Comments on: How To Respond To § 103 Obviousness Rejections Using The “All Elements Test” In View Of Recent Revisions To Section 2143.03 Of The Manual Of Patent Examining Procedure – Part II http://patentablydefined.com/2008/05/27/how-to-respond-to-%c2%a7-103-obviousness-rejections-using-the-%e2%80%9call-elements-test%e2%80%9d-in-view-of-recent-revisions-to-section-214303-of-the-manual-of-patent-examining-procedure-part-ii/ A practical patent prosecution blog published by Michael Kondoudis Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:07:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Feigin, Patent Attorney http://patentablydefined.com/2008/05/27/how-to-respond-to-%c2%a7-103-obviousness-rejections-using-the-%e2%80%9call-elements-test%e2%80%9d-in-view-of-recent-revisions-to-section-214303-of-the-manual-of-patent-examining-procedure-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-4843 Feigin, Patent Attorney Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:29:39 +0000 http://patentablydefined.com/?p=48#comment-4843 This is great! This BPAI case is really interesting in light of KSR, but hey, I like it! I plan to use info from this article quite a bit! Thanks! This is great! This BPAI case is really interesting in light of KSR, but hey, I like it! I plan to use info from this article quite a bit! Thanks!

]]> By: mike http://patentablydefined.com/2008/05/27/how-to-respond-to-%c2%a7-103-obviousness-rejections-using-the-%e2%80%9call-elements-test%e2%80%9d-in-view-of-recent-revisions-to-section-214303-of-the-manual-of-patent-examining-procedure-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-4732 mike Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:24:02 +0000 http://patentablydefined.com/?p=48#comment-4732 confused SCOTUS, Thank you for your comment. I think you might want to revisit my original post on why one should consider citing to the MPEP. I suggest that citations should only be used when they are necessary and then only judicially. No one on this blog has ever advocated citing the MPEP "Ad nauseam." confused SCOTUS,

Thank you for your comment. I think you might want to revisit my original post on why one should consider citing to the MPEP. I suggest that citations should only be used when they are necessary and then only judicially. No one on this blog has ever advocated citing the MPEP “Ad nauseam.”

]]> By: confused SCOTUS http://patentablydefined.com/2008/05/27/how-to-respond-to-%c2%a7-103-obviousness-rejections-using-the-%e2%80%9call-elements-test%e2%80%9d-in-view-of-recent-revisions-to-section-214303-of-the-manual-of-patent-examining-procedure-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-4730 confused SCOTUS Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:29:07 +0000 http://patentablydefined.com/?p=48#comment-4730 This is yet another reason NOT to cite the MPEP, in addition to the ones I identified in my comment to your previous post. Citing the MPEP, especially ad nauseam, is merely a way to fluff up a response, and many clients, especially foreign clients, are well-aware of this. And why the heck cite the MPEP, if you have to confirm whether each and every cite you make is actually a correct disposition of the law in the first place? Save your client's time/money and the possibility of jeopardizes your client's patent right, and simply do not cite the MPEP. This is yet another reason NOT to cite the MPEP, in addition to the ones I identified in my comment to your previous post. Citing the MPEP, especially ad nauseam, is merely a way to fluff up a response, and many clients, especially foreign clients, are well-aware of this. And why the heck cite the MPEP, if you have to confirm whether each and every cite you make is actually a correct disposition of the law in the first place? Save your client’s time/money and the possibility of jeopardizes your client’s patent right, and simply do not cite the MPEP.

]]> By: Babel Boy http://patentablydefined.com/2008/05/27/how-to-respond-to-%c2%a7-103-obviousness-rejections-using-the-%e2%80%9call-elements-test%e2%80%9d-in-view-of-recent-revisions-to-section-214303-of-the-manual-of-patent-examining-procedure-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-2966 Babel Boy Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:51:12 +0000 http://patentablydefined.com/?p=48#comment-2966 This line of posts is one of the most interesting and helpful on the entire IP blogosphere. The use of the tag "All Elements Rule" might be confusing because there is another, more widely used all elements rule -- in order to infringe the infringing device must meet all of the elements of the infringed claim. All Elements Rule II? All S/ELF Rule? (Steps/Elements, Limitations, and Functions) This line of posts is one of the most interesting and helpful on the entire IP blogosphere.

The use of the tag “All Elements Rule” might be confusing because there is another, more widely used all elements rule — in order to infringe the infringing device must meet all of the elements of the infringed claim.

All Elements Rule II? All S/ELF Rule? (Steps/Elements, Limitations, and Functions)

]]>