Robert Jensen Image

Robert Jensen

Shareholder, Electrical & Computer Technologies Practice

Wolf Greenfield

Rob Jensen is a shareholder with Wolf Greenfield. Rob has over 15 years of experience counseling clients ranging from start-ups and academic institutions to large corporations. With a focus on patent preparation and prosecution, trade secret counseling, patent counseling, portfolio management, providing opinions regarding patent infringement and validity, as well as patentability and freedom-to-operate studies, Rob tailors his advice to meet clients’ individual business objectives.

Rob’s technology experience spans the areas of electronics, power circuits and systems, MEMS, semiconductors, image sensors, electromagnetics, control systems, energy storage, wireless communications, sensors, and software.

Prior to entering the IP field, Rob was involved in research in power electronics during his undergraduate and graduate studies. Rob’s research at Dartmouth College focused on design of magnetic components for power converters, as well as computational optimization techniques for photovoltaic power systems. While a graduate student at MIT, Rob studied power electronics, electromagnetic fields and waves, and semiconductor processing technologies. Rob developed moisture-barrier coatings to improve performance and reliability of electronics in extreme environments. 


Recent Articles by Robert Jensen

Innovative Use of Patent Examiner Statistics Improves Efficiency and Strengthens Portfolios

We recently handled an application in which the examiner rejected the independent claims as obvious in view of six references from a variety of different fields. Submitting arguments in response to the Office Action did not convince the examiner to withdraw the rejection. We checked the examiner’s allowance rate and noticed it to be 30% below the average for the examiner’s art unit. Considering this and other factors, we recommended appeal to the client and provided the examiner’s statistics in support of our recommendation. The client was appreciative that we backed up our recommendation with data, and was convinced that the outlook for continuing prosecution with the examiner was not promising. The client authorized an appeal. Upon submission of our Appeal Brief, the examiner elected not to maintain the rejection, and instead issued a Notice of Allowance. That client has since asked that we consider examiner statistics routinely for other cases.