Featured Posts
- Facebook Loses Reexaminations of Pragmatus’ Patents
- How is Reexamination Treating Round Rock Research?
- Reexamination has not Saved Apple against MobileMedia Patents, So Far
- What is an “Involved Application” in IPR Practice?
- Apple Victorious over Affinity Labs of Texas’ Portable Audio Player Patent
- Think IP Strategy Offers 2011 News Almanac
- An Update on Oracle’s Infringement Case against Google
- PTO Requests Public Comment on Proposed Rules for AIA Post-Issuance Proceedings
- Microsoft-i4i, Oracle-Google & VirnetX-Apple-Cisco Updates
- Oracle Patent to Emerge from Reexamination
- VirnetX again Sues for Infringement, and again Faces Reexaminations
- How Strong are Google’s Requests for Reexamination of the Lodsys Patents?
- PTO Board Sides with NVIDIA on Two Rambus “Barth I” Patents
- Oracle ‘520 Moves toward Confirmation in Reexamination
- Google Gets Mixed Result against Oracle’s Seventh Patent
- Did Google Request Reexamination of Lodsys Patents?
- Two Updates
- Oracle v. Google Android® Update
- Rambus Wins Limited Exclusion Order at ITC against NVIDIA, despite Pending Reexaminations
- 最初が肝心：不備のない再審査請求書を作成するために
- That’s My Patent You’re Reexamining…
- “Why Wait for Oppositions?” by Scott Daniels, 47 IDEA 343 (Law Review of Franklin Pierce Law School)
- The Basics
Noteworthy Links
- "The Interplay between Reexaminations, Preliminary Injunctions and Stays of Litigation" - by Dennis Crouch at PATENTLYO.COM
Favorite Patent Blogs
- All Things Pros
- CAFC Alert
- FDA Law Blog
- IPWatchdog
- Patent Docs
- Patently-O
- PLI Patent Law Practice Center
- Think IP Strategy
- US Patent Post-Grant Opposition
Recent Requests
PTO Statistics
PATENTEES HAVE A BAD WEEK AT PTO BOARD
| May 19, 2010
The PTO Board of Appeals decided five ex parte reexamination appeals last week. In four the Board affirmed rejections of all pending claims, in only one did the Board reverse the Examiner’s rejection. This is the opposite of the Board’s treatment of appeals in non-reexamination cases where an overwhelming majority of decisions are in favor of the applicant.
A reading of the individual decisions also suggests the Board’s comparatively strict treatment of patent claims reexamination. In two of the decisions, the Board chose an especially broad construction of the claims to find that they were unpatentable over the prior art. In a third decision, the Board broadly construed the disclosure of the prior art. In the fourth case affirming a rejection, the patentee itself had sought the reexamination.
In the sole case in which the Board reversed the Examiner, his claim construction was clearly too broad and did not justify, by any objective analysis, rejection of the claims.
