by Steve Driskill | Jan 27, 2014 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
Although probably dicta, it is encouraging that the court “caution[ed] the Board and the PTO that [obviousness] reasons must be clearly articulated” and that “[i]t is not enough to say that there would have been a reason to combine two references because to do so...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 24, 2014 | [sub] computer-related, Subject Matter Eligibility
More than generic computerization is required to make subject-matter-eligible a claim “in which every step is a familiar part of the conscious process that [artisans] can and do perform in their heads.” Instead, the court identified two broad classes of eligible...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 22, 2014 | [sub] priority, Formal Requirements
Take care to update the priority statement in each successive child application to properly reflect the entire chain of priority from the perspective of the new application. The “specific reference” requirement for claiming priority mandates “each [intermediate]...
by Steve Driskill | Jan 15, 2014 | [sub] patent term adjustment, PTO Procedure
For the purposes of calculating the patent term adjustment under § 154(b), the time between allowance and issuance is not “time consumed by continued examination” and therefore not to be excluded from adjustments given to the patentee under § 154(b)(1)(B)(i)....
by Steve Driskill | Jan 13, 2014 | [sub] printed publications, Prior Art
The fact that a printed publication may be incomplete (e.g., missing pages) does not automatically exclude it from being applied as prior art without a showing that the missing sections might “plausibly” teach away from the claimed invention. It is not plausible to...
