by Steve Driskill | Dec 24, 2014 | [sub] reissue, PTO Procedure
Although a “now-regretted choice” does not meet the “error” precondition for obtaining reissue under 35 U.S.C. § 251, marketplace developments that prompt a patentee to reassess their issued claims is a “classic reason that qualifies as error” for the purposes of...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 23, 2014 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility
Processing information from specific hardware beyond a generic computer is still not sufficient to escape the realm of abstract ideas for the purposes of establishing subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, for example, claims directed to an ATM...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 19, 2014 | [sub] claim differentiation, Claim Interpretation
The doctrine of claim differentiation may serve to enforce a broader meaning of certain claim limitations than those embodiments specifically disclosed in the specification. Here, for example, a “handpiece” design consistently described in the specification as “having...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 19, 2014 | [sub] claim differentiation, Claim Interpretation
Claim differentiation may be used to demonstrate drafting intent with regard to included and omitted features. Here, for example, the claimed operation of “creating” an object instance was found to require only instantiating that object rather than also generating the...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 19, 2014 | [sub] enablement, Adequate Disclosure
Although a specification need not disclose what is well-known in the art, “[i]t is the specification, [and] not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement.” Here, for example,...
