by Steve Driskill | Nov 12, 2015 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation
The location term “end” is generally limited to the region at or near where a corresponding structure ceases to exist. Here, for example, while the claim term “proximate end” was found to encompass some offset from the absolute end of a corresponding shipping...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 10, 2015 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
It is generally obvious to treat a limited subset of patients with an otherwise known procedure when there are no unexpected results directly attributable to the patient subset itself. Here, for example, limiting the patient pool for a drug treating irritable bowel...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 10, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation
Negative claim limitations will be interpreted just as broadly as positive claim limitations, which may significantly narrow the claim scope. Here, for example, method steps required to be performed “without the use of a vision guidance system” were found to exclude a...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 6, 2015 | [sub] intended use, Claim Interpretation
A limitation that only recites a correlation between a claim feature and a performance property does not carry any patentable weight. Here, for example, a “weight concentration ratio” claimed as being selected to correlate with how damaging the resulting solution is...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 5, 2015 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
Motivation to combine two prior art references is not negated by a clash in inventive aspects that are inconsequential to the problem addressed by the proposed combination. Here, for example, differences in wire configurations (insulated vs. bare) was found to be...
