by Steve Driskill | Jun 6, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
Method claims may encompass not only methods of manufacture but also other types of processes, including those performed by a designer of a new product, and therefore must be read reasonably to determine the appropriate context and corresponding actors covered....
by Steve Driskill | Jun 5, 2014 | [sub] inherency, Anticipation
Inherent disclosure may serve as a basis for a finding of anticipation even if the prior art does not contemplate using its teachings for specifically the same purpose as the claimed invention. Background / Facts: The application on appeal here from rejection at the...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 4, 2014 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
Incidental operation of a prior art element under only limited and contrived circumstances does not necessarily teach or suggest a claim element intentionally configured for such operation. Background / Facts: The patent on appeal here from rejection during...
by Steve Driskill | May 27, 2014 | [sub] printed publications, Prior Art
While a printed publication must be sufficiently disseminated to qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it “need not be easily searchable after publication if it was sufficiently disseminated at the time of its publication.” Thus, as here, even a non-indexed and...
by Steve Driskill | May 19, 2014 | [sub] written description, Adequate Disclosure
An application need only reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of at least one embodiment that meets the claim limitations at issue to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Conflicting descriptions...
