by Steve Driskill | Oct 14, 2016 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Disparaging a particular feature in the prior art generally constitutes a disclaimer of that feature in the claimed invention. Here, for example, a trash bag with so-called “short seals” in its upper corners was found to be limited to a design in which the short seals...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 11, 2016 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility
The automation of rule-processing is a merely directed to an abstract idea if it is the automation rather than the rule that improves a technological process. Here, for example, claims reciting the automation of fraud and misuse detection were found to be directed to...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 7, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
It is generally not obvious to reach across fields and select an admittedly undesirable feature with which to modify another prior art reference. Here, for example, no motivation to combine was found for modifying a primary reference directed to a mobile phone with a...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 30, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Novelty and non-obviousness do not alone resolve the question of inventive concept at the second step of Mayo/Alice. Here, for example, although the prior art did not disclose the idea of “determining” and “outputting” a particular type of e-mail, these operations...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 26, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
A functionally-described element “adapted to” perform a plurality of functions does not exclude multiple elements performing those functions when no structural limitations are recited. Here, for example, a “link program” adapted to “both … interrupt streaming of the...