by Steve Driskill | Dec 19, 2014 | [sub] enablement, Adequate Disclosure
Although a specification need not disclose what is well-known in the art, “[i]t is the specification, [and] not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement.” Here, for example,...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 17, 2014 | [sub] biotech, Subject Matter Eligibility
Identifying the techniques to be used in performing an abstract idea is insufficient to render a claim patent-eligible when those techniques are well-understood, routine, and conventional techniques. Here, for example, spelling out how to compare gene sequences using...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 16, 2014 | [sub] appellate, PTO Procedure
The PTO’s claim construction must be sufficiently explicit, at least as to any disputed claim term, in order to enable appellate review. Here, for example, the Board’s refusal to construe the term “threshold value” while nevertheless finding that the prior art did not...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 15, 2014 | [sub] enablement, Adequate Disclosure
Although use of the term “comprising” in a claim preamble does not render every word and phrase in the claim open-ended, similar language attached to a particular claim limitation in the body of the claim may expand the breadth of that limitation beyond the scope...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 9, 2014 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation
Absent a narrowing definition in the specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “sub-signal” requires only slight differences between signal versions. Here, for example, given a broad description in the specification, the claimed “sub-signal” was...
