by Steve Driskill | Mar 13, 2015 | [sub] incorporation by reference, Prior Art
The “detailed particularity” required for incorporation of material into a prior art document can be shown by the prior art document mentioning features disclosed only in the incorporated material itself. Here, for example, a “capacitance-multiplying converter” absent...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 10, 2015 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness
Ambiguities in the plain language of the claims may be resolved rather than held indefinite by taking into account how a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the limitation at issue after reading the intrinsic record....
by Steve Driskill | Mar 10, 2015 | [sub] analogous art, Prior Art
The scope of analogous art is not defined by an inventor’s subjective perspective. Here, for example, although the inventor was specifically focused on using two-way communication satellites to monitor a driver’s mental state, more general prior art directed to...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 26, 2015 | [sub] patent term adjustment, PTO Procedure
Filing a supplemental document after submitting a reply constitutes an unreasonable delay by the applicant for the purposes of PTA adjustment. Here, for example, the filing of a supplemental IDS after submitting a reply to an initial restriction requirement was found...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 18, 2015 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Use of definitive terms such as “always” indicates that the corresponding characteristic is universal to the invention. Here, for example, the claimed “power control bit” was found to be limited to a single-bit power control command because the specification described...
