by Steve Driskill | Nov 15, 2016 | [sub] diligence, Inventorship
Reasonable diligence for antedating a prior art reference requires only that the diligence be reasonably continuous, not that attention be continuous throughout the critical period in order to be reasonable. Here, for example, a few periods of unexplained inactivity...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 1, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Generic components working in an unconventional fashion to solve a particular technological problem is patent-eligible under § 101. Here, for example, a network accounting system that used only conventional components (e.g., “gatherers”) was found to be...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 17, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Improvements to mental processes as opposed to computer efficacy do not qualify as an inventive concept for establishing patent eligibility under the second step of Mayo/Alice. Here, for example, claims to an improvement in the design process for a logic circuit...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 14, 2016 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Disparaging a particular feature in the prior art generally constitutes a disclaimer of that feature in the claimed invention. Here, for example, a trash bag with so-called “short seals” in its upper corners was found to be limited to a design in which the short seals...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 11, 2016 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility
The automation of rule-processing is a merely directed to an abstract idea if it is the automation rather than the rule that improves a technological process. Here, for example, claims reciting the automation of fraud and misuse detection were found to be directed to...