by Steve Driskill | Apr 13, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
Specifically reciting a member of a claimed “plurality” reduces the number of other members of the plurality that need to be present to meet the claim limitation. Here, for example, reciting that “one of said plurality of sensors is a vehicle motion sensor” was found...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 3, 2015 | [sub] grammar, Claim Interpretation
Proper grammar is essential in both claim drafting and other statements that may be used to construe the claims, such as arguments made during prosecution. Here, for example, the patentee argued during prosecution that “disparate” databases referred to an “absence of...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 2, 2015 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
Even clear drafting intent cannot overcome an otherwise apparent meaning to a claim term. Here, for example, an entertainment system housing structured to permit “selective” access to a user was found to exclude embodiments that permitted constant access (e.g., an...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 26, 2015 | [sub] petitions, PTO Procedure
PTO revival rulings are not subject to third party collateral challenge. Here, for example, the decision to revive a PCT national stage entry application for “unintentional” delay was found to be unreviewable by a third party challenger. Background / Facts: The patent...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 26, 2015 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation
Absent a different usage made clear by the specification, the term “indicative” is a common word with a well-known meaning of “serving to indicate” via “a sign, symptom, or index.” Here, for example, “data that is indicative of a gratuity to be charged” in a financial...
