by Steve Driskill | Nov 14, 2014 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility
The addition of novel or non-routine components to a claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete for the purposes of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, for example, a novel advertisement mechanism was found to be...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 14, 2014 | [sub] claim differentiation, Claim Interpretation
Claim differentiation presumptively bars a narrowing claim interpretation when its defining characteristics are recited in the dependent claims, even when the interpretation itself may not be literally recited there. Here, for example, the claimed “etching” step was...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 6, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
Separate claim terms will be generally construed as separate limitations. Here, for example, an “auction” for the sale of one “item” was found to still encompass multi-sale auctions because the claims did not explicitly equate the two terms as being synonymous....
by Steve Driskill | Nov 6, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Cursory inconsistencies in terminology—although not ideal—are not a strong enough suggestion that the patentee intended to redefine a well-established term of art, especially when the limitation at issue is not the actual invention itself or an otherwise critical...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 5, 2014 | [sub] importing limitations, [sub] invocation, Claim Interpretation, Means Plus Function
(1) Terms of mere preference such as “preferably” and “exemplary” may be used in the specification to indicate that a particular feature is not required. Here, for example, the disclosure of an “exemplary” display that “preferably” depicts a classroom map was found to...
