Patentably Defined

© 2007, Michael E. Kondoudis

This week’s entry is a presentation of several form paragraphs I often suggest to fellow associates in response to not uncommon circumstances that arise in prosecution. These paragraphs are specific and nuanced and reflect lessons learned in litigation.

Requesting the Return of a Form PTO-1449 from an IDS

Initially, Applicant respectfully requests the return of the Form PTO-1449 included with the Information Disclosure Statement IDS) filed January 1, 2007, marked to confirm the Office’s consideration of the information submitted in that IDS. A copy of that form is enclosed herewith for the Office’s convenience.

Notes
1. The inclusion of a copy of the Form PTO-1449 is an artifact from the days before electronic filing and is now discretionary.

2. The form listing each item of information being submitted in an IDS is actually named a FORM PTO-1449, not a “Form 1449,” a “PTO Form-1449,” or an “IDS Form.”

3. The paragraph requests confirmation of the Office’s consideration of the submitted infomation, never implying that the information has not been considered.
Amending a Claim Per An Examiner Suggestion

The Office Action objected to claim 1 on formal grounds. In response, Applicant has amended claim 1 in the manner kindly suggested by the Examiner.

Favorable consideration is respectfully requested.

Discussing Claims That Have Been Objected To Only For Depending From Rejected Base Claims

Initially, Applicant acknowledges with appreciation the indications that claims 2-5 and 6-9 recite patentable subject matter and that these claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the features of their respective base claims and all intervening claims. By the present Amendment, Applicant has …

Notes
1. Since this objection is really an indication of patentable subject matter, I choose to emphasize this in the prosecution history. In litigation, it is much more attractive to have a prosecution history that discusses patentable subject matter rather than “objected to” claims.

2. It is to be appreciated that this paragraph avoids the use of the term “limitations.” I choose the more palatable term “features.” Again, this practice yields a far more attractive prosecution history.
Requesting More Detail for a Rejection

In the interests of compact prosecution, in the even that the Office maintains the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office identify, with the specificity required to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, where in the primary citation to Smith, a disclosure of a widget is alleged to be found.

Alleging/Identifying Support for an Amendment

Applicant submits that support for these amendments can be found in the disclosure as originally filed, and therefore no new matter has been added.

or

Applicant submits that support for these amendments can be found at least at, for example, paragraph [0051] of the Specification as originally filed, and therefore no new matter has been added.

Memorializing The Substance Of A Personal Interview

Applicant expresses his gratitude to the Examiner for the courtesies extended to Applicant’s undersigned representative during the personal interview conducted on January 1, 2007. During that interview, ______, ______, and ______ were discussed. It was agreed that _______.

Conclusory Paragraph

In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully submits that the independent claims patentably define the present invention over the citations of record. Further, the dependent claims should also be allowable for the same reasons as their respective base claims and further due to the additional features that they recite. Separate and individual consideration of the dependent claims is respectfully requested.

Note
I recommend this conclusory paragraph or one similar at the end of all patentability arguments to avoid attempts by the Examiner to only examine the independent claims. In the absence of such a request, when only the independent claims are discussed, some Examiners only direct their efforts toward the independent claims.

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis, PC
Patent Attorney Washington DC
www.mekiplaw.com

Share This

© 2007, Michael E. Kondoudis

This is the second of a two part series about efficient and cost effective ways to avoid potentially critical implications by silence during prosecution of an application.

The first part of this series presented techniques for generating a prosecution history that rebuts an implication that additional patentablity arguments were not believed to be available or meritorious. These techniques protect an Applicant (and the prosecutor) from troublesome implications that can arise when patentability arguments are selectively presented.

Implications by silence, however, may also arguably arise from failures to rebut in the prosecution history implied agreement with an Examiner. For example, if an Applicant argues only that an asserted combination of art does not disclose a claim feature, does that mean that the Applicant agreed with the Examiner that the asserted combination was proper (e.g., that there was the requisite motivation to make the combination)? Maybe not. But why not avoid the risks of such an implication entirely, especially because it is so easy to do?

The following are a few additional opportunities in a prosecution history where convenient and cost-effective techniques to accomplish this objective can be applied.

