What is the significance of In re Oguie in patent disclaimer cases?
The case of In re Oguie is significant in patent disclaimer cases, particularly those involving failure to present claims for interference. According to MPEP 2304.04(c), both Form Paragraphs 7.48.aia and 7.48.fti cite this case: “This amounts to a concession that, as a matter of law, the patentee is the first inventor in this country. See…
Read MoreHow does the ‘In re Hyatt’ case relate to single means claims?
The In re Hyatt case is a significant legal precedent related to single means claims, as mentioned in MPEP 2164.08(a). The MPEP states: “The court in In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983) held that a single means claim which covered every conceivable means for achieving the stated…
Read MoreHow should examiners apply legal precedent in obviousness rejections?
Examiners should apply legal precedent in obviousness rejections carefully and consistently, considering all relevant facts of the case at hand. The MPEP provides guidance on this matter, stating, “The examiner must apply the law consistently to each application after considering all the relevant facts. If the facts in a prior legal decision are sufficiently similar…
Read MoreCan attorney arguments replace evidence in patent cases?
No, attorney arguments cannot replace evidence in patent cases. The MPEP clearly states: “The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record.” (MPEP 716.01(c)) This principle is based on the case In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). Attorney statements regarding aspects such as unexpected…
Read MoreWhat is the role of attorney arguments in patent examination?
What is the role of attorney arguments in patent examination? Attorney arguments play a significant role in patent examination, but they are not considered evidence. According to MPEP 716.01(C)(II), “The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965).”…
Read More