Where distinct physical concepts recited in a patent claim and applied prior art are related and can achieve same results, do not count on being able to distinguish teachings of the prior art. In Mobileye Vision Technologies Ltd…
Read More
The ex parte Appellant successfully argued that the Examiner had not established a prima facie case of obviousness by failing to adequately explain why one skilled in the art would have made the proposed modification in Ex parte T…
Read More
The ex parte Appellant successfully argued that, since the primary reference already taught fastening an element with screws, the Examiner failed to adequately show that one would have also fastened the element with a spring eleme…
Read More
The Federal Circuit in Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Nestle, Inc. (Appeal No. 2017-1290, Fed. Cir., decided March 13, 2018) rejected the patent owner’s claim construction as impermissibly restricting the claim term to a specific embodi…
Read More
An updated version of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) was published in January 2018 and does make one noteworthy change regarding MPEP §2143.01V titled “The Proposed Modification Cannot Change the Principle of O…
Read More
