Posts Tagged: "Patent Drafting"

So what is an admission? A statement made during patent prosecution identifying the work of another as prior art is called an admission. Admissions can and will be relied upon by patent examiners for both novelty (35 U.S.C. 102) and obviousness (35 U.S.C. 103) determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the express terms of the statute. Admissions should be avoided at all costs, regardless of how innocent they seem to be. This is a lesson that all new patent practitioners and inventors need to take to heart. No matter how innocuous the statement may seem, always remember that no good deed will go unpunished! Everything you do say can and will be used against your patent once it issues — forever.

Join Gene Quinn, patent attorney and publisher of IPWatchdog.com, on Thursday, February 8, 2018, at 12pm ET, for a discussion on patent prosecution strategy. Joining Gene will be Russ Slifer, former Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and current partner with Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, and Bernie Tomsa, a patent attorney and shareholder with Brooks Kushman.

It can be enormously difficult for inventors to describe their own inventions. This is true not because the inventor doesn’t know what they’ve invented, or even because the inventor is not in the best position to explain the invention. Indeed, the inventor of a new and useful invention is absolutely in the best position to describe the invention… Inventors are very good at describing how their inventions can be used and why their invention is superior from a usability standpoint. The trouble is describing how an invention can be used, while a prerequisite, will not distinguish a tangible invention from the prior art.

Means plus function claiming allows the drafter to claim the invention based on functionality rather than the more traditional (and preferred) claiming technique that employs structure within the body of the claim itself… If there is no structure in the specification the person of skill in the art cannot save the disclosure by understanding what the drafter intended to be covered by the means plus function limitation in the claims. Thus, means-plus-function claims are valid at the mercy of the specification, and only to the extent that the specification contains support for the structures that define the means… The Federal Circuit does not blindly elevate form over substance when evaluating whether a particular claim limitation invokes means treatment. See Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“We do not mean to suggest that section 112(6) is triggered only if the claim uses the word ‘means.’”).

The purpose of the written description requirement is broader than to merely explain how to make and use the invention, which is the subject of the enablement requirement. Rather, to satisfy the written description requirement the applicant must also convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention… While the written description is just that – written – having multiple drawings that show the invention and various aspects of the invention from a variety of viewpoints can be extremely helpful. This is because every figure should be described with at lease one paragraph of text, frequently more.

Join Gene Quinn on Thursday, November 9 at 2:00 PM ET for a free webinar conversation on the trends and reality of 112 disclosure requirements. Gene will be joined by Todd Van Thomme, a shareholder with Nyemaster Goode PC, and Cynthia Gilbert, co-founder of Blueshift IP. Van Thomme specializes in mechanical and food science related innovations, while Gilbert specializes in computer implemented inventions. We will, therefore, focus our 112 discussions on these specific areas.

Join Gene Quinn on Thursday, November 9 at 2:00 PM ET for a free webinar conversation on the trends and reality of 112 disclosure requirements. I will be joined by Todd Van Thomme, a shareholder with Nyemaster Goode PC, and Cynthia Gilbert, co-founder of Blueshift IP. Van Thomme specializes in mechanical and food science related innovations, while Gilbert specializes in computer implemented inventions. We will, therefore, focus our 112 discussions on these specific areas.

You absolutely want to file a patent application with a description that is a mile wide — that part is good — but you also need to also drill down far more than one inch deep in order to teach the various nuances of at least the key aspects of the invention. And there are always nuances that can go a mile deep for any and every invention, no matter how simple it may seem to you as the inventor… How do you know how far you need to go? You really should strive to remove doubt and questions from the reader’s mind. While a certain amount of experimentation is allowable, and patents do not need to contain blueprint level detail, ask yourself whether a knowledgeable reader would know from what you’ve written enough to understand your invention without asking additional questions. If answers to additional questions would be necessary to fully comprehend the invention then answer those questions.

The goal in a patent application is to provide a full, clear, and exact description of the invention in a way that particularly points out and distinctly identifies what the inventor believes he or she has invented and wants the patent to cover. Unfortunately, while articulating an invention many inventors fall victim to a host of common mistakes. Saying that…

Two seminal cases illustrate the techniques of analyzing definiteness in a post-Nautilus world. One case followed Nautilus and the other preceded it, but that case demonstrates what stands of the old rationale. The first decision, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien, Inc., dealt with ultrasonicshears for cutting and sealing a blood vessel… A clear difference between the new “reasonable clarity” standard and the Federal Circuit’s “insolubly ambiguous” formulation is that the latter calls for considerable effort in seeking out a claim construction that comports with the inventor’s manifest intent. The new standard may require the same effort, but that result does not appear guaranteed by the language itself. The entire direction of patent law toward Disclosure World suggests that definiteness will continue to be governed in large part by the meaning drawn from the patent as a whole, not the claim language standing alone.

Drafting a patent application can be a daunting task, particularly today where virtually every commercially valuable patent will likely be challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Join me for a free webinar discussion – Optimizing Patent Applications: Drafting to Withstand Challenge – on April 19, 2017, at 2pm ET. Joining me will be Joseph Root, author of Rules of Patent Drafting: Guidelines from Federal Circuit Case Law. In addition to taking as many questions as possible from the audience we will discuss: (1) Best practices writing to overcome Alice-based 101 rejections; (2) Identifying the invention/improvement versus KSR 103 concerns; (3) Best practices for ensuring a complete and thorough specification; and (4) Nautilus, means-plus-function and other 112 matters.

it is absolutely critical that computer related inventions describe the technology to the greatest extent possible, focusing on as much that is tangible as possible.

It is now truer than ever that patent drafters must treat every invention as the million dollar, or billion dollar, invention from the start. By the time you realize the invention warrants that level of attention it will be too late to do anything, that is unless you laid the foundation of a solid patent application from the earliest stages. This means an extraordinarily detailed specification, it means thoughtful application of as much known prior art as possible, and it means checking and cross-checking to make sure that initial filing is as complete and error-free as possible.

As a general rule the ordinary plain meaning of the term as would be understood by someone of skill in the relevant technology area or science will be used. That may or may not be bad, and it may or may not be what you intended… When I teach this topic the example I tend to use relates to “standard room temperature.” If you have invented a process that needs to be carried out at 68 degrees F you might say that the process can or should be carried out at standard room temperature, for example. In the U.S. standard room temperature is generally referred to as 20 degrees C, which is 68 degrees F. But in some parts of the world what qualifies as standard room temperature is a bit warmer, sometimes up to 25 degrees C. So this illustration is particularly useful for several reasons. When you say standard room temperature did you even know that it has an accepted meaning in the scientific community? Were you aware that the meaning could vary depending upon whether the person reading the disclosure is in the United States or some other part of the world? This is where defining what you mean could be particularly important.

The issue was whether the comma in the phrase “, otherwise available to the public” meant that the phrase also modifies the phrase “on sale.” If the phrase “, otherwise available to the public” does modify the “on sale” phrase then offers for sale of a product or service not offered to the public but made in secret would no longer be a bar to patentability… At least one District Court opinion has also followed the interpretation of the phrase “, otherwise available to the public” as also modifying the “on sale” phrase consistent with the USPTO. Helsinn v. Dr. Reddy’s and Teva (D.N.J. 2016).