What Part of "And" Don't You Understand?
Recent Publications
5 IP Rules to Know to Protect Your Business in the United States (article in French)
Coaching INPI Newsletter
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
The USPTO recently identified several decisions as informative. While not binding, an informative decision provides guidance for patent applicants, examiners and the PTAB. Of note for patent applicants is Ex parte Jung, where claims recited "at least one of A and B." Applicants often use this expression to mean "either A or B." In fact, that's how the examiner in this case interpreted it.
But the PTAB construed this expression to mean "at least one of A and at least one of B." In reaching its conclusion, the Board relied on CAFC precedent and on the ordinary meaning of "and." The PTAB took this position in spite of the fact that the specification did not support such a conjunctive limitation (A and B), and only supported the disjunctive one (A or B). The PTAB distinguished other cases that adopted the disjunctive interpretation (A or B) because, in this case, the specification did not "compel" the such interpretation (A or B), which would be contrary to the ordinary meaning of "and."
Pushing the reasoning to its logical end, the PTAB issued a rejection for failure to meet the written description requirement for (A and B).
Update: on August 7, 2018, the PTAB de-designated this decision as being “informative” because it did not “reflect new or changed policies with respect to claim construction. … The case remains a routine decision of the Board.”
See here.
Coaching INPI Newsletter