by Steve Driskill | Jun 25, 2015 | [sub] patent term adjustment, PTO Procedure
Patent term extension afforded to a parent application does not extend to any continuing applications. Here, for example, two divisional applications were found not to be entitled to the patent term adjustment in the parent application arising from the delay in...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 23, 2015 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
The “inventive concept” requirement for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 requires that the innovative mechanism for achieving an otherwise abstract idea must be recited in the claims and must involve more than merely generic data collection. Here, for example,...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 23, 2015 | [sub] reissue, PTO Procedure
Reissue cannot be used to revert an issued continuation-in-part application back to true divisional status. Here, for example, a reissue application filed to revert a continuation-in-part back to a divisional application and thereby invoke safe harbor protection...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 22, 2015 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness
Merely espousing the benefits of its own invention over the state of the art is not sufficient for a prior art reference to teach away from combination with certain aspects of the state of the art. Here, for example, a short-tail mud motor with a vertically mounted...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 19, 2015 | [sub] preamble, Claim Interpretation
The fact that a portion of a claim preamble may be interpreted as a constituting a limitation does not require that the entire preamble constitute a limitation. Here, for example, the preamble “method for [a] generating and updating data for use in [b] a destination...
