by Steve Driskill | Apr 22, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Using a conventional machine in a conventional way to effectuate an otherwise abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible concept under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, for example, using scissors to create a hair style selected...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 19, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
The broadest reasonable interpretation rubric employed by the PTO does not ordinarily cover prior art implementations explicitly disclaimed in the specification. Here, for example, a hand-held remote control device claimed as being “adapted to be held by the human...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 8, 2016 | [sub] biotech, Subject Matter Eligibility
Diagnostic and therapeutic method claims that combine routine and conventional physical implementation of a law of nature with a simple mental process step are not patent eligible. Here, for example, analyzing non-coding regions of a person’s genome to detect coding...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 7, 2016 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness
A mere preference that conflicts with a proposed combination of prior art references does not rise to the requisite level of discrediting or disparaging remarks necessary to establish that the prior art teaches away from the proposed combination. Here, for example,...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 6, 2016 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation
The plain meaning of “coupled to” excludes the relationship between simple sub-components and the larger component of which they are a part. Here, for example, a brush catch in the prior art that was part of a beam component was found to be patentably distinct from...
