Headquartered within steps of the USPTO with an affiliate office in Tokyo, Oblon is one of the largest law firms in the United States focused exclusively on intellectual property law.
1968
Norman Oblon with Stanley Fisher and Marvin Spivak launched what was to become Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, one of the nation's leading full-service intellectual property law firms.
Outside the US, we service companies based in Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and farther corners of the world. Our culturally aware attorneys speak many languages, including Japanese, French, German, Mandarin, Korean, Russian, Arabic, Farsi, Chinese.
Oblon's professionals provide industry-leading IP legal services to many of the world's most admired innovators and brands.
From the minute you walk through our doors, you'll become a valuable part of a team that fosters a culture of innovation, client service and collegiality.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued final rules implementing the inventor's oath or declaration provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) on August 14, 2012.
April 28-30, 2024
November 16, 2023 - In-Person in Munich
October 27, 2023
Ex parte Quijano et al (Appeal 2010-005756, Serial no. 11/263,302) turned on whether the preamble imparted a structural limitation to the claim. The independent claim at issue reads as follows:
“Claim 24: A gastric space filler device comprising an inflatable space filler with a first reference shape that substantially maintains said first reference shape at a deflated state.”
The Examiner argued that the preamble recitation of “[a] gastric space filler device” is not limiting because “the body of claim 24 following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure and does not depend on the preamble for completeness…” Appellants argued that when reading the preamble in light of the Specification, which indicates that the “space fillers are for use in gastric applications only,” a skilled artisan would understand that the preamble was intentionally used to limit the claimed invention to intragastric space fillers. In turn, Appellants contended that the preamble recitation of the claimed invention is limiting and distinguishes the claimed invention from the woven yarn of the cited art which is designed to be used in conjunction with an angioplasty or dilation balloons for cardiovascular use.
The Board reversed the Examiner agreeing with Appellants that the recited preamble is “‘necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality’ to the claim.” (Id.)(citing Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The Board held that a skilled artisan would have understood that the preamble imparts structural limitations, i.e., “it indicates that the inflatable device must be of the correct dimensions and made from materials compatible for long term use as a gastric device.” Thus, The Board concluded that the Examiner failed to establish that that the cardiovascular balloon catheter relied upon in the cited art anticipated the claimed gastric space filler device.