by Steve Driskill | Mar 22, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
A method step recited as resulting in the “formation” of a given element may be interpreted as excluding from that element any features requiring additional steps. Here, for example, the claimed “patterning” of an imaging layer “to form a first patterned layer” was...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 22, 2016 | [sub] doctrine of equivalents, [sub] specification, Claim Interpretation, Estoppel / Disclaimer
The disclosure-dedication rule does not require that the specification explicitly label which embodiments are “alternatives” to bar otherwise apparent alternatives from infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Here, for example, even though the specification...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 21, 2016 | [sub] secondary considerations, Obviousness
Self-serving statements from researchers about their own work does not constitute industry praise for the purposes of establishing secondary evidence of nonobviousness. Here, for example, press releases describing work similar to the claimed invention but made by...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 15, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
It is not reasonable to deny effect to any particular limitation of the claim language. Here, for example, a dedicated ethernet path claimed as providing a microcontroller module with a connection “to remotely poll” various components was found to require that the...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 10, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Wagering games are generally patent-ineligible abstract ideas unless they employ unconventional game elements, rather than conventional elements such as playing cards. Here, for example, a wagering game utilizing real or virtual standard playing cards was found to be...
