by Steve Driskill | Apr 4, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
Claim terms concerning change over time such as “static” may be interpreted as persisting indefinitely. Here, for example, a “static” display that was updated only manually was found to be not infringed by an automatically updating display even though the updating...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 1, 2016 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation
Different terminology is presumed to carry different meanings. Here, for example, the claimed “data channel” added during prosecution was found to be distinct from the specification’s discussion of “data feeds” because the term “data channel” was not used in the...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 22, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
A method step recited as resulting in the “formation” of a given element may be interpreted as excluding from that element any features requiring additional steps. Here, for example, the claimed “patterning” of an imaging layer “to form a first patterned layer” was...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 10, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Wagering games are generally patent-ineligible abstract ideas unless they employ unconventional game elements, rather than conventional elements such as playing cards. Here, for example, a wagering game utilizing real or virtual standard playing cards was found to be...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 1, 2016 | [sub] mixed statutory classes, Indefiniteness
Functional limitations in an apparatus claim do not render the claim indefinite when they merely recite a capability of a given element as opposed to requiring that the function be actually performed to trigger infringement. Here, for example, “a handheld device”...
