by Steve Driskill | Feb 25, 2014 | [sub] enablement, Adequate Disclosure
While a fact and technology specific case, it is worth noting that characterizing certain calculations as “preliminary” and discussing the need for further experimentation may be detrimental to enablement. Background / Facts: The application on appeal here from...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 24, 2014 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function
Although a functional-type block diagram may not be sufficient to impart corresponding structure to new or unique elements claimed in means-plus-function form, “when the structure or acts that perform the function would be well within the skill of persons of ordinary...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 24, 2014 | [sub] prosecution history, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Although the Federal Circuit has “cautioned against indiscriminate reliance on foreign file histories,” it has acknowledged that “statements made before foreign patent offices are sometimes relevant to interpreting the claims.” This is particularly true where, as...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 24, 2014 | [sub] written description, Adequate Disclosure
For non-functional claim limitations, providing a description by structure and process of creation that matches the claimed term is sufficient to satisfy the written description requirement. Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to the...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 21, 2014 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
While a fairly fact-specific inquiry, in general, an ancillary and otherwise generic component will not by itself render a claim for the combination non-obvious. Dependent claims directed to such components should specifically recite how they are integrated with the...
