by Steve Driskill | Sep 21, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
A claim limitation describing a previously recited element as “being provided” in a particular way may be interpreted as a characteristic of that element rather than a separate method step. Here, for example, a “pre-processing” step at a client device in accordance...
by Steve Driskill | Jul 31, 2015 | [sub] consistency, Claim Interpretation
Ambiguous claims terms will be generally interpreted consistent with the focus of the specification. Here, for example, the claimed “two insulated chambers” were found to require no more than mere electrical insulation based on the patent’s overall focus on electrical...
by Steve Driskill | Jul 6, 2015 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility
Key claim limitations broadly encompassing known practices may demonstrate that the claims are directed to an abstract idea for the purposes of establishing subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, for example, providing customized web page content to a...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 23, 2015 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
The “inventive concept” requirement for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 requires that the innovative mechanism for achieving an otherwise abstract idea must be recited in the claims and must involve more than merely generic data collection. Here, for example,...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 17, 2015 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation
A definition need only be widely accepted rather than universally accepted to form a proper basis for claim construction. Here, for example, although the patentee noted that the definition of the claimed “nanoparticles” and “microparticles” as being between 1 to 1000...
