by Steve Driskill | Mar 20, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
A broadest reasonable interpretation asserted by the PTO cannot be inconsistent with proper operation of the embodiments disclosed in the specification. Here, for example, because the specification made clear that a new instruction must replace another instruction at...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 20, 2015 | Prior Art
Even statistically insignificant relationships disclosed in the prior art can be relied on for establishing that the relationship was known. Here, for example, a prior art document showing effectively no change in permeability was found to contain sufficient data for...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 17, 2015 | [sub] obviousness-type, Double Patenting
Although the specification of an earlier patent may not be used as prior art in establishing obviousness-type double patenting of a later patent or application, it may nevertheless be used to infer the correct scope of the earlier patent’s claims for comparison...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 17, 2015 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
Combining prior art references for the purpose of establishing obviousness may be improper when there is substantial interplay among the claimed components. Here, for example, integrating a first reference’s microprocessor to control the camera of a second reference’s...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 16, 2015 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation
The term “component” requires that other components be part of the larger system. Here, for example, a compound claimed as “represent[ing] at least one component of a signalling moiety” was found to exclude single-entity moiety arrangements. “[T]he term ‘component’ in...
