by Steve Driskill | Jun 6, 2016 | [sub] claim differentiation, Claim Interpretation
The doctrine of claim differentiation does not apply where the claims are not otherwise identical in scope. Here, for example, while certain claims clearly distinguished between “instances” of text strings and “all instances” of the text strings, the claimed invention...
by Steve Driskill | May 26, 2016 | [sub] claim context, Claim Interpretation
Claim language that “is tailored to, characterizes, and delimits” a claim element may be interpreted as an intrinsic requirement of that element rather than expressing a mere possibility. Here, for example, specifying that the claimed picture frame / display is...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 25, 2016 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation
There must generally be a nexus between the claim language and any teachings in the specification purported to define the claimed invention. Here, for example, the scope of the claimed “buffer memory” was found to be broader than the full-frame buffers described in...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 8, 2016 | [sub] biotech, Subject Matter Eligibility
Diagnostic and therapeutic method claims that combine routine and conventional physical implementation of a law of nature with a simple mental process step are not patent eligible. Here, for example, analyzing non-coding regions of a person’s genome to detect coding...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 6, 2016 | [sub] common terms, Claim Interpretation
The plain meaning of “coupled to” excludes the relationship between simple sub-components and the larger component of which they are a part. Here, for example, a brush catch in the prior art that was part of a beam component was found to be patentably distinct from...
