Basic facts In D’Agostino v. MasterCard International (Fed. Cir. 2017), the limits of what is the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim limitation is explored. In this case, if the interpretation is illogical based on the claim structure, the patent specification and the file history, then the interpretation would be unreasonably broad.MasterCard petitioned the … [Read more...]
After filing a patent application
After filing a patent application, the invention is now patent pending which marks the point at which it is safe to start marketing the invention. The process of patent protecting the invention has now formally started. Browse related articles below.
Common sense used to evaluate obviousness with caveats
In Arendi v. Apple (Fed. Cir. August 10, 2016), the Federal Circuit held that the use of common sense during examination of a patent application is permitted with at least three caveats. To the layperson, this statement may sound strange. In the law, words are defined and have different standards to determine if the facts meet the definition. Obviousness has a legal … [Read more...]
Broadest reasonable interpretation does not mean broadest
During examination of a patent application, the patent examiner reviews the claims to determine whether the claimed invention is novel and non-obvious in light of the prior art or existing technology. In order to review the claims, the examiner interprets the claim limitations and attributes the broadest reasonable interpretation to each of the claim limitations. However, the … [Read more...]
Teach away arguments to show non-obviousness
I. Generic Obviousness Rejection Showing that a prior art reference teach away from a particular combination suggested by an examiner is a way to show the non-obviousness of the invention.During patent prosecution, an examiner may cite two or more references, the combination of which in the examiner opinion makes the inventor’s claimed invention obvious, and thus … [Read more...]
Drafting tip: software applications and responses to office actions
Bottom line: Patent applications directed to software inventions should be written to disclose the result and the effect of the software, but more importantly, the mechanism of the result or effect of the software. Doing so may increase the odds that the software invention will be considered to be eligible for patent protection. Nevertheless, inventors should be aware that … [Read more...]
How to disqualify non-analogous references cited in an office action
In an Office Action, the Examiner may cite to one or more patent references or other documents collectively known as the cited prior art. This is the body of prior art references that the Examiner is utilizing to say that the invention is not novel or is obvious in light of the cited prior art. Oftentimes, the cited prior art may contain one or more references which the … [Read more...]
Best vehicle for broadening patent protection
Bottom line: Filing a continuing patent application is the best vehicle for broadening patent protection (i.e., patent’s claim), not reissue patent applications. In a broadening reissue patent application, the patent's claims cannot be amended or broadened so as to exclude the primary invention described in the patent application under the ‘original patent’ requirement. In … [Read more...]
Extend patent protection and receive more royalties
Bottom line: By filing a string of continuing patent applications and not claiming priority for the continuing patent applications back to a common parent application, the patent owner may be able to extend patent protection for its product.Under U.S. patent laws, an inventor can file a series of successive child patent applications. This is commonly referred to as … [Read more...]