DYNAMIC DRINKWARE, LLC v. NATIONAL GRAPHICS, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – A provisional application must also support the later filed claims to qualify as secret prior art

by Steve Driskill | Sep 4, 2015 | [sub] provisional, Prior Art

For a provisional application to qualify as secret prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), it must support the claims of the application or patent asserting priority thereto. Here, for example, an otherwise anticipatory disclosure found in a...

MEDIA RIGHTS TECHNOLOGIES v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORP (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Inter-connection among components of a system is not by itself sufficient to avoid means plus function

by Steve Driskill | Sep 4, 2015 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function

Inter-connection among claimed components of a system is not by itself sufficient to avoid the application of § 112, ¶ 6. Here, for example, the claimed “compliance mechanism” was found to invoke application of § 112, ¶ 6 even though the specification describes how...

DOME PATENT L.P. v. LEE (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Preponderance of the evidence standard is the appropriate one for assessing invalidity during reexamination

by Steve Driskill | Sep 3, 2015 | [sub] reexamination, PTO Procedure

The preponderance of the evidence standard is the appropriate one for assessing invalidity during reexamination. Here, for example, the PTO found the claimed method at issue to be obvious and therefore unpatentable under a preponderance of the evidence standard even...

THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY v. NOVA CHEMICALS CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Different measurement options for a claim term may be indefinite when they produce different results

by Steve Driskill | Aug 28, 2015 | [sub] breadth, Indefiniteness

A claimed value that can be measured in several ways may be held to be indefinite rather than simply broad when the different measurements produce different results. Here, for example, a slope of strain hardening coefficient claimed within a certain range was found to...

INLINE PLASTICS CORP. v. EASYPAK, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Characterization of the prior art that does not form the basis of an argued distinction is not a disclaimer

by Steve Driskill | Aug 27, 2015 | [sub] prosecution history, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Mere characterization of the prior art that does not form the basis of an argued distinction does not rise to the level of prosecution history disclaimer. Here, for example, the patentee’s characterization of the prior art as including only a single perforation line...