by Steve Driskill | Jun 16, 2015 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function
Despite a decade of precedent to the contrary, the heightened bar to overcoming the presumption that a limitation expressed in functional language without using the word “means” is not subject to § 112, ¶ 6 has been overruled. Here, for example, the claimed...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 11, 2015 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Relying on a computer to perform otherwise routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible even when speed and accuracy is advantageous. Here, for example, a method of dynamic price optimization in an e-commerce...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 9, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
All words of a claim term must be given meaning. Here, for example, the term “display format” referring to a video signal was found to require that the video signal be “ready for use” by a conventional external monitor in order to give meaning to the word “display” as...
by Steve Driskill | May 22, 2015 | [sub] computer-related, Subject Matter Eligibility
A tangible medium will not be read into claims that fail to recite or reference any such medium. Here, for example, a “universal speech-recognition interface” software application consisting of software instructions was found to not imply the existence of a machine...
by Steve Driskill | May 20, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
A claim term may be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with its plain meaning when the specification does not place any restriction on its form or structure. Here, for example, a “timer” was found to encompass gears in the prior art that control a...
