by Steve Driskill | May 31, 2016 | [sub] specification, Estoppel / Disclaimer
Broadening statements in the specification may act as a ceiling for claim breadth. Here, for example, the claimed “communications path” was found to be limited to wired communication at the exclusion of wireless communication because the specification, in asserting...
by Steve Driskill | May 12, 2016 | [sub] importing limitations, Claim Interpretation
Boilerplate disclaimers characterizing all descriptions in the specification as being directed to preferred embodiments only will be ineffective at best, and may be problematic in establishing adequate written description support. Here, for example, statements that...
by Steve Driskill | Apr 19, 2016 | [sub] broadest reasonable interpretation, Claim Interpretation
The broadest reasonable interpretation rubric employed by the PTO does not ordinarily cover prior art implementations explicitly disclaimed in the specification. Here, for example, a hand-held remote control device claimed as being “adapted to be held by the human...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 22, 2016 | [sub] doctrine of equivalents, [sub] specification, Claim Interpretation, Estoppel / Disclaimer
The disclosure-dedication rule does not require that the specification explicitly label which embodiments are “alternatives” to bar otherwise apparent alternatives from infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Here, for example, even though the specification...
by Steve Driskill | Mar 10, 2016 | [sub] Alice step two, Subject Matter Eligibility
Wagering games are generally patent-ineligible abstract ideas unless they employ unconventional game elements, rather than conventional elements such as playing cards. Here, for example, a wagering game utilizing real or virtual standard playing cards was found to be...
