tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post569372744786769611..comments2024-03-05T06:00:22.338-05:00Comments on All Things Pros: PTAB reverses obviousness based on inherency and design choice – but then enters new design choice rejectionKaren G. Hazzahhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14864564225463528630noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-6277924568534700112018-04-06T02:08:57.299-04:002018-04-06T02:08:57.299-04:00We are a trusted organization of this domain in of...We are a trusted organization of this domain in offering a wide gamut of Pendulum Impact Testing Machine to our valued customers.<br /><br />http://www.universalmaterialtestingmachine.com/impact-testing-machine-price-p576.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06880219689973189044noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-57372476580657966242017-08-03T22:34:37.250-04:002017-08-03T22:34:37.250-04:00I know! This was the best patent blog around.I know! This was the best patent blog around.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-27006750933207168302017-05-23T13:33:12.856-04:002017-05-23T13:33:12.856-04:00Is this blog dead?Is this blog dead?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-15210026617065471112016-11-07T10:25:41.295-05:002016-11-07T10:25:41.295-05:00Regardless of what the examiner may have mailed, t...Regardless of what the examiner may have mailed, the appeal was terminated on August 15 as to claims 1 and 16 because the applicant did not, in response to the new ground of rejection, (1) submit an amendment or new evidence, or (2) request rehearing. If Procter & Gamble pays the issue fee they will have, at best, a patent with 2 unenforceable claims.Anon2noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-49928828097959093412016-11-07T08:38:21.271-05:002016-11-07T08:38:21.271-05:00Perhaps there was a PTO docketing error? If the e...Perhaps there was a PTO docketing error? If the examiner never read the decision (which would not be shocking), and the decision was docketed at the PTO as reversed but without an indication of the new rejection being issued, then the Examiner could have been relying on the PTAB "allowing" the application.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-88604373028415480452016-11-04T12:42:51.076-04:002016-11-04T12:42:51.076-04:00Does anyone see what happened between the Board...Does anyone see what happened between the Board's decision and the allowance? The Board enters a new ground of rejection and then all of the pending claims are allowed without any additional amendment or argument? Huh?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6733236595417664807.post-20930661167440978292016-11-04T08:59:33.043-04:002016-11-04T08:59:33.043-04:00Graham v. Deere came out in 1965. Both the CCPA c...Graham v. Deere came out in 1965. Both the CCPA cases were pre-65. Arguably, they are not good law. Also, KSR is controlling regarding whether something is obvious. This is classic Board voodoo -- they'll cite some 50 year old case (with tons of precedent afterwards) -- and rely solely upon that case to the exclusion of the precedent.<br /><br /><i>Design choice</i> is a classically bad rational for obviousness. It can be arguably used anytime a range is recited. If it can be used "anytime" then it amounts to the type of formulistic rule shot down by KSR. <br /><br />As for the narrowing -- some Examiners just want narrower claims and some attorneys have been trained to keep narrowing the claims until they get an allowance. Not my thing, but I know why it happens.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com