Responses to Rejections Under § 112

Consider the following example concerning a rejection of a claim under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Assume that the Examiner has rejected the claim as indefinite. After a thorough review, you conclude that it is a close call but one that may very well be traversed by argument. For strategic/business reasons, however, the applicant opts not to fight the rejection but instead to amend the claim.

An adequate explanation in the remarks about applicant’s claim amendment might be:

Claim 5 stands rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, as indefinite. In response, claim 5 has been amended in view of the Examiner’s comments. Applicant respectfully submits that the amendments to claim 5 traverse this rejection. Accordingly, favorable reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection are respectfully requested.

A better response, however, might be the following paragraph:

Claim 5 stands rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112, as indefinite. By the present Amendment, Applicant has amended claim 5 in view of the Examiner’s comments. Applicant respectfully submits that claim 5 now even more fully satisfies the requirements of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Accordingly, favorable reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection are respectfully requested.

I submit that the latter response is superior to the former in several ways. First, the latter example reserves the possible future argument that the Applicant did not agree that rejected claim 5 was definite as it was originally presented. This could be of value, for example, if similar claim constructions are presented in parallel applications. In contrast, I think that it the former response needless makes this future argument more difficult to make. Secondly, it may also be of value if the Applicant presents a similarly constructed claim later in prosecution. If that later added claim is similarly rejected, and the Applicant has a change of heart deciding to traverse the rejection by argument, it is far easier to craft a persuasive patentability argument. Thirdly, it is a polite way to “save the argument” that avoids offending or directly challenging the Examiner, which is almost always in an Applicant’s best interests.

This approach can be applied to other non-art rejections as well as objections, such as objection to the title (e.g., Applicant has amended the title to even more accurately describe the claimed subject matter).

Avoiding an Implication that Applicant Agrees that an Asserted Combination is Proper

One of what I believe to be the very most important arguments to expressly reserve in the prosecution history is a challenge to the propriety of any asserted combination. Litigators have far more time to study art and may find support for a challenge to the propriety of a combination or modification. Staying silent on this point during prosecution can arguably blunt the effectiveness of this later argument. For this reason, when I choose to challenge only the sufficiency of a combination in response to a rejection, it is my usual practice to the expressly reserve any argument about whether the combination is proper. One technique I employ is shown by the following example:

Claim 1 recites, among other features, a widget on a vertical surface.

Without conceding the propriety of the asserted combination, however, Applicant respectfully submits that the asserted combination does not disclose at least the aforementioned feature of claim 1, for at least the following reason.

Patent A discusses an arrangement that includes a smidget 20. (Patent A, Col. 5, lines 1-10; FIG. 1).

The Office Action contends that this smidget meets that aforementioned feature of claim 1. (Office Action, page 4).

A review of Fig. 1 of patent A reveals, however, that the smidget 20 is on a horizontal surface. (Id.). Further, patent A expressly teaches that the smidget 20 must be on a horizontal surface. (Patent A, Col. 5, lines 10-12).

Patent B is cited for its alleged disclosure of various features of claim 1 other than the aforementioned feature. Applicant respectfully submits that Patent B does not add anything to the disclosure of Patent A that would remedy the aforementioned deficiency.

Also, Applicant respectfully submits that one of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine patent A with patent B.

Accordingly, favorable reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are respectfully requested.

The value added by the techniques may be difficult to measure. After all, it is impossible to see the future. I look at it, however, from a cost/benefit perspective. The cost is at most the time required to type these few extra words. Thus, I submit that almost any potential benefit of these techniques, regardless of how remote, outweigh the cost. Additionally, as a former litigator, I submit that it is always a better practice to try to arm future litigators with as many arguments and/or counterarguments as possible. For this reason, when I have the opportunity to at least imply that the Applicant does not agree with an Examiner, I take it.

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
Patent Attorney Washington DC
www.mekiplaw.com

Share This

©  2007, Michael E. Kondoudis

This is the second of a two part series on maximizing patent value by minimizing prosecution time before the U.S. Patent Office.

As in Part I, several strategies to minimize the prosecution time of an application to achieve the earliest possible issue date are presented.

