by Steve Driskill | Feb 29, 2016 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation
The ordinary meaning of a claim term cannot be completely untethered to the context of the invention. Here, for example, the claim terms “portable” and “mobile” were found to not cover everything utility meters attached to the exterior walls of buildings, even though...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 26, 2016 | [sub] analogous art, [sub] information disclosure, Prior Art
Submitting a reference to the PTO in an information disclosure statement constitutes a tacit admission that the reference is at least analogous art if not material. Here, for example, the patentee’s arguments that a cited reference was not analogous art for the...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 26, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
Making a well-understood tradeoff between two variables to achieve the same end-product is generally obvious. Here, for example, decreasing an annealing temperate while increasing a corresponding annealing time was found to be obvious in view of the well-known...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 22, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
The broadest dictionary definition of a claim term does not necessarily satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Here, for example, the PTO’s asserted definition of a continuity member positioned to “reside around” a coaxial cable as requiring nothing...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 22, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
Minor but inconsistent examples in the specification may facilitate invalidity by broadening claim interpretation at the PTO so as to bring in additional prior art without necessarily broadening the scope of patent protection. Here, for example, although the...
