• [email protected]
Aurora Consulting
  • Home
  • Services
    • Patent Portfolio Strategy
    • Patent Search and Analysis
  • About
    • Team
      • Ashley Sloat, Ph.D.
      • Kristen J. Hansen, M.S.
      • Tiffany C. Miller, Ph.D.
      • Albert Du, J.D.
      • Alisa McCarthy
      • Joanna Moore
      • Josh Sloat
      • David Jackrel, Ph.D.
    • Testimonials
    • Work Examples
  • Blog
  • Shorts
    • Mossoff Minute
  • Podcast
  • Contact
  • Home
  • Services
    • Patent Portfolio Strategy
    • Patent Search and Analysis
  • About
    • Team
      • Ashley Sloat, Ph.D.
      • Kristen J. Hansen, M.S.
      • Tiffany C. Miller, Ph.D.
      • Albert Du, J.D.
      • Alisa McCarthy
      • Joanna Moore
      • Josh Sloat
      • David Jackrel, Ph.D.
    • Testimonials
    • Work Examples
  • Blog
  • Shorts
    • Mossoff Minute
  • Podcast
  • Contact

​​Patently Strategic Musings

Case Law Review: Obviousness

11/26/2024

0 Comments

 
By: Josh Sloat
Section 103 obviousness

For the final episode of our 2024 season, we’re bringing it all together with a review of recent patent case law and how these decisions could impact your strategy going forward. The state of patent law – and its implications for the success of your business – is an ever-evolving landscape that combines the perspectives of the patent office, the judicial interpretations of the courts, and the legislative inputs of Congress. Broader situational awareness of movements on all three fronts will help not only with getting your IP right granted now but also in formulating a patent in a way that will maximize its odds of assertability and overall value when you later need it. 
​

Section 103: Nonobvious Inventions

Kristen Hansen, Patent Strategy Specialist at Aurora, and Dr. David Jackrel, President of Jackrel Consulting, lead today’s two-part discussion with our all-star panel, dissecting recent court decisions impacting the core patenting issue of obviousness. Section 103 of U.S. Code, Title 35 governs how this concept applies to patentability. It essentially states that an invention cannot be patented if the differences between your claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was conceived. So determining obviousness is more than simply establishing that the invention doesn’t already exist and that it isn’t documented elsewhere. Its conception must also not have otherwise been obvious to those in the field at the time. 

If you’re thinking that sounds awfully subjective in the present and highly susceptible to hindsight bias in the future, you’d be right. Beyond being one of the four main drivers for patent application rejection at examination time, obviousness is also one of the primary vectors used by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for invalidating patents via Inter Partes Review, so it’s essential to get this right so as to limit your patent’s potential invalidation surface area. 

Episode Overview

In breaking this all down in terms of how obviousness has been playing out in the courts, Dave, Kristen, and the panel discuss:
  • Inter Partes Review and how some PTAB strategy deviates from conventional patenting wisdom when it comes to obviousness.
  • Recent obviousness case law decisions.
  • Practice tips related to obviousness including analysis of how previously invalidated claims impact future claims, the dangers of being your own lexicographer, and the strategic importance of drafting backup positions in your specification.
Kristen and Dave are joined by our always exceptional group of IP experts, including:
  • Dr. Ashley Sloat, President and Director of Patent Strategy at Aurora
  • Ty Davis, Patent Strategy Associate at Aurora
  • Daniel Wright, Patent Strategist at Aurora
  • Marie Smyth, Patent Agent at Brake Hughes Bellermann LLP

Mossoff Minute: PREVAIL Advances

In this month's Mossoff Minute, Professor Adam Mossoff discusses some incredibly exciting news about the PREVAIL Act, which is designed to bring much overdue reform to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. We’re also publishing excerpts as short-form videos on Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, and TikTok.

How to Listen

Patently Strategic is available on all major podcasting directories, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify. We're also available on 12 other directories including Stitcher, iHeart Radio, and TuneIn, so you should be able to find us wherever you listen to podcasts.
​

Resources.

To further explore the topics discussed, see the following past episodes and resources:

Related Episodes
  • PTAB Survival Guide
  • Patent Anatomy: What's in a patent?​​
  • Patent Searching (How to Find Prior Art)
  • Patent Wars: Innovators, Revolutionaries, and the Race to Reform
  • American Inventor Horror Story: 10 Years of AIA and the PTAB
  • CAFC Chronicles: Costly Tales of Claim Construction Fails (Case Law)
  • Top Inventor Mistakes (pitfalls of not searching prior art)
​
Transcripts​
We're also providing computer-generated transcripts for improved accessibility and additional reference opportunities.

Slides
For the visual learners out there, we also like to make our presenter slides available for your reference.​
0 Comments

Petition Practice

11/5/2024

0 Comments

 
By: Josh Sloat
Petition Practice

Correcting PTO Errors With Your Patent

Patent examiners can make mistakes. Patent office clerks can misfile paperwork and cause procedural errors. The software tools, document formats like DOCX, and the IT systems your application passes through can have bugs. What recourse do you have when quality issues creep in at this stage? This is where petition practice, fortunately, comes to the rescue.
​

​Patent petition practice is the process of filing formal requests, referred to as “petitions,” with the USPTO or other relevant patent offices to address procedural and administrative issues that can arise during the patent application process. Filing petitions can be an essential step to correct course when rules are misapplied, procedural errors occur, administrative actions need to be reversed, or deadlines are missed.
​

Guest Hosts: Julie Burke and Michael Spector

To help us navigate this potentially patent-saving topic, we’ve enlisted the help of a guest host who’s spent considerable time in the belly of the beast. Julie Burke is a registered patent agent and former USPTO employee with 20 years of experience at the patent office. Julie rose up at the PTO to become a Quality Assurance Specialist – the type of manager you’d call when your case got off track. During this time, she handled more than 900 petitions at the patent office! After leaving the PTO, she founded her own consulting company, IP Quality Pro LLC, where she helps patent attorneys navigate complex situations in the patent system to protect their inventor’s ideas. This experience from both sides of the petition practice table has given Julie a level of access, experience, and insights shared by few in the industry, so we’re very fortunate to have her joining us today.

