by Steve Driskill | Dec 7, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
Merely adopting the position of one of the parties to an appeal or review is generally insufficient to support a finding of obviousness by the PTAB. Here, for example, the PTAB’s reliance on only a conclusory statement by an expert that the modification of the prior...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 15, 2016 | [sub] analogous art, Prior Art
A prior art reference need not be directed to the claimed point of novelty in order to be analogous. Here, for example, prior art directed to the ordering of menu items was found to be analogous to the claimed prioritization of location-based search results because...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 15, 2016 | [sub] diligence, Inventorship
Reasonable diligence for antedating a prior art reference requires only that the diligence be reasonably continuous, not that attention be continuous throughout the critical period in order to be reasonable. Here, for example, a few periods of unexplained inactivity...
by Steve Driskill | Nov 1, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Generic components working in an unconventional fashion to solve a particular technological problem is patent-eligible under § 101. Here, for example, a network accounting system that used only conventional components (e.g., “gatherers”) was found to be...
by Steve Driskill | Oct 27, 2016 | [sub] prosecution history, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Minor differences in claim language between parent and child patents are not sufficient to secure a different interpretation. Here, for example, the “neutralizer” claimed in a child patent was interpreted as requiring all the components recited in the claims of a...
