USPTO Issues Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for America Invents Act (AIA) Proceedings Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Attorney: Richard D. Kelly
April 20, 2023

The USPTO today announced Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for PTAB reforms regarding IPRs/PGRs. The proposal related to five areas:<... Read more

CAFC Affirms Obviousness Rejections Regarding Lack of Motivation to Combine

Attorney: Grace Kim
January 23, 2023

Update by Kasumi Kanetaka & Grace Kim

Last month, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential decision affirming the PTAB’s holdings in two final written decisions. P Tech, LLC (herein “P Tech”) appealed the PTAB decisions holding that claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent 9,192,395 (herein “’395 patent”) and claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 9,149,281 (herein “’281 patent”) are unpatentable because they would have been obvious over the cited prior art, U.S. Patent 6,331,181 (herein “Tierney”) in view of U.S. Patent 5,518,163 (herein “Hooven”).P Tech, LLC, v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 22-1102, No. 22-1115 (December 15, 2022)<... Read more

Product-by-Process Claim: The Focus is On the Product and Not the Process of Making It

Attorney: Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
September 6, 2022

Kamstrup A/S appealed a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”). The Board found claims 1–15 of Kamstrup’s U.S. Patent No. 8,806,957 unpatentable as obvious or anticipated. On appeal, Kamstrup challenged the Board’s claim constructions. In addition, Kamstrup challenged the Board’s anticipation and obviousness determinations largely on the basis that the Board erred in rejecting Kamstrup’s claim construction arguments.<... Read more

Sure, A Court Can Rewrite Patent Claims. But Can It Change A Disclosure? (Pavo Solutions, Part II)

August 8, 2022

After discussing a court’s ability to rewrite patent claim language in view of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Pavo Solutions v. Kingston Technology (Pavo Solutions, Part I), my post last week noted that there was more to the story, including the issue of whether a court could rewrite a patent’s disclosure. Here are a few thoughts on that issue.<... Read more

Written Description and Creating Ranges from Examples

Attorney: Richard D. Kelly
April 7, 2022

At the close of last year, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the PTAB in IPR2019-00329 that a claimed range created from examples was not patentable because it lacked written description in the application as filed. In its decision the PTAB “second guessed” an examiner’s ex Parte decision that the claimed range had written description in the application as filed.  Written description was at issue because the patent challenged, U.S. Patent 9,687,454 (‘454), filed January 6, 2016, needed benefit of its parent application serial number 12/537,571 published on February 10, 2011, as 2011/0033541 (‘541), to avoid ‘541 from being prior art otherwise, most of the ‘454 claims were anticipated by ‘541. The ‘454 claim 1 is directed to a mucoadhesive film comprising about 40 wt.% to about 60 wt.% of a water-soluble polymeric matrix and claim 7 to a range of from about 48.2 wt.% to about 58.6 wt.%. Neither range was found in the ‘454 patent as filed; the claims were added during prosecution. The ‘454 describes the film as “may contain any desired level of self-supporting film forming polymer”; in “one embodiment, the film forming composition” may be at least 25 weight per cent of the composition; alternatively, at least 50 weight per cent of the composition. No upper limit was described.<... Read more