by Steve Driskill | Feb 22, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
Minor but inconsistent examples in the specification may facilitate invalidity by broadening claim interpretation at the PTO so as to bring in additional prior art without necessarily broadening the scope of patent protection. Here, for example, although the...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 1, 2016 | [sub] product-by-process, Claim Interpretation
Process limitations in a claimed composition having no effect on the structure of the claimed composition will not be given patentable weight. Here, for example, a claim limitation specifying that a particular impurity in the pharmaceutical composition being claimed...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 29, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
Interpretations that render some portion of the claim language superfluous are disfavored. Here, for example, the claimed “pressurized collection vessel” was found to require an accumulation of material rather than just receiving material in a series of pipes and heat...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 17, 2015 | [sub] printed matter, Claim Interpretation
Unless claimed directly, origin identification does not constitute printed matter under the printed matter doctrine. Here, for example, the origin of certain web design code snippets (or “assets”) recited as being “authored by third party authors” was found not to...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 2, 2015 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation
A claim term used in exactly the same way as in conventional systems will be interpreted to require all the standard features thereof. Here, for example, the claimed “virtual machine” was interpreted as requiring the typical limitation of conventional “virtual...