File a Nonprovisional Application Instead of a Provisional Application Whenever Possible

Provisional applications are NEVER examined; only nonprovisional applications are examined. And a utility application that claims the benefit of a provisional filing date is examined according to its own actual filing date, not the provisional filing date. As a result, the period from a provisional application filing date until the filing of a corresponding nonprovisional application delays the start of examination. Only the filing of a nonprovisional application places the application into line for examination.

This is not to say that provisional applications should always be avoided. To the contrary, provisional application can be both useful and necessary because a provisional filing date closes off later prior art from being cited against the application, and may be necessitated by business considerations (i.e., the ability to say “patent pending”), or to avoid a bar to patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Thus, when considerations that outweigh speedy examination are present, a provisional application should be considered. Nonetheless, when possible, it is generally best to avoid filing a provisional application. And, when a provisional application is filed, it is generally best to start the conversion process as soon as possible.

Prosecute Applications Efficiently

Responding to all Office Actions as early as possible (hopefully within the typical three month response deadline set by most Office Actions) tends to speed up patent prosecution. To be sure, responding early to an Office Action yields a benefit measurable in days. This benefit, however, is amplified by routinely responding early to Office Actions. Indeed, routinely responding sooner than required can have a significant cumulative effect, especially when one considers those applications that cause several Office Actions to be generated.

Maintaining efficient communication with the examiner by interview also tends to speed up patent prosecution. Interviews help applicants better understand how an examiner is interpreting cited art, the basis for rejections, and how an examiner will respond to potential claim amendments, often without many of the estoppel effects of paper prosecution. In these ways, interviews may greatly advance prosecution by at the very least making responses to Office Actions more effective.

Filing responses by Express Mail or Facsimile can also reduce prosecution time. Even though responses filed by first class mail are considered to have been filed on the day they are deposited in the mail, they must still be delivered to the PTO before they can be processed and may be lost. In contrast, papers filed electronically or by facsimile are virtually immediately received. In sum, filing electronically or by facsimile is safer and faster.

Take Advantage of Formal Examiner Amendments

MPEP § 1302.04 specifically limits changes to an image file wrapper (IFW) application to either: (1) a formal examiner’s amendment; or (2) an amendment made by the applicant. Also, this section authorizes the use of a formal examiner’s amendment to informalities in the body of the written portions of the specification as well as all errors and omissions in the claims. When faced with a the necessity for modest formal changes, a formal examiner amendment can avoid at least the time the PTO will take to process a response, even if that response is filed electronically.

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
Patent Attorney Washington DC
www.mekiplaw.com

Share This

© 2007, Michael E. Kondoudis

This is the first of a two part series discussing various techniques that take advantage of opportunities in a prosecution history to rebut/preclude disadvantageous implications that often tend to arise in patent litigation. These techniques tend to yield prosecution histories that are more difficult to assail while also providing future litigators asserting the patent with enhanced tactical flexibility.

The Implication That Only The Arguments Presented Were Believed to Be Meritorious

One of the important strategic decisions in responding to a claim rejection is to identify which argument(s) should be presented. This is especially true when it appears that any of several arguments would be successful. Sometimes, it may be advantageous to present every argument believed to have merit. This approach, however, increases possible argument estoppel and can be expensive. For these reasons, it is often advantageous to present fewer than all possible meritorious arguments. This argument selection process can be based on myriad factors. For example, will it be more effective to present the shortest, most efficient argument or a legal argument against, for example, motivation to make a combination? How about discussing the easiest claim feature not taught or suggested by the cited art? How about the first claim feature? For some prosecutors, this is where their analysis often ends. I submit, however, that when fewer than all possible arguments are presented, it can be a better practice to make it clear in the prosecution history that other possible arguments were believed to have merit. In this regard, consider the following:

1. There is nothing to be gained by exposing an Applicant in future litigation to the argument that the Applicant only believed that claims were patentable only for the reason(s) presented while there is much that might be gained by avoiding the argument entirely.

2. This approach is prudent, unless a prosecutor is confident that the argument presented is by far the best one, and liberates a prosecutor to more safely selectively discuss the feature most likely to win the day (e.g., the easiest to explain to an Examiner, the first feature, or the feature requiring the shortest argument).