Julie also leverages this expertise as an expert witness in court on patent office procedures and practices – and her highly read investigatory articles are regularly published on sites including IPWatchdog, LAW360, and The Hill. Prior to her extensive career in IP, Julie earned a PhD in Biochemistry from the University of London College of Science, Technology and Medicine and a BA in Cellular and Molecular Biology from Johns Hopkins University. Julie is also presently an advisor for Petition.ai, the first searchable database of US patent prosecution petitions and associated documents. Julie is joined by the co-founder of Petition.ai, Michael Spector.
​

Episode Overview: Quality Patents Part 5

This is our final episode in a multi-part series focused on quality patents. The prior four episodes have all been about managing quality for everything in your immediate control. Steps you and your practitioner should be taking before and after your patent is granted. But what about the last mile, where you’re turning your carefully crafted patent application over to the patent office for examination and prosecution? In today’s deep dive on petition practice, Julie, Michael, and our all-star patent panel discuss:
  • How and why errors occur at the PTO, especially during the examination process
  • How petitions can be used to correct procedural errors
  • Common myths about petitioning examiner errors
  • Practice tips for getting the most out of petitioning
  • How petitioning can be used strategically to get a complete review of the patent application after final rejection

Patent Petition Types

While this episode largely focuses on after final petition practice, we did want to point out that there are many other flavors of petitioning. Below are detailed descriptions of some of the most common and useful types of petitions. Some are more conventional and are used during normal prosecution. Others are used to move through the prosecution process faster. 
 
No Fee Petitions
  • To Make Entity Status Large from Small Entity: If meet certain income thresholds, have filed four or fewer patent applications, and are otherwise a small entity, your filing fees with the USPTO can be further discounted to a micro entity rate. 
  • First-Time Filer Expedited Examination Pilot Program: If this is your first filing a patent application, congratulations! You may also be eligible to apply for this petition to have your patent application reviewed more quickly. The qualifications include also being entitled to micro entity status and the filing not being a U.S. national stage, continuation, or otherwise claiming priority to another foreign case. Note that this petition should be filed after receiving your filing receipt in case the office objects to any elements of your application, needing correction. 
  • To Join Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH): If you received a favorable review of similar claims in another jurisdiction or country that prescribes to the PPH, you can amend your claims to track to the favorably reviewed claims in the U.S. and file this petition to have your claims reviewed in light of the prior favorable review, usually in a faster than typical time frame. 
  • To Make Application Special on Grounds of Age or Health: If you are 65 years or older, the USPTO will grant your patent application special status so that it can be reviewed quicker than the usual speed.
  • After Final Consideration Program 2.0: This was a great petition provided by the USPTO for many years, allowing examiners to further review your application after final to hopefully move it to allowance. Unfortunately, the USPTO determined that it was costing them too much money so they are discontinuing this petition as of December 14, 2024. 
Fee-Based Petitions
  • To Join Track One (Prioritized Examination): If you pay the USPTO an extra fee and file this petition, the USPTO guarantees a final disposition (e.g., final office action, notice of allowance, etc.) on your patent application within one year. 
  • Revival Based on Unintentional Delay in Abandoned Application: If you’ve unintentionally abandoned your application, and it does have to be unintentional, you can revive your patent application, for a fee of course.

How to Listen

Patently Strategic is available on all major podcasting directories, including Apple Podcasts and Spotify. We're also available on 12 other directories including Stitcher, iHeart Radio, and TuneIn, so you should be able to find us wherever you listen to podcasts.
​

Resources.

To further explore the topics discussed, see the following past episodes and resources:

Related Episodes
  • ITC Proofing Patents: Quality Patents Part 4
  • Continuation Practice: Quality Patents Part 3
  • PTAB Survival Guide: Quality Patents Part 2
  • Crafting Quality Patents
  • Patent Anatomy: What's in a patent?​​
  • After Final Practice: Life After Final Rejection​
​
Transcripts​
We're also providing computer-generated transcripts for improved accessibility and additional reference opportunities.
0 Comments

    Ashley Sloat, Ph.D.

    Startups have a unique set of patent strategy needs - so let this blog be a resource to you as you embark on your patent strategy journey.

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    January 2025
    November 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    January 2020
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

AURORA

Portfolio Strategy Services
Patent Search Services
Contact
Testimonials
​Careers
​RISE Award
Disclaimer

TEAM

Ashley Sloat, Ph.D.
Kristen J. Hansen, M.S.
​Tiffany C. Miller, Ph.D.
​Albert Du, J.D.
​Alisa McCarthy
​Joanna Moore
Josh Sloat

EDUCATION

Podcast
Shorts
​Newsletter
​Events
Resources
Aurora Consulting
© Copyright 2013-2025  |  Aurora Consulting LLC ​​