by Steve Driskill | Oct 7, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
It is generally not obvious to reach across fields and select an admittedly undesirable feature with which to modify another prior art reference. Here, for example, no motivation to combine was found for modifying a primary reference directed to a mobile phone with a...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 30, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Novelty and non-obviousness do not alone resolve the question of inventive concept at the second step of Mayo/Alice. Here, for example, although the prior art did not disclose the idea of “determining” and “outputting” a particular type of e-mail, these operations...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 23, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
A mere functionally described display of information does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Here, for example, the novel use of a downloadable application for out-of-region delivery of regional broadcast content was found to lack an inventive...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 23, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
User-based customization does not by itself amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Here, for example, a network-based media system having “a customized user interface page for [a] given user” was found to be nothing more than an abstract idea because...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 23, 2016 | [sub] clarity, Indefiniteness
An ambiguous but inconsequential claim term does not render the claim as a whole indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2. Here, for example, the claimed use of a “processing system” as part of a method where the point of novelty lies elsewhere was found to be incapable of...
