by Steve Driskill | Jan 15, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
Claim terms should be given a broadest reasonable interpretation by the PTO that effectively captures their characteristic feature over other common features. Here, for example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “laminated” was found to require a structure...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 9, 2015 | [sub] public use, Prior Art
The inventor or a third party’s efforts to maintain control over the use of the invention may negate an otherwise public use under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Here, for example, a third-party misappropriator who illicitly obtained the claimed invention but for that reason...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 8, 2015 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation
The terms “associated with” and “related to” on their face are not limited to a direct one-to-one correspondence. Here, for example, a sensor claimed as being “associated with” an individual light fixture and producing a signal “related to” the light level of that...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 5, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation
Silence in a particular example with regard to a certain aspect of the invention cannot be used to depart from consistent teachings about that aspect elsewhere in the specification. Here, for example, a figure that did not show any details of container entry or exit...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 1, 2015 | Year in Review
As 2014 officially comes to a close, we are pleased to present our annual comprehensive guide to all the happenings in patent prosecution case law over the last year. We hope that you will find it useful as a handy reference in your practice. Digital download: Year in...
