A live 90-minute CLE webinar with interactive Q&A.
Description
Obviousness can be a major hurdle for patent applicants in
securing a patent on inventions. An obviousness determination can be
complex, and examiners regularly reject patent claims as obvious under §103 in
view of a combination of prior art.
For clients who receive a §103 rejection, counsel’s
response should be part of a well thought out strategy that anticipates the
possibility of later court and PTO challenges. For example, counsel should
craft the response to minimize or eliminate prosecution history estoppel.
Further, in light of the demands of AIA post-grant
proceedings, such as post-grant reviews and inter partes reviews, counsel
should carefully consider submitting evidence, including comparative data,
scientific arguments, and supporting declarations, in the reply to the
rejection.
Listen as our authoritative panel of patent attorneys
examines how the courts have treated §103 rejections and the USPTO’s guidance
on §103 rejections. Based on decades of experience, the panel will offer their
own war stories on overcoming §103 rejections. The panel will also discuss the
distinct challenges for biotech and chemical inventions and best practices for
patent counsel to address §103 rejections in biotech and chemical patent
applications.
No comments:
Post a Comment