3. This approach makes it easier for litigators to make alternative/additional patentability arguments in the future, if later evaluation of the cited art in litigation reveals such arguments have merit.

Specific Techniques

Having established that avoiding an implication that only those arguments presented in prosecution were believed to have merit is important, I have found the following techniques to be subtle, efficient, and effective for avoiding this implication.

1. When Allowed/Allowable Subject Matter is Indicated

Perhaps the most elegant and efficient technique is to add a phrase/statement in the following exemplary paragraph I use when allowable/allowed subject matter is indicated.

Applicant acknowledges with appreciation the indication that claims 1-10 are allowed and that claims 11-20 recite patentable subject matter and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the features of their respective base claims and any intervening claims. By the present Amendment, Applicant has not amended any of allowed claims 1-10. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-10 should remain allowed. Also, Applicant has respectfully maintained claims 11-20 in dependent form because it is believed that their respective base claims patentably define over the cited art, for at least the reasons discussed herein.

It is to be appreciated that this exemplary paragraph serves three functions. First, it expressly implies that other meritorious reasons for patentability are possible. Second, it is hyper-accurate; representing only that the allowed claims, which may have been previously amended, are not amended by the present Amendment. Thirdly, it is an attempt to subtly and politely disagree with an Examiner who has identified allowable subject matter in some claims.

2. In a Traversal

Another technique is to insert specific phrases in the traversal of the rejection that rebut the presumption. Consider an oversimplified example in which a claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of patent A and patent B that, after review, is determined to be deficient, failing to disclose a feature of the claim. An adequate response might include the following paragraphs:

Claim 1 recites, among other features, a widget on a vertical surface.

Applicant respectfully submits, however, that the asserted combination does not disclose the aforementioned feature of claim 1.

Patent A teaches a widget 20. (Patent A, Col. 5, lines 1-10; FIG. 1). The Office Action contends that Patent A discloses a widget on a vertical surface. (Office Action, page 4). This contention is respectfully traversed.

Patent A expressly teaches that widget 20 is on a horizontal surface. (Id.).

Patent B is cited for its alleged disclosure of various features of claim 1 other than the aforementioned feature. Applicant respectfully submits that Patent B does not add anything to the disclosure of Patent A that would remedy the aforementioned deficiency.

Accordingly, favorable reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are respectfully requested.

Such a response adequately presents the argument that the asserted combination is deficient. The response, however, arguably implies that the Applicant believed that the asserted combination was proper. Also absent is any indication that the Applicant might have believed, for example, that claim 1 patentably defined over the cited art for any other reason. Consequently, the resulting prosecution history does not provide a strong defense against these implications. Thus, a better approach might be the following:

Claim 1 recites, among other features, a widget on a vertical surface.

Applicant respectfully submits that the asserted combination does not disclose at least the aforementioned feature of claim 1, for at least the reasons discussed below.

Patent A teaches a widget 20. (Patent A, Col. 5, lines 1-10; FIG. 1). The Office Action contends that Patent A discloses a widget on a vertical surface. (Office Action, page 4). This contention is respectfully traversed.

Patent A expressly teaches that widget 20 is on a horizontal surface. (Id.).

Patent B is cited for its alleged disclosure of various features of claim 1 other than the aforementioned feature. Applicant respectfully submits that Patent B does not add anything to the disclosure of Patent A that would remedy the aforementioned deficiency.

Accordingly, for at least the aforementioned reasons, reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are respectfully requested.

I submit that the latter response yields potentially significant advantages over the former, without increased cost or effort. The latter response, if it results in an allowance will, in the absence of any statement of reasons for allowance, provide future litigators with several options on which to argue the patentability of claims or several arguable bases on which the claims were allowed. This can be advantageous if any one patentability argument is later proven to be incorrect, which can happen during litigation when prosecution histories are often studied in great detail. In this regard, the latter approach also provides a “safety net” for the prosecutor, since it can be argued that at least one of the arguments presented was properly persuasive.

3. An Omnibus Paragraph

Still another technique is to add a paragraph after all of the traversals in an Amendment that expressly explains that the absence of additional patentability arguments should not be construed as either a disclaimer of such arguments or that such arguments are not believed to be meritorious.

