by Steve Driskill | Mar 25, 2015 | [sub] broad prior art disclosures, Anticipation
There is no requirement that the prior art disclose actual performance of an otherwise anticipatory embodiment among various contemplated embodiments in order to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. Here, for example, the prior art’s disclosure of 15...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 23, 2015 | [sub] doctrine of equivalents, Claim Interpretation
Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents is not foreclosed simply by the claimed limitation being the literary “antithesis” of the accused infringer’s corresponding feature. Here, for example, no substantial difference was found between deoxygenating before or...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 20, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
A broadest reasonable interpretation asserted by the PTO cannot be inconsistent with proper operation of the embodiments disclosed in the specification. Here, for example, because the specification made clear that a new instruction must replace another instruction at...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 20, 2015 | Prior Art
Even statistically insignificant relationships disclosed in the prior art can be relied on for establishing that the relationship was known. Here, for example, a prior art document showing effectively no change in permeability was found to contain sufficient data for...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 17, 2015 | [sub] obviousness-type, Double Patenting
Although the specification of an earlier patent may not be used as prior art in establishing obviousness-type double patenting of a later patent or application, it may nevertheless be used to infer the correct scope of the earlier patent’s claims for comparison...
