by Steve Driskill | Jun 13, 2014 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function
“Disclosure of a class of algorithms that places no limitations on how values are calculated, combined, or weighted is insufficient to make the bounds of the claims understandable [under the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)].” Further, the fact that a...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 12, 2014 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
Although a fact specific inquiry, it may be obvious as here to replace the format of one type of identifier (e.g., a random but unique numerical identifier) with another type of identifier (e.g., a person’s name) when both achieve the same result (e.g., unique...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 12, 2014 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness
Suggestions teaching away from combining references to arrive at the claimed invention but arising after the time of the invention are irrelevant. “Obviousness, and expectation of success, are evaluated from the perspective of a person having ordinary skill in the art...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 10, 2014 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
The relevant inquiry with regard to the level of predictability in the art is not the general unpredictability of the field of the invention at large, but rather, the more specific unpredictability of arriving at the claimed invention in particular based on the state...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 10, 2014 | [sub] reissue, PTO Procedure
Although the court specifically noted that it “need not address broader questions about the intersection of reissue standards and terminal disclaimers,” at least in cases as here where an applicant knowingly and intentionally files a terminal disclaimer for patents...
