by Steve Driskill | Sep 24, 2015 | [sub] broad prior art disclosures, Anticipation
For a broad reference to be considered as disclosing a particular chemical compound for prior art purposes, it must “teach a finite and limited class” that includes the compound claimed. Here, for example, a compound representing the active ingredient in a claimed...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 4, 2015 | [sub] provisional, Prior Art
For a provisional application to qualify as secret prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), it must support the claims of the application or patent asserting priority thereto. Here, for example, an otherwise anticipatory disclosure found in a...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 4, 2015 | [sub] invocation, Means Plus Function
Inter-connection among claimed components of a system is not by itself sufficient to avoid the application of § 112, ¶ 6. Here, for example, the claimed “compliance mechanism” was found to invoke application of § 112, ¶ 6 even though the specification describes how...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 3, 2015 | [sub] reexamination, PTO Procedure
The preponderance of the evidence standard is the appropriate one for assessing invalidity during reexamination. Here, for example, the PTO found the claimed method at issue to be obvious and therefore unpatentable under a preponderance of the evidence standard even...
by Steve Driskill | Aug 27, 2015 | [sub] prosecution history, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Mere characterization of the prior art that does not form the basis of an argued distinction does not rise to the level of prosecution history disclaimer. Here, for example, the patentee’s characterization of the prior art as including only a single perforation line...
