by Steve Driskill | Mar 17, 2015 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
Combining prior art references for the purpose of establishing obviousness may be improper when there is substantial interplay among the claimed components. Here, for example, integrating a first reference’s microprocessor to control the camera of a second reference’s...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 13, 2015 | [sub] incorporation by reference, Prior Art
The “detailed particularity” required for incorporation of material into a prior art document can be shown by the prior art document mentioning features disclosed only in the incorporated material itself. Here, for example, a “capacitance-multiplying converter” absent...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 10, 2015 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness
Ambiguities in the plain language of the claims may be resolved rather than held indefinite by taking into account how a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have understood the limitation at issue after reading the intrinsic record....
by Steve Driskill | Mar 10, 2015 | [sub] analogous art, Prior Art
The scope of analogous art is not defined by an inventor’s subjective perspective. Here, for example, although the inventor was specifically focused on using two-way communication satellites to monitor a driver’s mental state, more general prior art directed to...
by Steve Driskill | Feb 26, 2015 | [sub] patent term adjustment, PTO Procedure
Filing a supplemental document after submitting a reply constitutes an unreasonable delay by the applicant for the purposes of PTA adjustment. Here, for example, the filing of a supplemental IDS after submitting a reply to an initial restriction requirement was found...
