Blog
These articles are for informational purposes, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. These articles are only the opinion of the authors and are not attributable to Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C., or the firm’s clients.
IN RE STOLLER (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Claim terms should be given a broadest reasonable interpretation that captures their characteristic feature
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...
DELANO FARMS COMPANY v. CALIFORNIA TABLE GRAPE COMM. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Efforts to maintain control over the use of the invention may negate an otherwise public use
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...
IN RE SHANEOUR (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – The terms “associated with” and “related to” are not limited to a direct one-to-one correspondence
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...
TEASHOT LLC v. GREEN MOUNTAIN COFFEE ROASTER (Fed. Cir. 2015) (NP) – Silence with regard to a certain aspect of the invention does not depart from consistent teachings elsewhere
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...
**YEAR IN REVIEW 2014**
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...
FLEMING v. ESCORT INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Marketplace developments prompting reassessment of issued claims qualifies as “error” sufficient for reissue
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...
CONTENT EXTRACTION v. WELLS FARGO BANK (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Processing information from specific hardware beyond a generic computer may still be an abstract idea
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...
STRYKER CORPORATION v. ZIMMER, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2014) (P) – Claim differentiation may serve to enforce a broader meaning than the disclosed embodiments
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...
DATATERN, INC. v. EPICOR SOFTWARE CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – Claim differentiation may be used to demonstrate drafting intent regarding included and omitted features
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...
CREATIVE KINGDOMS, LLC v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2014) (NP) – The specification must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement
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,...