Composition claims sometimes recite a ratio of amounts of two different components in the composition. Similarly, claims relating to a polymeric compound sometimes recite a ratio
Niazi Licensing Corp. v. St. Jude Med. S.C., No. 2021-1864 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2022), is a recent decision of the Federal Circuit considering, inter alia,
Last month, in Almirall, LLC v. Amneal Pharm., No. 2020-2331 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 14, 2022) the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s holding of obviousness in an
Nine times out of ten a negative limitation satisfies the written description requirement when the specification positively describes the limitation to be excluded or better yet
Functional equivalence is a rationale that examiners often rely on in support of an obviousness rejection. However, as discussed in one of our previous blogs, examiners
U.S. patent claims typically use the terms “comprising” and “consisting of” when reciting components of a composition. “Comprising” indicates that the composition must include the recited
Ex parte Nakanishi, is a recent decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) addressing obviousness of a claim directed to a steel composition. The
Obviousness rejections of composition claims are often premised on an examiner’s assertion that it would have been obvious to replace a component in a primary reference
There is no requirement to provide unexpected results until the Patent Office establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. Seems simple, but Ex parte Popplewell shows
Applicants can traverse rejections by submitting evidence in the form of a declaration under 37 CFR 1.132. While factual evidence, such as additional experimental data, is