the firm's post-grant practitioners are some of the most experienced in the country.

Brian B. Darville
Akihiro  Yamazaki
John F. Presper
Alexander B. Englehart
Aldo  Martinez
Sameer  Gokhale
Tao  Feng, Ph.D.
Robert T. Pous
Maki  Saitoh
Kevin M. McKinley
Daniel J. Pereira, Ph.D.
Alec M. Royka
Anna Z. Lloyd
Christopher  Ricciuti
John S. Kern
Marina I. Miller, Ph.D.
Stephen G. Baxter, Ph.D.
Michael R. Casey, Ph.D.
Edwin D. Garlepp
Yin Y. Nelson, Ph.D.
Robert W. Downs
Craig R. Feinberg
Kevin L. Hartman, Ph.D.
Jeffrey B. McIntyre
Ryan W. Smith
J. Derek  Mason, Ph.D., CLP
Johnny  Ma
Kevin Ross  Davis
Diane  Jones
Erik M. Stang, Ph.D.
Carl E. Schlier
Eric W. Schweibenz
Jay E. Rowe, Jr., Ph.D.
Ching-Cheng (Tony)  Chang
Teddy S. Gron
Surinder  Sachar
Tia D. Fenton
James R. Love
Philippe J.C. Signore, Ph.D.
Robert  Tarcu
Christopher I. Donahue
Arthur I. Neustadt
Bogdan A. Zinchenko
Yorikatsu  Hohokabe, Ph.D.
Soumya  Panda
Thomas M. Cunningham, Ph.D.
Charles L. Gholz
Chika (Teranishi) Iitoyo
Derek  Lightner, Ph.D.
Richard D. Kelly
Eckhard H. Kuesters
Elissa L. Sanford
Yanwen  Fei
Jenchieh (Joseph) Yuan
Yuki  Onoe
Nanlin  Wang, Ph.D.
Yuanyi (Alex) Zhang, Ph.D.
Frank J. West
David M. Longo, Ph.D.
Norman F. Oblon
Kurt M. Berger, Ph.D.
Vincent K. Shier, Ph.D.
Colin B. Harris
Long  Phan, Ph.D.
Steven B. Chang
Stefan Uwe  Koschmieder, Ph.D.
Aristotelis M. Psitos
Peifang  Tian, Ph.D.
Grace E. Kim
Kasumi  Kanetaka
Andrew M. Ollis
John  Sipos
Nicholas  Rosa, Ph.D.
Jianping (James)  Wu
Dale M. Shaw

Technologies

Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
Digital Health
Digital Health
Energy & Renewables
Energy & Renewables

Fast Facts

About Our

Law Firm

About Our Law Firm

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.

Get to know our

History

Get to know our History

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.

Our Local and

Global Reach

Our Local and Global Reach

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.

A few of our

ACCOLADES

A few of our ACCOLADES

Oblon's professionals provide industry-leading IP legal services to many of the world's most admired innovators and brands.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUR

Career

OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUR Career

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.

A few ways to

GET In Touch

A few ways to GET In Touch
US Office

Telephone: 703-413-3000
Learn More +


Tokyo Office

Telephone: +81-3-6212-0550
Learn More +

Downloadable

Patent Forms

Downloadable Patent Forms

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.

Traversing Obviousness Rejections

  • October 18, 2021
  • Article

Associated People

Associated Technologies


In Chemours Co. FC LC v. Daikin Industries Ltd. et al., 4 F.4th 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2021) reversed a PTAB decision finding the following claim to be unpatentable as obvious:

1. A partially-crystalline copolymer comprising tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene in an amount corresponding to a hexafluoropropylene index (HFPl) of from about 2.8 to 5.3, said copolymer being polymerized and isolated in the absence of added alkali metal salt, having a melt flow rate of within the range of about 30±3 g/10 min, and having no more than about 50 unstable end groups/106 carbon atoms.

The claimed polymers were used to coat wires at high extrusion speeds while producing a high-quality coating. The PTAB found the claim to be obvious from U.S. Patent No. 6,541,588 (“Kaulbach”). Kaulbach taught that polymers with narrow molecular weight distributions performed better than those with broader distributions and that melt flow rates of ≥15 g/10 min are suitable for high- speed wire extrusion. The highest melt flow rate taught was 24g/10 min for sample A11. Kaulbach taught against using known methods for increasing the melt flow rate such as chain transfer agents or high fluorination temperatures because they intrinsically broadened the molecular weight distribution.

In finding the claim obvious the PTAB ignored these teachings:

[E]ven though Kaulbach generically touts that “high processing rates can be achieved” “[d]espite a narrow molecular weight distribution” ([Kaulbach], 3:59–60), this purported discovery would not have prevented the skilled artisan, at the time of the invention of the ’609 patent, from considering other techniques—such as broadening the polymer’s molecular weight distribution—to achieve higher coating speeds with Sample A11. Based on the evidence presented, we are persuaded that one such technique would have included increasing Sample A11’s [melt flow rate] from 24 g/10 min to the recited range of “about 30±3 g/10 min,” even if doing so would have required broadening the molecular weight distribution of the polymer beyond the “narrow molecular weight distribution” suggested, but not required or precisely defined, by Kaulbach.

The PTAB’s reasoning is not supported by Kaulbach’s disclosure or claims, both specifying a molecular weight distribution of less than 2 as determined by the ratio of average molecular weight to number average molecular weight. The Court found that the PTAB’s finding of obviousness was not supported by substantial evidence by ignoring the specific teaching regarding molecular weight distribution.

The PTAB’s decision is disappointing since it simply adopted the approach of many examiners; apply only the favorable portions of a disclosure and ignore the portions that don’t fit the rejection.

In traversing obviousness rejections, it is important to determine if the examiner has provided reasons for the rejection supported by fact and has the examiner ignored portions of the prior art teaching away from the examiner’s position.