarova (Appeal No. 2022-002730), the examiner rejected the claims as obvious based on a combination of references. The PTAB reversed, finding important differences
On June 21, 2022, the Federal Circuit decided Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., No. 2021-1070 (Fed. Cir. June 21, 2022) finding that a negative limitation
This summer the Supreme Court denied certiorari in (i.e., declined to review) American Axle & Mfg. Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC. To many patent practitioners in the
Ex parte Bhatnagar is a recent decision in which the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reversed an obviousness rejection because the Examiner’s reason for modifying
Examiners often make § 112(b) indefiniteness rejections when claims include relative terms. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) in Ex parte Rehder (Appeal 2021-003607) considered