by Steve Driskill | Nov 17, 2014 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
An obviousness rationale is required even when it is readily apparent that the prior art is physically capable of being modified to meet the limitations claimed. Here, for example, the fact that a prior art heat sink retaining device was physically capable of being...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 14, 2014 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility
The addition of novel or non-routine components to a claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete for the purposes of subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, for example, a novel advertisement mechanism was found to be...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 14, 2014 | [sub] claim differentiation, Claim Interpretation
Claim differentiation presumptively bars a narrowing claim interpretation when its defining characteristics are recited in the dependent claims, even when the interpretation itself may not be literally recited there. Here, for example, the claimed “etching” step was...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 6, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
Separate claim terms will be generally construed as separate limitations. Here, for example, an “auction” for the sale of one “item” was found to still encompass multi-sale auctions because the claims did not explicitly equate the two terms as being synonymous....
by Steve Driskill | Nov 6, 2014 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Cursory inconsistencies in terminology—although not ideal—are not a strong enough suggestion that the patentee intended to redefine a well-established term of art, especially when the limitation at issue is not the actual invention itself or an otherwise critical...
