<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Intellectual Property Law Blog &#124; HDP Magazine by Harness Dickey&#187; Patent Prosecution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.hdp.com/category/patent-prosecution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.hdp.com</link>
	<description>Official blog by Harness Dickey, an international and full-service intellectual property legal firm with four locations in the US. Get up-to-date IP info here!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:44:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>USPTO Issues Nearly A Quarter Million Patents in 2011</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/uspto-issues-nearly-a-quarter-million-patents-in-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/uspto-issues-nearly-a-quarter-million-patents-in-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:30:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Prosecution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1436</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The USPTO issued a total of 247741 patents in 2011, more than any previous year. Of these, 224519 were utility patents. It is interesting to note that of these utility patents, 1693 were also filed in 2011, indicating that at least a small fraction (0.75%) of patents issue very expeditiously. Half of the patents that issued in 2011 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/uspto-issues-nearly-a-quarter-million-patents-in-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>USPTO Issues 21356 Design Patents in 2011</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/uspto-issues-21356-design-patents-in-2011/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/uspto-issues-21356-design-patents-in-2011/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 21:23:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Prosecution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1430</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The USPTO issued 21256 design patents in 2011, which is down slightly from 2010 (22799) continuing the downward trend since 2008 when issuances peaked at 25,565. The vast majority of design patents issue without a year of filing, although in 2011, two design patents: D635989 and D637616, both filed on June 14, 1991, issued, after pending well longer than [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/uspto-issues-21356-design-patents-in-2011/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Incorporation by reference does not expand claim scope</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/incorporation-by-reference-does-not-expand-claim-scope/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/incorporation-by-reference-does-not-expand-claim-scope/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:27:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Gregory A. Stobbs</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Prosecution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1216</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In those heady days of yesteryear, when the patent filing fee was $35 and prior art was printed on crumbling paper, patent attorneys relished the word “means.” They drank coffee from a “cup means,” wrote letters with a “pen means,” and played golf with “club means.” Somehow the word “means” seemed to convert mundane coffee [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/incorporation-by-reference-does-not-expand-claim-scope/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Providing Support for Generous Construction of a Claimed Range</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/providing-support-for-generous-construction-of-a-claimed-range/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/providing-support-for-generous-construction-of-a-claimed-range/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2011 21:06:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Anna M. Budde</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lexion Medical]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Northgate Technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[patent prosecution; claim construction; literal infringement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1165</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lexion Medical, LLC v. Northgate Technologies, Inc., 2009-1494 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2011). Writing for the court, Chief Judge Rader handed patent prosecutors a checklist for getting the most out of a numerical range.  First, “[t]his court prefers a claim interpretation that harmonizes the various elements of the claim to define a workable invention.”  A [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/providing-support-for-generous-construction-of-a-claimed-range/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Sin of Synonyms</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/the-sin-of-synonyms-2/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/the-sin-of-synonyms-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:47:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Becton Dickinson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Therasense]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1139</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As we wait for the Federal Circuit’s en banc pronouncement on inequitable conduct in Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson, the claim construction aspect of that case illustrates a greater difficulty in patent infringement cases than divining the fraudulent intent of applicants and their attorneys.  In the panel’s opinion, the Federal Circuit noted that, after a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/the-sin-of-synonyms-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>USPTO Announces Implementation of Track One</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/uspto-announces-implementation-of-track-one/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/uspto-announces-implementation-of-track-one/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 18:07:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Prosecution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Track One]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1114</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The US Patent and Trademark Office announced yesterday that on May 4, 2011 it will implement Track One, prioritized examination, of the new three-track examination system.  There will be an added fee of $4000 for requesting Track One examination on top of the regular filing fees.  (As yet, there is no reduction for small entities.)  [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/uspto-announces-implementation-of-track-one/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>IS THE END IN SIGHT FOR PATENT MISMARKING CLAIMS?</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/is-the-end-in-sight-for-patent-mismarking-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/is-the-end-in-sight-for-patent-mismarking-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 19:29:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Prosecution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=1086</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In In re BP Lubricants USA Inc., [Misc. 960](March 15, 2011) the Federal Circuit granted BP Lubricant’s  Petition for a writ of mandamus directing the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss a complaint for false patent marking under 35 USC §292  filed against BP.   The Federal Circuit held that FRCP [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/is-the-end-in-sight-for-patent-mismarking-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Meeting Ariad’s Written Description Requirement</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/meeting-ariad%e2%80%99s-written-description-requirement/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/meeting-ariad%e2%80%99s-written-description-requirement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:46:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Prosecution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=920</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, No. 2008-1248 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 22, 2010) (en banc) In a much anticipated decision, the Federal Circuit issued an en banc decision addressing the scope of the “written description” requirement of 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph.  At the court’s direction, the parties briefed two questions:  whether §112, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/meeting-ariad%e2%80%99s-written-description-requirement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Best Mode for Producing Lysine Included Undisclosed Features</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/best-mode-for-producing-lysine-included-undisclosed-features/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/best-mode-for-producing-lysine-included-undisclosed-features/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 16:01:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Prosecution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=817</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In method for producing L-lysine including  genetically altering E. coli, inventors failed to disclose best host strain to use and  further modification that enhanced production. Ajinomoto Co. v. ITC, 2009-1081 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 8, 2010) In a rare best mode case, the Federal Circuit confirmed invalidity of two patents for failure to disclose the best [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/featured/best-mode-for-producing-lysine-included-undisclosed-features/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Trial for Inconsistent Verdict of Nonobvious Independent Claim, Obvious Dependent Claims</title>
		<link>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/new-trial-for-inconsistent-verdict-of-nonobvious-independent-claim-obvious-dependent-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/new-trial-for-inconsistent-verdict-of-nonobvious-independent-claim-obvious-dependent-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:51:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>HDP</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Patent Prosecution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.hdp.com/?p=813</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[JMOL on validity reversed because judge misunderstood when art is analogous; claim constructions using dictionary and prosecution argument upheld. A JMOL on validity of the dependent claims to cure an inconsistent jury verdict for obviousness of  claims dependent on nonobvious  independent claims could not stand because the district court’s basis for finding nonobviousness, that the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.hdp.com/patent-prosecution/new-trial-for-inconsistent-verdict-of-nonobvious-independent-claim-obvious-dependent-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