I submit that the techniques presented thus far provide the prosecutor the flexibility to selectively present the most appropriate argument (e.g., the easiest to explain to an Examiner, the first feature not present, or the feature requiring the shortest argument). Second, I submit that this approach makes it easier for litigators to make other patentability arguments in the future. Thirdly, these techniques provide an extra layer of safety to the prosecutor in the unlikely event that the prosecutor did not present the strongest argument.

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis
Patent Attorney Washington DC
www.mekiplaw.com

Share This

©  2007, Michael E. Kondoudis

The following is a discussion of patent term extensions; both how they are triggered and how they are offset. Also presented are strategies that minimize offsets to extensions.

Introduction

Patent term adjustments can be significant to an applicant because they extend the term of a patent. Consequently, they can serve to legally extend patent licenses, periods of infringement, and a barrier to entry into a market. Some practitioners, however, do not understand what triggers positive adjustments; partly because the rules are complicated and partly because challenges to adjustments calculated by the PTO are rare. Also, it is often overlooked that actions by an applicant can offset a positive term adjustment, even when those actions fully comply with U.S. Patent Laws, PTO rules, and widely-accepted practices and procedures. I submit, therefore, that it is not only prudent to understand what triggers a term extension but also to consider practices that minimize offsets to term extensions.

The Legal Framework

The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (”the AIPA”) authorizes extensions of the term of a U.S. patent to account for U.S. Patent Office failures to take certain actions within specified timeframes during the examination process. Specifically, the AIPA guarantees the following:

1. that the U.S. Patent Office will initially act on an application within 14 months of its filing date or the date on which an international application fulfilled the requirements to enter the national stage;

2. that the USPTO will respond to a reply or appeal within 4 months from the date that a reply or appeal is filed;

3. that the USPTO will act on the application within 4 months after a Decision from the PTO Board of Appeals or Federal Court, where at least one allowable claim remains in the application;

4. that the USPTO will issue a patent within 4 months of the issue fee payment date; and

5. that an original patent will issue no more than 3 years from the actual filing date of the application in the United States.

Strategies to Maximize PTAs

The AIPA also authorizes deductions from an extension to account for times when an applicant “has failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution.” Some of these deductions are inevitable in view of the nature of PTO practice. Other deductions can, however, be minimized or avoided entirely bthrough some minor adjustments to everyday practice. So, to minimize deductions to term extensions, consider the following strategies.

1. Avoid filing any response later than the statutory period for response set forth in an Office Action or Notice, even if the response period is properly extendable by petition or falls on a weekend or Federal holiday.

A better practice is to file responses by the three-month deadline whenever possible. And, if a response deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, file it on the preceding business day, even though the Patent Office rules permit filing on the next business day.

2. File papers electronically, by Express Mail, or by facsimile.

Responses filed by first class mail are considered (for purposes of PTA) to have been filed on the day they are actually received by the PTO, regardless of certificates of first class mailing. Papers filed electronically or by Express Mail are also considered filed as of the date of receipt, but receipt is virtually contemporaneous with transmission. Papers filed by facsimile are deemed filed as of the date of receipt so long as the USPTO is open for business. Accordingly, it is preferable to file papers, in descending order of preference, electronically or by Express Mail, facsimile, and lastly, first-class mail.

3. Consider making elections by telephone.

Written restrictions count as an Office Action for the purpose of the fourteen-month guarantee to act on an application (guarantee #1 above). And, an Office Action imposing a restriction and/or election is far easier to generate than a first Office Action on the merits. Consequently, a better strategy is to make oral elections, which is more likely to delay the mailing of a first Office Action and thus result in a PTA.

4. Avoid filing supplemental responses (when possible).

A better practice is to minimize the number of supplemental responses filed by employing alternatives, when possible. For example, one alternative may be to call the Examiner to determine whether an issue can be addressed in response to the next Action or resolved by an Examiner’s Amendment. And, when an Examiner suggests an amendment to allow the application, ask the Examiner to effect the changes by an Examiner’s Amendment.

