by Steve Driskill | Sep 8, 2016 | [sub] prosecution history, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Claims denied entry during prosecution for including new matter may prevent other claims from being later interpreted to encompass the same subject matter. Here, for example, claims directed to a particular species of cytotoxin that were rejected during prosecution...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 1, 2016 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function
Algorithmic structure corresponding to a means-plus-function element need not be illustrated explicitly in the drawings when the associated text of the specification makes clear that the claimed function is contemplated. Here, for example, an algorithm illustrated in...
by Steve Driskill | Aug 31, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
Similarities in manufacturing processes alone cannot negate an explicit difference between a product in the prior art and that of the claimed invention. Here, for example, the desugared sugar beet molasses of the claimed invention was found to sufficiently distinguish...
by Steve Driskill | Aug 30, 2016 | [sub] inter partes review, PTO Procedure
A showing that the combination of newly added features in substitute claims for inter partes review distinguishes over the prior art is generally sufficient to satisfy the requirements of a motion to amend without addressing whether each newly added feature was...
by Steve Driskill | Aug 15, 2016 | [sub] written description, Adequate Disclosure
Original claims can provide written description support even for later added claims. Here, for example, the asserted claims were found to be supported by the original disclosure even though the specification focused on a narrower embodiment and even though the...