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
In Ex parte Richey (Appeal 2010-011708 in U.S. application serial no. 10/944,209) the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) addressed an Examiner’s contention of a structure of a multi-piece confectionary food as obvious as a “design choice”. The claim at issue recited a structure of a “second outer confectionary strand of edible material wrapped about said center strand along said length thereof to define a plurality of convulsions wrapped around said center strand”. The Examiner maintained that “[t]o choose a pattern in which to wrap confectionary strands around one another would be a design choice which would have been obvious within the routine determination of one of ordinary skill in the art … and would not impart a patentable distinction to the product claim”.
The Board did not accept that contention by the Examiner. The Board pointed out “[h]ere, the Examiner has not provided evidence that the strand configuration recited in the claims was a known alternative to the designs shown by Mills, Kretchmer, and Soderlund”. In this instance the Board was looking for evidence of the claimed strand configuration to be a known alternative to the design disclosed in the applied art.
It is not clear what type of evidence the Board was looking for, but if evidence could have been shown by the Examiner that such a strand configuration was a known alternative, the Examiner would not have needed to rely on a position of “design choice”.