by Steve Driskill | May 7, 2015 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation
Treating two terms coextensively in the specification leads to an inference that they are related and largely synonymous. Here, for example, a “positional” relationship as in the prior art was found to be equivalent to the claimed indication of a “distance” because...
by Steve Driskill | May 7, 2015 | [sub] secondary considerations, Obviousness
A claimed feature associated with mere regulatory compliance cannot be used to establish the secondary consideration of commercial success for the purposes of rebutting an otherwise prima facie case of obviousness. Here, for example, the claimed “sterility” of a...
by Steve Driskill | May 6, 2015 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function
The Katz exception to the algorithm rule permitting general-purpose processors to serve as the corresponding structure of computer-implemented means-plus-function elements for basic functions of a processor does not extend to complicated, customized computer software....
by Steve Driskill | Apr 27, 2015 | [sub] ranges, Indefiniteness
Claim language employing terms of degree is not indefinite when its bounds can be inferred from inherent parameters related to proper operation. Here, for example, a “spaced relationship” between two electrodes was found to be sufficiently definite because the spacing...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 24, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
Claims shall not be construed so as to read any recited term out of the patent. Here, for example, actions occurring “when” a caller is “placed on hold” were found to be limited to the moment the caller is placed on hold, rather than at any point during the period the...
