Quantcast

Posts Tagged: enablement


Drafters need to think both outside and inside the claims. Outside thinking aims to make the court’s task easier by providing claim terms amenable to straightforward, simple claim construction. Preferably, at least, the key terms are expressly defined, …

Continue Reading

Many times inventors fail to adequately describe their inventions because the invention is obvious to them, and they think it will be equally obvious to others. The law, however, requires that a patent application explain the invention to someone …

Continue Reading

Not every claimed invention will be able to be re-patented, but there will undoubtedly be some that will be able to be re-patented. This is possible thanks to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C). So, if a patent or published …

Continue Reading

In reality, it is probably better to think of the description requirement as the core to patentability. If you can describe your idea with enough specificity you no longer have an idea, but rather have migrated past the idea-invention …

Continue Reading

In a nutshell, an invention would be obvious when someone knowledgable about the area would look at your invention and consider it to be already known; not exactly but rather known if one were to combine several references. In …

Continue Reading

One of the challenges that a drafter faces when trying to satisfy the enablement requirement is with respect to describing things that can and will vary depending on the circumstances. What you want to do is follow up by …

Continue Reading

One thing that many individuals and professional inventors employed by corporations (i.e., "kept inventors") have in common is that they frequently do not perceive what they have come up with as worth patenting. So many have the idea …

Continue Reading

What I refer to as "experimental language" either explicitly or implicitly suggests that further experimentation is or will be necessary in order to: (1) realize or perfect the invention; or (2) realize or perfect an intermediate or component. Resist the temptation …

Continue Reading

In my view, both the majority opinion, as well as Judge Dyk’s dissent, miss the real “written description” problem in Crown Packaging which has nothing to do with whether the common patent specification illustrates both solutions to the …

Continue Reading

The back bone, however, is made up of many smaller bones. For example, there are seven cervical vertebrae in the necks of all mammals, and these bones together make up a portion of the back bone. Therefore, a more …

Continue Reading

So what information is required in order to demonstrate that there really is an invention that deserves to receive a patent? When examining computer implemented inventions the patent examiner will determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the …

Continue Reading

In order to have a patentable business method it is necessary for the invention to accomplish some practical application. In other words, in order for a business method to be patentable it must produce a “useful, concrete and tangible …

Continue Reading