Prosecution Group Luncheon

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Technology Center 1600 Training on Writing Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Advertisements

Disclaimer: The information provided by the USPTO is meant as an educational resource only and should not be construed as legal advice or written law.

MELISSA ASFAHANI Patent Attorney El Paso, TX

By David W. Hill AIPLA Immediate Past President Partner Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP Overview of the America Invents Act.

Comments on the USPTO’s Proposed Streamlined Patent Reexamination Regulations Greg H. Gardella Elizabeth Iglesias Jason Sullivan Irell & Manella, LLP.

© Kolisch Hartwell 2013 All Rights Reserved, Page 1 America Invents Act (AIA) Implementation in 2012 Peter D. Sabido Intellectual Property Attorney Kolisch.

Patent Strategy Under the AIA Washington in the West January 29, 2013.

PATENT REFORM University of Rochester KATHRYN DOYLE, Ph.D., J.D. RIVERSIDE LAW, LLP.

Implementing First-Inventor-to-File Provisions of the AIA By: Scott D. Malpede, Seth Boeshore and Chitra Kalyanaraman USPTO Rules Effective March 16, 2013.

1 Rule 132 Declarations and Unexpected Results Richard E. Schafer Administrative Patent Judge Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

1 1 1 AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association USPTO Updates Including Glossary Pilot Program Chris Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. IP Practice.

The America Invents Act (AIA) - Rules and Implications of First to File, Prior Art, and Non-obviousness -

September 14, U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Public Law ) Enacted December.

America Invents Act (AIA) Changes in Patent Law That Impact Companies May Mowzoon: Mowzoon Law Office, PLLC 1.

Filing Compliant Reexam Requests Andy Kashnikow SPE, Central Reexamination Unit Andy Kashnikow SPE, Central Reexamination Unit June, 2010.

Prosecution Group Luncheon Patents August Proposed First-To-File Rules Add definitions in AIA to Rules Declarations for removing references based.

by Eugene Li Summary of Part 3 – Chapters 8, 9, and 10

Patents 101 April 1, 2002 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.

By Paul J. Lee. Disclaimer The opinions and views expressed in these materials are not necessarily those of DexCom and reflect only the personal views.

The U.S. Patent System is Changing – A Summary of the New Patent Reform Law.

A Comparative Analysis of Patent Post-Grant Review Procedures in the U

The America Invents Act: Eighteen Months Post-Enactment Janet Gongola Patent Reform Coordinator March 27, 2013.

September 14, Final Rule Making on Practice Before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) Robert Spar Director of the Office of Patent.

Information Disclosure Statements

Remy Yucel Director, CRU (571) Central Reexamination Unit and the AIA.

European Patent Applicants Filing in China Common Mistakes Zheng Li Zhongzi Law Office September, 2014.

Impact of US AIA: What Really Changed? 1 © AIPLA 2015.

Investing in research, making a difference. Patent Basics for UW Researchers Leah Haman Intellectual Property Associate WARF 1.

California :: Delaware :: Florida :: New Jersey :: New York :: Pennsylvania :: Virginia :: Washington, DC :: Advice for Drafting.

1 LAW DIVISION PATENT DIVISION TRADEMARK & DESIGN DIVISION ACCOUNTING & AUDITING DIVISION YUASA AND HARA LAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING.

Prosecution Group Luncheon November, Prioritized Examination—37 CFR “No fault” special status under 1.102(e) Request made with filing of nonprovisional.

Christopher J. Fildes Fildes & Outland, P.C. Derivation Proceedings and Prior User Rights.

1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association EMERGING TRENDS IN INTER PARTES REVIEW PRACTICE TOM ENGELLENNER Pepper Hamilton, LLP.

July 18, U.S.C. 103(c) as Amended by the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement (CREATE) Act (Public Law ) Enacted December 10,

Post-Grant & Inter Partes Review Procedures Presented to AIPPI, Italy February 10, 2012 By Joerg-Uwe Szipl Griffin & Szipl, P.C.

1 1 AIPLA Firm Logo American Intellectual Property Law Association DESIGN PATENTS: STATISTICS, TRENDS AND PRACTICAL TIPS DONALD STUDEBAKER AIPLA IP PRACTICE.

New Sections 102 & 103 (b) Conditions for Patentability- (1) IN GENERAL- Section 102 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: -`Sec.

Overview Validity of patent hinges on novelty, utility, and non-obviousness Utility generally not an issue Pre-suit investigation focuses on infringement,

Patent Prosecution May PCT- RCE Zombie 371 National Stage PCT Applications –Not Allowed to file an RCE until signed inventor oath/declaration is.

New Ex Parte Appeal Rules Patent and Trademark Practice Group Meeting January 26, 2012.

Patent Prosecution Luncheon October Patent Document Exchange China now participating in Patent Document Exchange (PDX) program. –Effective October.

Chris Fildes FILDES & OUTLAND, P.C. IP Practice in Japan Committee Pre-Meeting AIPLA Annual Meeting, October 20, 2015 USPTO PILOT PROGRAMS 1 © AIPLA 2015.

Claims Proposed Rulemaking Main Purposes É Applicant Assistance to Improve Focus of Examination n Narrow scope of initial examination so the examiner is.

