by Steve Driskill | Aug 15, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Ordinary data processing steps to achieve a desired result do not transform an otherwise abstract idea into a patent-eligible application under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, for example, a method of processing oil well drill state information was found to be...
by Steve Driskill | Aug 10, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
A “common sense” reason for adding a missing limitation to the prior art to establish obviousness is generally improper unless the limitation is unusually simple and a reasoned analysis is still provided. Here, for example, adding a search operation to detect...
by Steve Driskill | Aug 9, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
The PTO must apply the Phillips standard for claim construction whenever a patent expires, even in the middle of proceedings that had previously used the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Here, for example, the Board’s continued use of the broadest...
by Steve Driskill | Aug 1, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
The collection, analysis, and display of information does not generally amount to significantly more under Mayo/Alice step two. Here, for example, the real-time performance monitoring of an electric power grid was found to be patent-ineligible because the claims...
by Steve Driskill | Aug 1, 2016 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Both repeated and summation characterizations of the invention serve to limit the invention as a whole. Here, for example, the generic term “node” was found to be limited to a “pager … that operates independently from a telephone network” because the specification...
