by Steve Driskill | Sep 23, 2016 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness
An ambiguous but inconsequential claim term does not render the claim as a whole indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2. Here, for example, the claimed use of a “processing system” as part of a method where the point of novelty lies elsewhere was found to be incapable of...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 22, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
A change in specific functionality does not automatically negate a combination of prior art elements in establishing obviousness. Here, for example, modifying a prior art reference’s telephone speaker to perform the claimed announcing of a caller’s identity as well as...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 20, 2016 | [sub] written description, Adequate Disclosure
A disclosure that adequately identifies an invention by its known properties may be used to support later claims to undisclosed yet inherent properties. Here, for example, a protein described in a priority application in terms of a partial amino acid sequence and...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 16, 2016 | [sub] direct, Infringement
Functional limitations can be structural even when recited as a negative limitation. Here, for example, a plasticizer claimed as being “not removed from” an internal matrix prior to transplantation into a human was found to be directly infringed by a competing product...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 13, 2016 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility
The claimed use of a computer to automate novel as opposed to conventional activity is not directed to an abstract idea. Here, for example, claims focusing on the automatic use of rules of a particular type for creating 3-D animation were found to be non-abstract...
