by Steve Driskill | Dec 2, 2015 | [sub] inter partes review, PTO Procedure
The IPR system is a viable administrative procedure in so far as it does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Background / Facts: The patent on appeal here from rejection at the PTO during inter partes review (IPR) proceedings is...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 25, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation
Absent clear redefinition or disavowal, the plain meaning of a claim limitation will be controlling over other descriptions in the specification when the plain meaning is unambiguous. Here, for example, a “query” concerning the online status of other network devices...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 20, 2015 | [sub] interference, PTO Procedure
An applicant’s prosecution strategy does not bar claims provoking an interference that are otherwise permissible under § 135(b)(1). Here, for example, claims copied from another patent before the critical date in § 135(b)(1) but then canceled and only added-back five...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 17, 2015 | [sub] claim differentiation, Claim Interpretation
Claim differentiation applies on a limitation-by-limitation basis and is not vitiated by the inclusion of additional limitations in the differentiating claim. Here, for example, a dependent claim specifying that a “web browser process” is capable of “direct” access to...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 16, 2015 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation
While context dependent, selection of an “optimal” element is not necessarily limited to the single best such element. Here, for example, selection of “an optimal server” was found to include several potentially optimal servers from which content may be retrieved...