5. Avoid filing an Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) after a first Office Action has issued, unless the IDS is filed with a response or the submitted information was cited by a foreign patent office fewer than 90 days before the filing date of the IDS (when possible).

A better practice is to file IDSs well before the first Office Action. If an Office Action is pending, wait to file the IDS with the response. Also, advise foreign patent attorneys of the 90 day deadline, to ensure that foreign-cited references can be submitted within that time frame.

6. Avoid filing Amendments after a Notice of Allowance has issued.

A better strategy is to ask the Examiner to make the correction by an Examiner’s Amendment. (See MPEP § 1302.04). Also, if the error is a minor one that is supported by the prosecution history, consider making the correction by a Certificate of Correction after the patent has issued.

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis, PC
Patent Attorney Washington DC
www.mekiplaw.com

Share This

©  2007, Michael E. Kondoudis

This is the first of a two part series on maximizing patent value by minimizing prosecution time before the U.S. Patent Office.

Introduction

Under U.S. Patent Laws, a patent is enforceable from the date the application issues up to 20 years after the application was filed. It is during this so-called “patent term” that the majority of the reward for an applicant’s investment in prosecuting the application is realized. The most direct way to maximize this patent term is to minimize the prosecution time of the application to earn the earliest possible issue date. This series will discuss several strategies to consider to achieve this goal.

Draft the Application to Appeal to Examiner’s Discretion

An often overlooked factor in patent prosecution is that examiners have some discretion as to the order in which they choose to “pick up” and examine applications from their docket. Examiners are supposed to take up applications in a specified hierarchy specified by Section 708 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), which generally specifies that applications are to be examined in the order of their effective filing dates. The PTO, however, ensures compliance with this requirement by monitoring whether the oldest application on each docket is acted upon every other week (known as a by-week). As a result, after an examiner acts on the oldest case on his/her docket, that examiner has some discretion to “cherry pick” applications from their docket thereafter.

Sometimes Examiners Need to Find an Easy Application to Examine

Examiners are under ever increasing production pressures and sometimes they need an easier to examine application to boost their production. For example, consider that an examiner is responsible for ensuring that the application satisfies the Patent Laws and Rules, understanding the claimed invention and conducting a thorough search of the art, and allowing only patentable subject matter. Also, examiners are required to meet certain production quotas measured every by-week. Thus, when an examiner needs to make up ground to meet his/her production quota at the end of a by-week, they tend to look for applications from their docket that will require easier-to-generate first Office Actions, so that they can increase their production. There is, therefore, an opportunity to obtain earlier examination of an application by drafting the application in a manner that makes the application “attractive” to an examiner, when the examiner needs a quick production boost.

How to Draft an “Attractive” Application

What exactly makes an application “attractive” to an examiner is impossible to answer with specificity because, as the saying goes, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” As a general rule, however, easier to examine applications tend to be more attractive to examiners. And, easier to examine applications share a common trait; they are drafted with the examiner’s job in mind. So, these applications are written clearly and efficiently, and avoid unnecessarily complex sentence structures. Also, these applications include easy to understand figures that correspond well to the written description, are well-labeled, and illustrate every claim feature. These applications tend to require an art search of a relatively reasonable scope by keeping the number of claims to a minimum, especially the number of independent claims. Also, these applications use reasonable claim language that accurately and specifically identifies the claimed invention. Sometimes, these applications even describe, at the beginning or the end of the detailed description portion of the written description, some of the subject matter an applicant believes is patentable. All of these traits tend to make an examiner’s job easier by: (1) minimizing the time an examiner must spend to understand the invention to be examined; (2) minimizing and focusing the scope of the search for prior art; and (3) minimizing the need to identify objectional informalities (e.g., inconsistencies between the written description and the drawings, claim features not shown in the drawings).

The Law Office of Michael E. Kondoudis, PC
Patent Attorney Washington DC
www.mekiplaw.com

Share This

Welcome to the Patentably Defined Blog. I intend this blog to be a practical resource for patent practitioners, providing engaging discussions of various patent prosecution strategies along with practical suggestions and useful examples. The many strategies and practice examples that will appear on this blog are for the consideration of those who will (hopefully) visit this blog, and the opinions, suggestions, and commentary of those visitors are humbly solicited.

Share This