by Steve Driskill | Nov 1, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Generic components working in an unconventional fashion to solve a particular technological problem is patent-eligible under § 101. Here, for example, a network accounting system that used only conventional components (e.g., “gatherers”) was found to be...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 27, 2016 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness
General distinctions drawn between the claimed invention and the prior art are not sufficient to provide any objective boundaries for terms of degree. Here, for example, the patentee’s argument during prosecution that prior art disk-shaped and plate-shaped heat sinks...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 27, 2016 | [sub] prosecution history, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Minor differences in claim language between parent and child patents are not sufficient to secure a different interpretation. Here, for example, the “neutralizer” claimed in a child patent was interpreted as requiring all the components recited in the claims of a...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 17, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Improvements to mental processes as opposed to computer efficacy do not qualify as an inventive concept for establishing patent eligibility under the second step of Mayo/Alice. Here, for example, claims to an improvement in the design process for a logic circuit...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 14, 2016 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Disparaging a particular feature in the prior art generally constitutes a disclaimer of that feature in the claimed invention. Here, for example, a trash bag with so-called “short seals” in its upper corners was found to be limited to a design in which the short seals...