DELL INC. v. ACCELERON, LLC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – It is not reasonable to deny effect to any particular limitation of the claim language

by Steve Driskill | Mar 15, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation

It is not reasonable to deny effect to any particular limitation of the claim language. Here, for example, a dedicated ethernet path claimed as providing a microcontroller module with a connection “to remotely poll” various components was found to require that the...

IN RE SMITH (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Wagering games are generally patent-ineligible abstract ideas without unconventional game elements

by Steve Driskill | Mar 10, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility

Wagering games are generally patent-ineligible abstract ideas unless they employ unconventional game elements, rather than conventional elements such as playing cards. Here, for example, a wagering game utilizing real or virtual standard playing cards was found to be...

IN RE VARMA (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – The indefinite article “a” cannot serve to negate an otherwise clear relationship among claim elements

by Steve Driskill | Mar 10, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation

The indefinite article “a” cannot serve to negate a relationship among claim elements that is otherwise made clear by context. Here, for example, the claimed “a statistical analysis request corresponding to two or more selected investments” was found to require that a...

BLUE CALYPSO, LLC. v. GROUPON, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – (1) Mere absence of a claim term from the specification alone does not establish a lack of written description; (2) A reference available only via a personal webpage does not automatically constitute a printed publication

by Steve Driskill | Mar 1, 2016 | [sub] printed publications, [sub] written description, Adequate Disclosure, Prior Art

(1) The PTO must do more than state that a claim term is not literally recited in the specification to establish a lack of written description support for that term. Here, for example, the specification was found to adequately support the terms “endorsement tag” and...

APPLE INC. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – An information disclosure statement constitutes a tacit admission that those references are analogous art

by Steve Driskill | Feb 26, 2016 | [sub] analogous art, [sub] information disclosure, Prior Art

Submitting a reference to the PTO in an information disclosure statement constitutes a tacit admission that the reference is at least analogous art if not material. Here, for example, the patentee’s arguments that a cited reference was not analogous art for the...