by Steve Driskill | Jul 5, 2016 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility
A claim is not merely “directed to” a law of nature under Alice step one if the end result of the process is new and useful. Here, for example, claims reciting a new and useful laboratory technique for preserving hepatocyte liver cells were found to be patent-eligible...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 29, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
A common but generic characteristic shared by a claim element and a prior art element does not support even a broadest reasonable interpretation that one can be the other. Here, for example, a “spine” and a “side panel” of a TV console were found to be distinct even...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 27, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
An “inventive concept” establishing subject matter eligibility can be found in a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of otherwise known, conventional pieces. Here, for example, an inventive concept was found in the installation of an Internet-content...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 21, 2016 | [sub] priority, Formal Requirements
Filing a continuation application on the same day as its parent application issues is sufficient to satisfy the “before the patenting” requirement for claiming priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120. Here, for example, the fact that the patent being asserted was filed on the...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 17, 2016 | [sub] teaching away, Obviousness
A proposed combination of prior art references may be proper even if it would eliminate one or more advantages disclosed in the reference being modified. Here, for example, substituting yarn types in a fabric of the primary reference was found to be proper even though...
