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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

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

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« Webinar on ABA's New Language Access Guidance | Main | AIPLA and IPO Urge Senate to Confirm Nominee for USPTO Director »

February 28, 2022

Comments

Is there a link to the actual decision?

Kotodama:

A link to the PTAB File Wrapper, where the Decision on Priority 37 C.F.R. § 41.125(a) can be accessed, has been added to the post.

Thank you for your comment.

Don

Don, thank you! I was tooling around on PTAB E2E for a while, since I usually go there for IPR etc. documents, but I didn't realize interferences use the separate ACTS portal. So I've been thoroughly schooled. Now I just have to crunch my way through this 82-page decision...

-kd

As this art field is typically outside of my bailiwick, I have not been paying too close attention.

But I was struck with a somewhat random thought this morning.

Given how "close" the contest has been, and recalling how some pundits have attempted to have a HYPER-powerful obviousness block on patents (amounting to an argument that ANY incidence of a close competing development is a clear indicator that such results is necessarily obvious (from the Latin, ob via, or, "in the road") - that NO ONE should obtain a patent for the contested matter) -- would patent law be better served with such a "NO patents for close contests" view of obviousness?

AND if the answer is "no," then does not the logic extend to ALL art fields?

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2022

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