The Federal Circuit says that you must disclose and describe the prior art, or your Jepson claim is invalid. Obviously, this means that pretty much every Jepson claim in existence is now invalid. It also ensures that Jepson claims will never be used again. It is also truly a mystery why the Patent Office would ever defend this PTAB decision and advocate in favor of requiring the prior art to be disclosed, discussed and supported. The Office advocating such a nonsensical ruling makes absolutely no sense given the Office prefers Jepson format. Rule 1.75(e) specifically encourages Jepson claim format.
Recent Posts
- What Fintiv v. PayPal Means for Software and AI Patent Practice
- Despite Tweaks, PREVAIL 2025 Would Still Transform the PTAB
- Patent Eligibility Reform Returns to the Hill: PERA 2025 Explained
- PayPal, Apple Succeed in Scrapping Fintiv’s Patent Claims at CAFC
- CAFC Affirms TTAB’s Genericness Test for Color Marks