by Steve Driskill | May 12, 2016 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility
Improvement to computer functionality is not an abstract idea under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework. Here, for example, claims directed to a “self-referential” logical model for a computer database were found to be sufficiently concrete rather than abstract...
by Steve Driskill | May 9, 2016 | [sub] inter partes review, PTO Procedure
A reply brief submitted during inter partes review proceedings can be ignored in its entirety if any portion thereof includes new arguments raised for the first time. Here, for example, a reply brief including arguments not in response to those raised in the...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 26, 2016 | [sub] reexamination, PTO Procedure
While rejections of original patent claims are limited to prior art grounds during reexamination, newly added claims may be rejected for failing to comply with § 112. Here, for example, the rejection of certain claims as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 22, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Using a conventional machine in a conventional way to effectuate an otherwise abstract idea is not sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible concept under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Here, for example, using scissors to create a hair style selected...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 19, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
The broadest reasonable interpretation rubric employed by the PTO does not ordinarily cover prior art implementations explicitly disclaimed in the specification. Here, for example, a hand-held remote control device claimed as being “adapted to be held by the human...
