by Steve Driskill | Sep 23, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
A mere functionally described display of information does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Here, for example, the novel use of a downloadable application for out-of-region delivery of regional broadcast content was found to lack an inventive...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 23, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
User-based customization does not by itself amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Here, for example, a network-based media system having “a customized user interface page for [a] given user” was found to be nothing more than an abstract idea because...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 23, 2016 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness
An ambiguous but inconsequential claim term does not render the claim as a whole indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2. Here, for example, the claimed use of a “processing system” as part of a method where the point of novelty lies elsewhere was found to be incapable of...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 22, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
A change in specific functionality does not automatically negate a combination of prior art elements in establishing obviousness. Here, for example, modifying a prior art reference’s telephone speaker to perform the claimed announcing of a caller’s identity as well as...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 20, 2016 | [sub] written description, Adequate Disclosure
A disclosure that adequately identifies an invention by its known properties may be used to support later claims to undisclosed yet inherent properties. Here, for example, a protein described in a priority application in terms of a partial amino acid sequence and...
