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
In Ex parte Whiteman (Appeal No. 2021-003736), the examiner rejected the claims as obvious based on a hypothetical particle distribution consistent with the prior art. The
Last December, in Modernatx, Inc. v. Arbutus Biopharma Corp., 18 F.4th 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2021), Moderna, in appealing their challenge to an Arbutus patent in an
LG Elecs. v. Immervision, Inc., No. 2021-2037 (Fed. Cir. July 11, 2022), is a recent decision of the Federal Circuit, considering whether errant information in a
Ex parte Deporter (Appeal 2021-003598) is a recent decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) where the Board considered whether a prior art reference
In Ex parte Jung (Appeal No. 2021-003163), the examiner rejected the claims as obvious based on an inherency rationale. The PTAB reversed. Independent claim 16 recited
Pavo Sols. v. Kingston Tech. Co., No. 2021-1834 (Fed. Cir. June 3, 2022), is a recent decision of the Federal Circuit considering, inter alia, whether a
On February 28, 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision in Ex parte Chen (Appeal 2021-001752) affirming an Examiner’s rejection of claims