Insights

PTAB Designates Three Informative Opinions Which Address 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), PTAB Litigation Blog

Visit the PTAB Litigation Blog.

On October 24th, the PTAB issued the following notice, designating the following decisions, which address 35 U.S.C. § 325(d), as informative.

Unified Patents, Inc. v. Berman, Case IPR2016-01571 (PTAB Dec. 14, 2016) (Paper 10)

In this decision, the Board denied institution of one ground under § 325(d) because the petitioner asserted an obviousness combination that included a reference the examiner considered during prosecution and a second reference that was cumulative of prior art that the examiner considered. The Board also declined to exercise discretion under § 325(d) with respect to a second asserted obviousness combination, where the examiner did not consider the asserted references during prosecution, and the references were not cumulative of the prior art the examiner considered during prosecution.

The PTAB Litigation Blog previously covered this decision here.

Read the full article at ptablitigationblog.com.

We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details of the cookies and other tracking technologies we use and instructions on how to disable them are set out in our Cookies Policy. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies.