IP: Effective tips for a drafting an appeal brief under new BPAI rules

A good brief addresses specific points of error in the examiner’s rejection

If an applicant chooses to file an appeal, the appeal brief should clearly address the appellant’s issues with the examiner’s rejection. The reply brief should focus on the examiner’s positions in the answer, in order to define the dispositive issues that the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), soon to be known as the Patent Trials and Appeals Board, needs to resolve.

New BPAI rules

If a notice of appeal is filed after Jan. 23, then the new rules apply. The rules have eliminated five requirements from an appeal brief:

  1. Statement of status of claims
  2. Statement of status of amendments
  3. Statement of grounds of rejection to be reviewed on appeal
  4. Evidence appendix
  5. Related proceedings appendix

Additionally, when an appeal is filed, the presumption is that the appeal is based on all rejected claims unless the claim has subsequently been canceled and the amendment entered. 

The new rules also contain other requirements that should be closely reviewed. While it is important to follow the layout, it is even more important to present persuasive arguments concerning the examiner’s rejection. 

Claim grouping

To present a persuasive argument during appeal, it is important to effectively implement claim grouping. Under the new rules, the appellant must use separate subheadings to identify claims that the appellant wishes the BPAI to treat separately. Without a subheading, the board will treat it as a single argument concerning the patentability of the claims. Thus, it is crucial to use separate subheadings if presenting distinct arguments concerning the patentability of the claims. For example, if the patentability of a dependent claim is to be argued separately, it is important to have a separate subheading. 

Claim interpretation

When an examiner has taken what the appellant considers to be an overly broad claim interpretation, it is important to specifically explain how the examiner has taken a claim interpretation beyond the correct standard. Merely arguing that the applied reference(s) do not teach or disclose a feature is not as effective as particularly discussing why the examiner’s interpretation is wrong.

Rebutting an obviousness rejection

When rebutting an examiner’s rejection, it is important to recite and apply appropriate case law. Merely reciting phrases such as “teaching away” or “analogous art” is not persuasive to most judges unless you cite and apply appropriate case law. It is particularly important to be careful in regards to “no motivation to combine” arguments. You should also recite and apply current case law when arguing about the combination of references. While the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex may have broadened what references can be combined, it does not mean that all references can be combined.

Reply briefs

When the appellant files a reply brief, it is important to focus on arguments in the examiner’s answer, specifically the portion that is responsive to the appellant’s brief. The reply brief should be a response to specific findings, arguments or positions the examiner took in the answer. Another use of the reply brief is to address intervening legal authority relevant to appealed issues. However, it is important not to raise a new argument that is not in response to the examiner’s answer or to separately argue claims for the first time. 

Conclusion

When preparing an appeal brief or a reply brief, it is important to focus the BPAI on specific points of error in the examiner’s rejection and support the argument with relevant case law that is correctly applied.

About the Author
Andrew Weaver

Andrew Weaver

Andrew Z. Weaver is a partner at Novak Druce + Quigg where his practice is focused on the prosecution and reexaminations of patents. He can be reached at andrew.weaver@novakdruce.com.

Comments

InsideScoop Daily eNewsletter

InsideScoop delivers the latest-breaking news affecting in-house counsel. Get the latest business trends, current corporate litigation, labor developments, technology initiatives and more — FREE. Sign up now!

You have been subscribed! You will receive a confirmation email soon.

See the entire list of InsideCounsel eNewsletters.

Resource Library


7 Simple Strategies for Improving Legal Fee Budgeting Certainty

Understanding the legal fee budgeting paradigm and following seven simple strategies will help you control...

Complimentary White Paper: Best Practices for Meeting Critical eDiscovery Challenges

Packed with practical advice, this white paper discusses best practices for meeting eDiscovery challenges across...

Complimentary White Paper "Key Considerations for Collection Methodologies and Resources"

This white paper addresses the need for companies to reevaluate their current collection policies in...

Moving Matters In-House: How Technology Enables Legal In-Sourcing

Strategically shifting more matters to in-house counsel has proven to be an effective strategy to...

5 Ways to Promote Responsible Content Sharing

Find out five ways that organizations can promote responsible sharing of content among employees by...

Reducing the Costs of eDiscovery from Collection to Court!

Predictive coding is only one of many ways organizations can make eDiscovery faster, cheaper and...

Discovery Shifts to the Cloud

Adoption of Cloud computing continues to gain momentum. How can IT and Legal Teams avoid...

Lower Your Total Cost of Ownership

With the deployment of Proofpoint Enterprise Archive, organizations have realized significant cost savings in automating...

Health and Safety Risks of Counterfeits in the Global Supply...

This whitepaper underscores the prevalence of counterfeits within global supply chains across a number of...

Get the facts you need to Help Implement Sound Legal...

This whitepaper will examine the cases that are setting precedents. Download "Legal Hold and Self-Collection:...

View All »

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.