by Steve Driskill | Mar 17, 2015 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
Combining prior art references for the purpose of establishing obviousness may be improper when there is substantial interplay among the claimed components. Here, for example, integrating a first reference’s microprocessor to control the camera of a second reference’s...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 16, 2015 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation
The term “component” requires that other components be part of the larger system. Here, for example, a compound claimed as “represent[ing] at least one component of a signalling moiety” was found to exclude single-entity moiety arrangements. “[T]he term ‘component’ in...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 13, 2015 | [sub] incorporation by reference, Prior Art
The “detailed particularity” required for incorporation of material into a prior art document can be shown by the prior art document mentioning features disclosed only in the incorporated material itself. Here, for example, a “capacitance-multiplying converter” absent...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 10, 2015 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness
Ambiguities in the plain language of the claims may be resolved rather than held indefinite by taking into account how a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the limitation at issue after reading the intrinsic record....
by Steve Driskill | Mar 10, 2015 | [sub] analogous art, Prior Art
The scope of analogous art is not defined by an inventor’s subjective perspective. Here, for example, although the inventor was specifically focused on using two-way communication satellites to monitor a driver’s mental state, more general prior art directed to...
