by Steve Driskill | Sep 24, 2015 | [sub] broad prior art disclosures, Anticipation
For a broad reference to be considered as disclosing a particular chemical compound for prior art purposes, it must “teach a finite and limited class” that includes the compound claimed. Here, for example, a compound representing the active ingredient in a claimed...
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 | Sep 14, 2015 | [sub] indirect, Infringement
Willful blindness for establishing induced infringement under § 271(b) may be shown by a deliberate failure to further investigate a patent discovered during review of another patent and having similarities in content, inventorship, and ownership. Here, for example,...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 4, 2015 | [sub] provisional, Prior Art
For a provisional application to qualify as secret prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), it must support the claims of the application or patent asserting priority thereto. Here, for example, an otherwise anticipatory disclosure found in a...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 4, 2015 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function
Inter-connection among claimed components of a system is not by itself sufficient to avoid the application of § 112, ¶ 6. Here, for example, the claimed “compliance mechanism” was found to invoke application of § 112, ¶ 6 even though the specification describes how...
