by Steve Driskill | Dec 31, 2015 | [sub] inter partes review, PTO Procedure
Timeliness and relevancy alone are not sufficient to ensure entry under 37 C.F.R. § 42.123(a) of supplemental information for IPR proceedings where the information reasonably could have been submitted with the IPR petition itself. Here, for example, the later...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 28, 2015 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
The mere use of special-purpose hardware without providing implementation details is not sufficient to transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Here, for example, although the court acknowledged that execution of a vehicle operator...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 17, 2015 | [sub] secondary considerations, Obviousness
The patentee need not necessarily establish an independent nexus between the products produced under a license agreement and the claimed invention for licensing activity to be a relevant secondary factor in the obviousness inquiry. Here, for example, the fact that the...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 17, 2015 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness
The teachings of a later prior art reference generally outweigh contradictory statements in an earlier prior art reference. Here, for example, although an earlier prior art reference clearly taught away from the claimed invention by stating that the claimed “5-MTHF”...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 17, 2015 | [sub] printed matter, Claim Interpretation
Unless claimed directly, origin identification does not constitute printed matter under the printed matter doctrine. Here, for example, the origin of certain web design code snippets (or “assets”) recited as being “authored by third party authors” was found not to...
