by Steve Driskill | Apr 2, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
Even clear drafting intent cannot overcome an otherwise apparent meaning to a claim term. Here, for example, an entertainment system housing structured to permit “selective” access to a user was found to exclude embodiments that permitted constant access (e.g., an...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 26, 2015 | [sub] petitions, PTO Procedure
PTO revival rulings are not subject to third party collateral challenge. Here, for example, the decision to revive a PCT national stage entry application for “unintentional” delay was found to be unreviewable by a third party challenger. Background / Facts: The patent...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 26, 2015 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation
Absent a different usage made clear by the specification, the term “indicative” is a common word with a well-known meaning of “serving to indicate” via “a sign, symptom, or index.” Here, for example, “data that is indicative of a gratuity to be charged” in a financial...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 25, 2015 | [sub] broad prior art disclosures, Anticipation
There is no requirement that the prior art disclose actual performance of an otherwise anticipatory embodiment among various contemplated embodiments in order to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. Here, for example, the prior art’s disclosure of 15...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 23, 2015 | [sub] doctrine of equivalents, Claim Interpretation
Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is not foreclosed simply by the claimed limitation being the literary “antithesis” of the accused infringer’s corresponding feature. Here, for example, no substantial difference was found between deoxygenating before or...
