by Steve Driskill | Jan 27, 2015 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
A reference’s specific contribution to the art beyond its more conventional features may be used to characterize its “principle of operation” in considering whether such functionality would be preserved by an otherwise obvious modification. Here, for example, a...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 20, 2015 | [sub] foreign references, Prior Art
A machine translation of a foreign language reference may be deemed adequate evidence of the reference’s content for simple technologies with straightforward figures. Here, for example, a machine translation of a Japanese reference directed to lighting for marine...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 15, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
Claim terms should be given a broadest reasonable interpretation by the PTO that effectively captures their characteristic feature over other common features. Here, for example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “laminated” was found to require a structure...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 9, 2015 | [sub] public use, Prior Art
The inventor or a third party’s efforts to maintain control over the use of the invention may negate an otherwise public use under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Here, for example, a third-party misappropriator who illicitly obtained the claimed invention but for that reason...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 8, 2015 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation
The terms “associated with” and “related to” on their face are not limited to a direct one-to-one correspondence. Here, for example, a sensor claimed as being “associated with” an individual light fixture and producing a signal “related to” the light level of that...
