by Steve Driskill | Jan 5, 2015 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation
Silence in a particular example with regard to a certain aspect of the invention cannot be used to depart from consistent teachings about that aspect elsewhere in the specification. Here, for example, a figure that did not show any details of container entry or exit...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 19, 2014 | [sub] enablement, Adequate Disclosure
Although a specification need not disclose what is well-known in the art, “[i]t is the specification, [and] not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement.” Here, for example,...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 8, 2014 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function
Although a means-plus-function element may be illustrated in black box form, the corresponding structure must be clearly articulated in the specification—the black box itself is not sufficient—and clearly distinguished from other embodiments in order to provide...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 5, 2014 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
In contrast to claims that are directed to “nothing more than the performance of an abstract business practice on the Internet or using a conventional computer,” claims that are “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically...
by Steve Driskill | Dec 4, 2014 | [sub] extrinsic evidence, Claim Interpretation
A borrowed term of analogy rather than a true term of art is not sufficient to establish a plain and ordinary meaning to one skilled in the particular field to which the application pertains. Here, for example, a “seal” described parenthetically for use in the field...
