by Steve Driskill | Mar 26, 2015 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation
Absent a different usage made clear by the specification, the term “indicative” is a common word with a well-known meaning of “serving to indicate” via “a sign, symptom, or index.” Here, for example, “data that is indicative of a gratuity to be charged” in a financial...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 25, 2015 | [sub] broad prior art disclosures, Anticipation
There is no requirement that the prior art disclose actual performance of an otherwise anticipatory embodiment among various contemplated embodiments in order to establish a prima facie case of anticipation. Here, for example, the prior art’s disclosure of 15...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 20, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
A broadest reasonable interpretation asserted by the PTO cannot be inconsistent with proper operation of the embodiments disclosed in the specification. Here, for example, because the specification made clear that a new instruction must replace another instruction at...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 20, 2015 | Prior Art
Even statistically insignificant relationships disclosed in the prior art can be relied on for establishing that the relationship was known. Here, for example, a prior art document showing effectively no change in permeability was found to contain sufficient data for...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 17, 2015 | [sub] obviousness-type, Double Patenting
Although the specification of an earlier patent may not be used as prior art in establishing obviousness-type double patenting of a later patent or application, it may nevertheless be used to infer the correct scope of the earlier patent’s claims for comparison...
