E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Patent Profile: Patent Issued for Method of Differentiating Pancreatic Cancer from Benign Pancreatic Disease | Main | Supreme Court Preview -- Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc. »

February 18, 2014

Comments

I just recently (and unexpectedly) benefitted from the new standards. Claims that a genus of materials had an antiviral effect were allowed, on the basis of evidence generated with additional species within the claimed genus. Our Chinese attorneys had submitted the new data, but had told us that it would most likely not be considered. However, the examiner's final rejection was reversed on review, and the claims were allowed.

Thanks for sharing your experience, Jim. Good to hear the "new" standards are having a real effect.

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30