by Steve Driskill | Jun 29, 2015 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation
The definition of a claim term in the specification is controlling over extrinsic evidence even when that evidence points to a broader understanding of the plain meaning of the term in the art. Here, for example, an “active” waveguide coupler was found to be clearly...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 12, 2015 | [sub] biotech, Subject Matter Eligibility
For process claims that encompass natural phenomenon, the process steps themselves are the additional features that must be new and useful. Here, for example, using a newly discovered source of cell-free fetal DNA (“cffDNA”) to conduct fetal screening was found to be...
by Steve Driskill | Jun 11, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation
Amorphous claim terms, as opposed to those that are clear and well-defined, may be limited to the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification when there is no guidance as to how the claim terms can be more broadly applied to a wider range of implementations....
by Steve Driskill | Jun 8, 2015 | [sub] secondary considerations, Obviousness
A specification’s assertion of a possible synergistic effect, without supporting evidence, is insufficient to support a finding of unexpected results and overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. Here, for example, the specification’s assertion that “[i]t is...
by Steve Driskill | May 20, 2015 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
A claim term may be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with its plain meaning when the specification does not place any restriction on its form or structure. Here, for example, a “timer” was found to encompass gears in the prior art that control a...
