Read the latest post about how to hunker down and push back against improper restrictions meant to tie your hands throughout prosecution.

While specifically claiming the training of machine learning models is one way to obtain patent eligible protection for machine learning inventions, it is not a silver bullet. Find out more in this post.

Can a generic statement that features from different examples can be combined qualify as disclosure sufficient the claim a specific combination of features across two examples? Find out what the PTAB thinks in a recent case.

Patent professionals often find themselves utilizing unexpected results as part of an argument. While unexpected results can be used as secondary considerations, the assertion that a claimed invention achieves an unforeseen outcome can sway the balance in favor of patentability even at the prima facia case. However, the subtle demarcation between "unexpected" and "different" is often muddled. Read the latest post and make sure you know the difference.

See the PTAB cite Schulhauser to require consideration of controller elements, showing that Schulhauser cuts both ways.

Check out the latest post on navigating the inherent ambiguity of language in patent claims that considers how trying to claim the performance of an action regardless of a condition is no limitation at all.

As illustrated by a recent PTAB case determining the patentability of an absorbent pad pattern, patent professionals must retain vigilance and adaptability, particularly when it comes to anticipating the potential application of the printed matter doctrine in novel contexts.

Read about a PTAB case where the term environment was interpreted broadly enough to cover anything in the surroundings of a user as a user surroundings. That means even the ants on the ground qualify. See if you agree!

When an examiner uses the result of a combination to justify an obviousness rejection, consider pushing back since the result, by itself, is not a proper reason to combine.

“Consisting of” in the body of the claim closes only the element preceded by it, and does not exclude adding additional elements. Read about a case applying that rule to find a claim unclear because the “consisting of” limited an element that was defined elsewhere in the claim as including additional elements.

Does labeling a figure or embodiment or related description as “schematic” mean that such disclosure is unavailable for establishing written description support under 35 USC Section 112? Surprisingly, some patent examiners, and some of the supervisors, think so.

Read about a case where a patent applicant argued the examiner’s interpretation was too broad but then was burned by their own specification defining the scope to expressly include something that they argued was excluded. Make sure you read your whole specification whenever there is an interpretation issue - even if the examiner did not, the PTAB will.

Read about a recent case where the interpretation of a claim term under broadest reasonable interpretation has downstream impacts on the non-analogous arts test. Decide for yourself whether you would consider a soup with sour cream within the field of citrus beverages.

While every patent professional can strive to write applications to maximize clarity, everyone should recognize the inherent imprecision of language as a significant hurdle that will always leave room for arguments in interpretation during patent prosecution. Read about an invention from Disney where it all came down to the meaning of “visual.”

When a product-by-process claim is rejected over a prior art product that appears to be identical, although produced by a different process, the burden is upon the applicants to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. See how Dyson approached this issue in an ex parte Appeal.

Read the latest update on how examiners sometimes improperly use restrictions to generate 112 written description rejections.

Silence is not disclosure of a negative limitation, but what about disclosing a feature as optional?

Law of the Case at the PTAB - if you are appealing the same case to the board multiple times, do not lose before you get started.

Is it necessarily obvious (or even disclosed) that every prior art reference cited in an application (e.g., in the Background) can be (or is) combined with the invention described in that application? Read about a recent case on this very issue.

Read about how to potentially introduce new evidence in your PTAB appeal brief without obtaining approval from the examiner.