June 22, 2017
Please join Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP for a complimentary webinar, “The Difficulties of Being Obvious: Practical Advice for Overcoming Obviousness Rejections,” on Thursday, June 22, 2017, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.
In the predictable arts, an obviousness rejection is typically based on a combination of multiple references. Attempting to overcome such a rejection can be a perplexing and frustrating experience. This is particularly true when the patent examiner is combining references to arrive at the claimed invention in what can be a highly subjective manner. Nevertheless, when it comes time to respond, there will usually be more than one way to get the job done.
Our webinar will address best practices for responding to obviousness rejections, covering these topics and more:
- How to take the prevailing and latest Federal Circuit case law into account in your responses
- Making effective claim amendments specifically tailored to overcome the obviousness rejection
- Developing persuasive arguments in support of patentability over a combination of references
Our speakers will be Fitch Even partner Stephen S. Favakeh and patent agent Thomas A. James. For over 25 years, Steve has assisted clients with the strategic procurement and enforcement of patent and trademark rights in the U.S. and abroad, with a special focus on Japanese clients. He drafts and prosecutes patent applications as well as advises clients on IP portfolios and licensing programs, among other services.
Tom prepares and prosecutes patent applications in addition to assisting with litigation matters. He was previously a patent examiner with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, working primarily in the field of electrical engineering.
- Leveraging Separate IPR Counsel to Maximize Litigation SuccessFitch Even Webinar: November 18, 2021 Read more
IP Alert | USPTO Abused Discretion by Allowing Further Abuse by Ex Parte ReexaminationOctober 22, 2021
On September 29, in In re Vivint, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified the interplay between petitions for IPR and a subsequent request for ex parte reexamination. Read more