Remove 2012 Remove Invention Remove Patent Remove Patent Application
article thumbnail

Think Twice About Appealing a ยง 101 Rejection to the PTAB

JD Supra Law

Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) established its Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in September 2012. As mandated by the America Invents Act, the PTAB conducts administrative trials, such as inter partes reviews, and handles appeals from examiner rejections of patent applications.

article thumbnail

Protection of Computer-Related Inventions : An Indian Perspective

Intepat

INTRODUCTION As technology continues to evolve at an unprecedented pace, Computer-Related Inventions (CRIs) have become a crucial component of modern innovation. The Patents Act, 1970, provides for the protection of CRIs, but there has been significant debate over the years regarding the patentability of such inventions in India.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Part I: Diagnostic method patents in India

SpicyIP

In March 2023, the Delhi High Court will consider two significant rejections by the Patent Office (PTO) that will determine the fate of diagnostic method patents in India. This provision excludes diagnostic processes from patent protection. Both rejections have been challenged before the Delhi High Court.

Patent 80
article thumbnail

EPO consults on patent grace periods (again)

The IPKat

The EPO has launched a user consultation on grace periods for patents, the results of which will be published in early 2022 ( EPO press release ). The EPC as it currently stands does not permit a grace period in which inventors may disclose their invention without prejudicing a future patent filing. 102(b)(1)(A) ).

Patent 131
article thumbnail

Section 3(b) Rejections: Patent Office Rejects Claims for Nicotine Delivery Devices

SpicyIP

We recently came across two decisions by the Indian Patent Office (IPO) in which patent claim applications concerning two nicotine delivery devices were rejected on the ground of the same being affected by section 3(b) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. The first decision concerns application no. a tobacco company.

Invention 114
article thumbnail

Problem Statement Precision: A Key Factor in TSM-Based Non-Obviousness Determination?

SpicyIP

Controller of Patents decision on the role of PSITA in determining non obviousness, we are pleased to bring to you this post by Kevin Preji. This post attempts to critically analyse the relevance of difference in the purported function of the invention and prior art to determine non-obviousness in identifying the inventive step.

article thumbnail

Discerning Signal from Noise: Navigating the Flood of AI-Generated Prior Art

Patently-O

by Dennis Crouch This article explores the impact of Generative AI on prior art and potential revisions to patent examination standards to address the rising tidal wave of AI-generated, often speculative, disclosures that could undermine the patent system’s integrity. See my 2014 post. 102, and are presumed to be enabling.

Art 109