by Steve Driskill | Sep 22, 2016 | [sub] motivation, Obviousness
A change in specific functionality does not automatically negate a combination of prior art elements in establishing obviousness. Here, for example, modifying a prior art reference’s telephone speaker to perform the claimed announcing of a caller’s identity as well as...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 20, 2016 | [sub] written description, Adequate Disclosure
A disclosure that adequately identifies an invention by its known properties may be used to support later claims to undisclosed yet inherent properties. Here, for example, a protein described in a priority application in terms of a partial amino acid sequence and...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 13, 2016 | [sub] Alice step one, Subject Matter Eligibility
The claimed use of a computer to automate novel as opposed to conventional activity is not directed to an abstract idea. Here, for example, claims focusing on the automatic use of rules of a particular type for creating 3-D animation were found to be non-abstract...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 8, 2016 | [sub] prosecution history, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Claims denied entry during prosecution for including new matter may prevent other claims from being later interpreted to encompass the same subject matter. Here, for example, claims directed to a particular species of cytotoxin that were rejected during prosecution...
by Steve Driskill | Sep 1, 2016 | [sub] corresponding structure, Means Plus Function
Algorithmic structure corresponding to a means-plus-function element need not be illustrated explicitly in the drawings when the associated text of the specification makes clear that the claimed function is contemplated. Here, for example, an algorithm illustrated in...