Derivation Proceedings Gene Quinn Patent Attorney IPWatchdog.com March 27 th, 2012.

Prosecution Group Luncheon Patent October PTO News Backlog of applications continues to decrease –623,000 now, decreasing about 5,000/ month –Expected.

Prosecution Group Luncheon September, America Invents Act Passed House and Senate (HR 1249) Presidential Signature expected Friday Most provisions.

Andrew B. Freistein Wenderoth, Lind & Ponack, L.L.P. Learning the ABC’s of Patent Term Adjustment 1 © AIPLA 2015.

Double Patenting Deborah Reynolds SPE Art Unit 1632 Detailee, TC1600 Practice Specialist

Prosecution Lunch October Bits and Pieces from the Patent Side Crowing about reduction in pending cases –From 750K a year ago to about 708K now.

Report to the AIPLA’s IP Practice in Japan Committee January 22, 2012 USPTO Appeal Process: Appeal Strategies and New Rules Presented by: Stephen S. Wentsler.

The Impact of Patent Reform on Independent Inventors and Start-up Companies Mark Nowotarski (Patent Agent)

Using the Patent Review Processing System (PRPS) for Post Grant Pilot Applications How to identify relevant information in AIA proceedings at the Patent.

1 TOPIC III - PATENT INVALIDATION PROCEDURES EU-CHINA WORKSHOP ON THE CHINESE PATENT LAW HARBIN, SEPTEMBER 2008 Dr. Gillian Davies.

Recent Developments in Obtaining and Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights in Nanocomposites Michael P. Dilworth February 28, 2012.

WIPO Patent Search. DO I NEED A PATENT SEARCH ? A patent search is a good idea but it costs money upfront. Deciding whether to spend the money on a patent.

Professional Engineering Practice

Patents 101 March 28, 2006 And now, for something new, useful and not obvious.

AIPLA ID Committee Meeting AIPLA Spring Meeting (Seattle) May 2, 2013

Alexandria, Virginia July 21, 2014

Preparing a Patent Application

Processes Which Employ Non-Obvious Products

USPTO Appeal Process: Appeal Strategies and New Rules

Prosecution Luncheon Patent March 2017

Wisdom of the Board Ex parte PTAB Decisions Show Effective Arguments to Overcome an Obviousness Rejection Trent Ostler The content is exclusively the.

SMITH-LEAHY AMERICA INVENTS ACT

Written Description Design Law 2018 Dan Gajewski October 24, 2018.

Recognizing an AIA Patent

Update and Practical Considerations

Preparing a Patent Application

Upcoming changes in the European Patent Office practice on allowing claim amendments in pending patent applications (Article 123(2) EPC) Christof Keussen.

Presentation transcript:

Prosecution Group Luncheon January 2013

PTO Requesting Comments on “Quality” “[F]urthering the Office’s dialog with the public about ways to enhance patent quality” Identification of “potential practice changes that applicants can employ to augment the quality of issued patents,” inviting comment Two particular headings Clarifying the Scope of Claims Clarifying Meaning of Claim Terms in Specification

PTO Requesting Comments on “Quality” Clarifying Scope of Claims Standardized claim template Identify support for limitations (chart, template) Note if examples are limiting or illustrative Expressly identify MPF elements, structures/acts Particular notation systems for computer-implemented subject matter Clarifying Meaning of Claim Terms Give scope/technical meaning of terms of degree Include a glossary of terms Designating default dictionary(s) for ascertaining meaning

Technical Amendments to AIA (Jan. 14, 2013) Technical changes re: program for covered business method patents and joinder of parties Accelerates bar on using failure to obtain the advice of counsel to prove willfulness/inducement Inter partes review available for first-to-invent patents ineligible for post-grant review Revises filing deadline for inter partes review Extends time for filing inventor’s declaration/recorded assignment to issue fee payment date Modifies requirements and time periods for activities relating to patent term adjustments Modifies requirements for petitions for derivation proceedings, delineates criteria applied to deem application as “earlier” with respect to an invention

Written Description—Design Patent Edition In re Owens (Fed. Cir. 2013) (decision pending) D531,515 issued for mouthwash bottle in 2006 CON filed, drawings amended with ghost-lines for most of design (solid lines remained for portion of surface) PTO rejected CON per written description requirement Not apparent from original specification that inventor in possession of invention as now claimed Applicant: area claimed was in the original application PTO: nothing in original application indicates that portion now claimed could itself be a design Rule: one can amend by "ghosting" solid lines and vice-versa, but cannot partition areas or define new portions

Written Description—Design Patent Edition Continuation

Fighting Obviousness Decisions In re Chevalier (Fed. Cir. 2013) (nonprecedential) FC affirms obviousness, rejects position that combination inoperable Familiar refrain: issue not whether “references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole" If each element known, obviousness requires finding that the combination of known elements was obvious to POSA Each element in Ref. A, relationship among parts taught by Ref. B POSA motivated to modify because "would facilitate a more rapid and more complete conversion from axial flow to radial flow" Applicant did not challenge that finding, admitted that relevant parts of references are "recognized equivalents performing the same function of converting axial flow to radial flow"