by Steve Driskill | Jul 25, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Merely facilitating a fundamental economic practice using generic technology is not sufficient to render the claims patent eligible. Here, for example, using a generic computer to simultaneously display a plurality of positive credit decisions was found to be...
by Steve Driskill | Jul 22, 2016 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Descriptions that are only tangentially related to characterizations of “the present invention” should not be read as constituting a mandatory claim limitation to be read into the claims. Here, for example, a statement about the “present invention” in the first...
by Steve Driskill | Jul 19, 2016 | [sub] secondary considerations, Obviousness
The claimed combination as a whole can serve as a nexus between the claimed invention and any objective indicia of non-obviousness. Here, for example, the nexus was found to be provided by the combination of a prior art automobile engine and cooling modifications for...
by Steve Driskill | Jul 13, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Computer-implemented data processing to achieve super-human results does not constitute an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step two. Here, for example, a computer-implemented business method for processing certified payroll records was found to lack an inventive...
by Steve Driskill | Jul 11, 2016 | [sub] offer for sale, Prior Art
The mere sale of manufacturing services by a contract manufacturer to an inventor to create embodiments of a patented product for the inventor does not constitute a “commercial sale” of the invention. Here, for example, no on sale bar was found to be triggered by the...
