IN RE NATURAL ALTERNATIVES, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – Similarities in manufacturing processes alone cannot negate an explicit difference with the prior art

by Steve Driskill | Aug 31, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness

Similarities in manufacturing processes alone cannot negate an explicit difference between a product in the prior art and that of the claimed invention. Here, for example, the desugared sugar beet molasses of the claimed invention was found to sufficiently distinguish...

VERITAS TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. VEEAM SOFTWARE CORPORATION (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – A distinguishing combination of newly added features is generally sufficient for an IPR motion to amend

by Steve Driskill | Aug 30, 2016 | [sub] inter partes review, PTO Procedure

A showing that the combination of newly added features in substitute claims for inter partes review distinguishes over the prior art is generally sufficient to satisfy the requirements of a motion to amend without addressing whether each newly added feature was...

SCRIPTPRO LLC v. INNOVATION ASSOCIATES, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – Original claims can provide written description support even for later added claims

by Steve Driskill | Aug 15, 2016 | [sub] written description, Adequate Disclosure

Original claims can provide written description support even for later added claims. Here, for example, the asserted claims were found to be supported by the original disclosure even though the specification focused on a narrower embodiment and even though the...

TDE PETROLEUM DATA SOLUTIONS v. AKM ENTERPRISE, INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (NP) – Ordinary data processing steps to achieve a desired result are not patent-eligible

by Steve Driskill | Aug 15, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility

Ordinary data processing steps to achieve a desired result do not transform an otherwise abstract idea into a patent-eligible application under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, for example, a method of processing oil well drill state information was found to be...

ARENDI S.A.R.L. v. APPLE INC. (Fed. Cir. 2016) (P) – A “common sense” reason for adding a missing limitation to the prior art is generally improper

by Steve Driskill | Aug 10, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness

A “common sense” reason for adding a missing limitation to the prior art to establish obviousness is generally improper unless the limitation is unusually simple and a reasoned analysis is still provided. Here, for example, adding a search operation to detect...