by Steve Driskill | Jul 29, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
Unclaimed elements that are essential for operation of the claimed invention need not necessarily be claimed. Here, for example, information about how “patient compliance data” was obtained for the claimed recording of such information was found to be permissibly...
by Steve Driskill | Jul 28, 2016 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function
A coined-term element is generally subject to a means-plus-function interpretation. Here, for example, the claimed “symbol generator” for plotting user locations on a map was found to invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 because its name was coined for the purposes of the...
by Steve Driskill | Jul 25, 2016 | [sub] inter partes review, PTO Procedure
The burden of proof does not automatically shift between the petitioner and the patent owner as soon as the PTO institutes an inter partes review. Here, for example, the petitioner’s failure to specifically address a motivation to combine the two prior art references...
by Steve Driskill | Jul 25, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Merely facilitating a fundamental economic practice using generic technology is not sufficient to render the claims patent eligible. Here, for example, using a generic computer to simultaneously display a plurality of positive credit decisions was found to be...
by Steve Driskill | Jul 22, 2016 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Descriptions that are only tangentially related to characterizations of “the present invention” should not be read as constituting a mandatory claim limitation to be read into the claims. Here, for example, a statement about the “present invention” in the first...
