by Steve Driskill | Jul 19, 2016 | [sub] secondary considerations, Obviousness
The claimed combination as a whole can serve as a nexus between the claimed invention and any objective indicia of non-obviousness. Here, for example, the nexus was found to be provided by the combination of a prior art automobile engine and cooling modifications for...
by Steve Driskill | Jul 13, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Computer-implemented data processing to achieve super-human results does not constitute an inventive concept under Alice/Mayo step two. Here, for example, a computer-implemented business method for processing certified payroll records was found to lack an inventive...
by Steve Driskill | Jul 5, 2016 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility
A claim is not merely “directed to” a law of nature under Alice step one if the end result of the process is new and useful. Here, for example, claims reciting a new and useful laboratory technique for preserving hepatocyte liver cells were found to be patent-eligible...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 29, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
A common but generic characteristic shared by a claim element and a prior art element does not support even a broadest reasonable interpretation that one can be the other. Here, for example, a “spine” and a “side panel” of a TV console were found to be distinct even...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 27, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
An “inventive concept” establishing subject matter eligibility can be found in a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of otherwise known, conventional pieces. Here, for example, an inventive concept was found in the installation of an Internet-content...
