by Steve Driskill | May 22, 2015 | [sub] computer-related, Subject Matter Eligibility
A tangible medium will not be read into claims that fail to recite or reference any such medium. Here, for example, a “universal speech-recognition interface” software application consisting of software instructions was found to not imply the existence of a machine...
by Steve Driskill | May 21, 2015 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
Even an obvious solution does not render an invention obvious if the problem solved was previously unknown. Here, for example, even though the addition of the claimed “antioxidant” would have been an obvious solution for a formulation with known oxidation problems,...
by Steve Driskill | May 20, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
A claim term may be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with its plain meaning when the specification does not place any restriction on its form or structure. Here, for example, a “timer” was found to encompass gears in the prior art that control a...
by Steve Driskill | May 18, 2015 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness
The term “substantially” does not necessarily require an objective standard of measure as long as the claim scope is reasonably certain. Here, for example, a user interface feature in which double tapping a displayed document causes it to be enlarged and...
by Steve Driskill | May 13, 2015 | [sub] divided, Infringement
Absent a principal-agent relationship, a contractual arrangement, or a joint enterprise, direct infringement under § 271(a) does not incorporate joint tortfeasor liability. Here, for example, although the accused infringer maintained servers that performed part of the...
