by Steve Driskill | Feb 26, 2015 | [sub] patent term adjustment, PTO Procedure
Filing a supplemental document after submitting a reply constitutes an unreasonable delay by the applicant for the purposes of PTA adjustment. Here, for example, the filing of a supplemental IDS after submitting a reply to an initial restriction requirement was found...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 18, 2015 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Use of definitive terms such as “always” indicates that the corresponding characteristic is universal to the invention. Here, for example, the claimed “power control bit” was found to be limited to a single-bit power control command because the specification described...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 18, 2015 | [sub] preamble, Claim Interpretation
A claim preamble can be limiting of that claim even when it only breathes life into another claim dependent thereon. Here, for example, a “repetitive motion pacing system” as recited in the preamble of an independent claim was found to be limiting of that independent...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 12, 2015 | [sub] prosecution history, Estoppel / Disclaimer
A patentee’s statements during prosecution, whether relied on by the examiner or not, are relevant to claim interpretation. Here, for example, statements on the record that a “personal identification number” distinguishes over the prior art by being user- rather than...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 10, 2015 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness
In order for a prior art reference to teach away from the claimed invention, it must criticize or otherwise discourage use of the claimed invention rather than merely provide an alternative. Here, for example, a reference’s mere emphasis that the absence of due dates...
