ATLAS IP, LLC v. ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Soft language such as “approximately” can provide wiggle room for different modes of operation

by Steve Driskill | Oct 29, 2015 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer

Soft language such as “approximately” can provide wiggle room for different modes of operation. Here, for example, the claimed communication cycle invention was not found to be inoperable without the hub sending start-time information to a remote device before each...

ATLAS IP, LLC v. MEDTRONIC, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – Imprecisions about plurals and conjunctions found in the claim language should be resolved by context

by Steve Driskill | Oct 29, 2015 | [sub] claim context, [sub] grammar, Claim Interpretation

Imprecisions about plurals and conjunctions found in the claim language should be resolved by context. Here, for example, a hub / remote device communication cycle having “intervals during which the hub and the remotes transmit and receive frames” was found to...

IN RE MORSA (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – High level of ordinary skill asserted in the specification may lower the bar for enablement of the prior art

by Steve Driskill | Oct 19, 2015 | [sub] enabling disclosure, Anticipation, Prior Art

Statements in the specification asserting a high level of skill in the art may be used to lower the bar for enablement of the prior art as well as the application itself. Here, for example, even high-level descriptions in a prior art press release about “us[ing] the...

SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC v. SANDOZ INC. (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – A less-than-pure material is generally obvious over a corresponding pure material

by Steve Driskill | Oct 2, 2015 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness

Absent any unexpected advantages, a less-than-pure material in terms of the active component is an obvious variant of a corresponding pure material. Here, for example, the claimed “substantially pure” pharmaceutical compound that was 92–95% pure material was found to...

IN RE STEED (Fed. Cir. 2015) (P) – No new evidence may be generally submitted on appeal at the PTO that was not before the primary examiner

by Steve Driskill | Oct 1, 2015 | [sub] appellate, PTO Procedure

Absent a recent decision of either the Board or a court, no new evidence may be submitted on appeal at the PTO that was not before the primary examiner. Here, for example, the applicant’s introduction only during the Board hearing of affidavits in support of a Rule...