10.03 Lack of unity of invention may be directly evident “a priori,” that is, before considering the claims in relation to any prior art, or may only become apparent “a posteriori,” that is, after taking the prior art into consideration. For example, independent claims to A + X, A + Y, X + Y can … Continue reading [PCT] Lack of unity of invention (“a priori” “a posteriori”)
In some of my prosecution cases, some claims were / are rejected under 35 USC 101. In order to develop rebuttal arguments, I need to check the latest USPTO guideline(s) about the 101 SME (Subject Matter Eligibility). First, the following is the link for the 2019 PEG (Patent Eligibility Guideline) published in January 2019: https://www.regulations.gov/document/PTO-P-2019-0034-0001 … Continue reading [PTO] Where to find 101 SME Guideline and Update
When to Use the PCT—and Why It’s So Popular (ipwatchdog.com) The above artcile provides a succint summary of the PCT (Patent Coorporation Treaty) filing.
Source: https://www.mewburn.com/law-practice-library/pct-applications-chapter-ii-demand#:~:text=Filing%20a%20Demand%20(%E2%80%9Ca%20Demand,including%20a%20PCT%20examination%20fee.&text=If%20a%20Demand%20is%20not,as%20the%20IPRP%2FChapter%20I. All PCT applications are automatically subject to examination. The examination may be without interaction between the applicant and the Examiner (under Chapter I) or with interaction between the applicant and the Examiner (under Chapter II, that is, if a Demand is filed). Briefly, filing a Demand (along with amendments and/or arguments) is a … Continue reading [PCT] What is ‘Chapter II demand’?
MPEP 2232.01 (https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/E8r8#/E8r8/d0e224037.html) IPX has been replaced by IPR (Inter Partes Review). So, IPX is no longer available for patent challengers. However, there are some instances I had to look up IPX histories of patents at issues in litigations. So, go to the Public PAIR of the USPTO and enter the patent number. In the … Continue reading IPX (Inter Partes Reexam) – Where to search at USPTO?
US 2019/0075526 (Intel)  Use of the word exemplary is intended to present concepts in a concrete fashion. As used in this application, the term “or” is intended to mean an inclusive “or” rather than an exclusive “or”. That is, unless specified otherwise, or clear from context, “X employs A or B” is intended to … Continue reading Patent Specification – Word usage