Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI)

Oblon, Spivak’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) practice group is made up of experienced and dedicated professionals with unmatched experience and expertise in handling appeals before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the Board). The group’s members are involved in all aspects of appeals in a wide range of technology areas. In 2009, Oblon, Spivak attorneys filed more than 220 appeal briefs and conducted over 65 oral hearings before the Board.

Cases taken to the Board require special handling and special treatment because there is a new decision maker, a panel of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs).  The application has already reached an impasse with the Examiner, and now unless the APJs are convinced the final rejection was in error, the Board will affirm the rejection. If the APJs are not persuaded that the Examiner erred, applicants must either refile the application with amended claims and face an emboldened Examiner, or make a significant investment by further appealing the adverse decision at the Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). Clearly, the best strategy is to prepare the application for review in the best possible light by the Board, and no one is better equipped to do this than our BPAI practice group. 

Our Services

  • Prosecution from highly complex technologies through Board of Appeals proceedings
  • Accept transferred cases that are in need of special treatment to be put in best condition for review on Appeal
  • Provide assistance to less experienced practitioners when at the appeal stage
  • Provide strategic counseling regarding appeal issues
  • Offer mock oral hearing in our Moot Courtroom with former APJs offering feedback and suggestions
  • Handles unsuccessful Board of Appeals proceedings on further appeal to the Federal Circuit

Oblon, Spivak’s expertise can be tapped from an initial stage of preparing an application all the way through a Board of Appeals proceeding, and further through a subsequent appeal to the Federal Circuit. We are located within the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) complex and hold personal meetings with USPTO personnel every day.

One of the strengths Oblon, Spivak brings to handling an appeal before the Board is an unmatched depth and variety of experience by putting together dedicated professionals with deep experience at the USPTO, both as APJs and as administrators at the Board, with practicing attorneys with strong technical backgrounds and extensive practical client experience. Oblon, Spivak can provide a complete package to handling any case in front of the Board. With Lee E. Barrett, Teddy Gron, and Harris Pitlick, Oblon, Spivak has professionals who have handled over 160 appeals from the Board to the Federal Circuit. Please see additional information on our world-class team.

For further information about the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, please see our Frequently Asked Questions section or our BPAI Resources page.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

In Ex parte Schmitt, (Case No. 2010-011741, in Application Serial No. 11/387,678, decision issued February 14, 2012), the issue on appeal was whether the Examiner erred in asserting that a combination of Babula, Redgate, and Lavery renders obvious independent claim 20.  The issue turned on whether modifying Babula, as suggested by...

Friday, February 10, 2012

In Ex parte Erickson, et al. (Appeal 2009-009972 in U.S. application serial no. 10/722,712), the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences analyzed whether finding an inherent teaching of a claim feature in a prior art reference is proper absent any citation of supporting extrinsic evidence.

Friday, February 10, 2012

In Ex parte Stux et al. (Appeal 2010-003936; Application serial no.

Monday, February 06, 2012

In Ex parte Knight Castro (Appeal 2011-000645; U.S. Application 10/510,454; Decided February 2, 2012) the issue before the Board was whether the Examiner erred in concluding that a reference constituted prior art as a “printed publication” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.

Friday, February 03, 2012

In Ex parte Bradley et al. (Appeal 2011-005978; Application serial no.

Thursday, February 02, 2012

In Ex parte Sciulli et al.; appeal no. 2009-013096; application no.

Friday, January 27, 2012

In Ex Parte Brunet (Appeal No. 2010-000122 of Application No. 10/822,092), one of the issues before the Board was whether the Examiner erred in rejecting Claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Rignell (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2001/0053688), Marran (U.S. Patent No. 6,549,770), Lawrence (International Publication...

Friday, October 07, 2011

One of the rejections at issue in Ex parte Wei and Zhang (Appeal 2010-010989, Application 12/283,347) is a written description rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph.  The claims of this application are directed to an isolated nucleic acid and a recombinant host cell.  The Examiner concluded that Appellants’...

Friday, October 07, 2011

“The Board's rules are in accord and provide that when the Board relies upon a new ground of rejection not relied upon by the examiner, the applicant is entitled to reopen prosecution or to request a rehearing…The Board need not recite and agree with the examiner's rejection in haec verba to avoid issuing a new ground of rejection. “[T]he...