{"id":842,"date":"2021-03-25T11:50:40","date_gmt":"2021-03-25T11:50:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/?p=842"},"modified":"2022-07-28T06:20:30","modified_gmt":"2022-07-28T06:20:30","slug":"tpl-blog-patents-ptab-iprptab-owens-corning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/tpl-blog-patents-ptab-iprptab-owens-corning\/","title":{"rendered":"IPR PTABCast: Owens Corning V. Fast Felt Corporation"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"Podcast\"><iframe style=\"border: none;\" src=\"\/\/html5-player.libsyn.com\/embed\/episode\/id\/6396724\/height\/360\/width\/640\/theme\/standard\/autonext\/no\/thumbnail\/yes\/autoplay\/no\/preload\/no\/no_addthis\/no\/direction\/backward\/\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" scrolling=\"no\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><\/div>\n<p><strong>Summary:<\/strong> Greedy, Lazy Patents = Invalid<br \/>\nCraige reviews a case study of obviousness by tracing how common errors in lazy drafting and greedy claiming lead inexorably to weak patents. In Owens Corning v. Fast felt, the federal Circuit shoots down a patent on gravure deposited nail tabs for roof shingles, even though the claims survived the inter partes review process.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Questions?<\/strong> If you would like to get your patent questions answered and be part of the show, Thompson Patent Law has a LIVE complimentary webinar called Ask The Patent Attorney. Call the number below and reserve your spot in this LIVE teaching event.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Summary: Greedy, Lazy Patents = Invalid Craige reviews a case study of obviousness by tracing how common errors in lazy drafting and greedy claiming lead inexorably to weak patents. In Owens Corning v. Fast felt, the federal Circuit shoots down a patent on gravure deposited nail tabs for roof shingles, even though the claims survived [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":1526,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-842","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ipr-ptabcast"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/842","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=842"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/842\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":843,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/842\/revisions\/843"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1526"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=842"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=842"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thompsonpatentlaw.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=842"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}