Tag Archives: PTO

Ex Parte Smith: What We’ve Got Here Is A Failure To Communicate!

In Ex parte Smith, Appeal No. 2016-007565 (PTAB, May 16, 2016), the Board reversed the examiner’s s.101 and 103 rejections of a claim to a modified flavivirus envelop (E) protein comprising a mutated envelop protein, where the unmodified E-To domain … Continue reading

Posted in Section 101 | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Ex parte Galloway – Two Correlations are Better than One

Although, somehow, examiners and PTAB Judges are supposed to refrain from considering anticipation or obviousness when evaluating claim elements for the “inventive step” required for patent eligibility, that’s just not possible. The claims in Ex parte Galloway were directed to … Continue reading

Posted in Obviousness, PTAB | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

PTO Releases Revised Guidance on Compliance with Mayo/Alice Rule

On April 19, the USPTO released a Memorandum from Robert Bahr, The Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, that summarized the support required for a finding if a claim directed to a judicial exception to s. 101 eligibility under Step … Continue reading

Posted in Alice, Claim Construction, Forum, Patenting Methods/Processes, Written Description Requirements (WDR) | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ESTHER KEPPLINGER JOINS PATENT PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE

I would like to congratulate Esther Kepplinger on her appointment by Commerce Secretary Locke to the Patent Public Advisory Committee, along with Steven W. Miller of P&G and Dr. Benjamin Borson. Although I have not always been sure just what … Continue reading

Posted in USPTO Practice and Policy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment