by Steve Driskill | Jul 6, 2015 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility
Key claim limitations broadly encompassing known practices may demonstrate that the claims are directed to an abstract idea for the purposes of establishing subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, for example, providing customized web page content to a...
by Steve Driskill | Jul 2, 2015 | [sub] offer for sale, Prior Art
Products embodying the invention and prepared by a supplier for commercial exploitation by the patentee trigger the on-sale bar. Here, for example, a batch of pharmaceuticals marked by the supplier with commercial product codes and customer lot numbers and sent to the...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 29, 2015 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation
The definition of a claim term in the specification is controlling over extrinsic evidence even when that evidence points to a broader understanding of the plain meaning of the term in the art. Here, for example, an “active” waveguide coupler was found to be clearly...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 25, 2015 | [sub] patent term adjustment, PTO Procedure
Patent term extension afforded to a parent application does not extend to any continuing applications. Here, for example, two divisional applications were found not to be entitled to the patent term adjustment in the parent application arising from the delay in...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 23, 2015 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
The “inventive concept” requirement for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101 requires that the innovative mechanism for achieving an otherwise abstract idea must be recited in the claims and must involve more than merely generic data collection. Here, for example,...
