by Steve Driskill | Jun 2, 2014 | Indefiniteness
A claim limitation is indefinite if, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, it fails to inform, with “reasonable certainty,” those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. This “reasonably certainty”...
by Steve Driskill | May 27, 2014 | [sub] examination, PTO Procedure
The PTO is required to produce factual evidence to show that a given limitation is known in the art. Although “an assessment of basic knowledge and common sense” may factor into the obviousness rationale for making a proposed combination of known elements, such...
by Steve Driskill | May 27, 2014 | [sub] printed publications, Prior Art
While a printed publication must be sufficiently disseminated to qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it “need not be easily searchable after publication if it was sufficiently disseminated at the time of its publication.” Thus, as here, even a non-indexed and...
by Steve Driskill | May 19, 2014 | [sub] written description, Adequate Disclosure
An application need only reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of at least one embodiment that meets the claim limitations at issue to satisfy the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Conflicting descriptions...
by Steve Driskill | May 9, 2014 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is not sufficient to show that the references are like separate pieces of a simple jigsaw puzzle. An explicit reason or motivation must be established for one of ordinary skill in the art at the...