Tag Archives: USPTO

Obviousness Objections Based On Combinations Of References – Consistent Warnings From The CAFC

By Paul Cole, Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Bournemouth University; Lucas & Co, Warlingham, UK Those prosecuting patent applications before the USPTO, the EPO and other examining patent offices confront on a daily basis objections of the kind: “A is known … Continue reading

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

AMC v. Myriad – “Laws of Nature” Exception Does Not Include Isolated DNA

As noted in my last “flash” post, a divided three-judge Fed. Cir. panel (Judges Lourie, Bryson and Moore) issued an opinion holding that the isolated DNA sequences and the drug-screening method claimed by Myriad are patentable subject matter, not natural … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligible Subject Matter | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Patent Office Proposes New Materiality Rules

On July 21st,  the Patent Office published a notice of proposed rulemaking, in the wake of the Therasense decision (a copy is found at the end of this post), awkwardly entitled “Revision of the Materiality to Patentability Standard for the … Continue reading

Posted in Inequitable Conduct/Rule 56 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Supreme Court: Evidence Of Invalidity Must Be “Clear And Convincing”

On June 9, 2011, the Supreme Court rejected Microsoft’s contention that a preponderance of the evidence should be sufficient to establish patent invalidity in an 8-0 (Roberts abstained) opinion, which affirmed the Fed. Cir.’s opinion (for a change). (The decision … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of Proof | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment