Posts Tagged: "112 guidelines"

The basic law relative to § 112, ¶6 explains that a decision on whether a claim is indefinite under § 112, ¶ 6 requires a determination of whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification. Traditionally, claim terms are typically given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. The question with means-plus-function claiming, however, is whether evidence from that mythical individual skilled in the art is even admissible. No structure in the specification means the person of skill in the art cannot save the disclosure by understanding. Thus, means-plus-function claims are largely valid at the mercy of a federal judge who in all certainty is not one of skill in the art and who likely has an aversion to such claiming techniques because they prefer dealing with tangible structure.

It has always been my belief that the PLI course is the best, and now I think there is absolutely no doubt. Yes, there are some competitors out there but how many other courses have two faculty members that are practicing patent attorneys and law professors? John and I both have a private practice and we have made legal education an important part of our careers. We are even patent attorneys, which might sound like an odd thing to tout but there are actually courses out there that don’t have patent attorneys developing the course and creating materials. The patent bar exam is hard enough as it is, the rules of patent practice are almost ridiculously archaic and you think you can take a patent bar course taught by someone who hasn’t ever even passed the exam let alone represented anyone in real life? Yeah, right. Think again.

Of course, it will be most useful for patent examiners to review and truly internalize the guidelines, but there is some excellent language here that is quite practitioner and applicant friendly. There is explanation of situations where a rejection should be given, but more importantly from a practitioner standpoint will be those examples and illustrations of when a rejection is not appropriate. The discussions of what an appropriate Office Action should include will no doubt be particularly useful as well as practitioners try and hold examiners feet to the fire to provide the type of information required in order to truly appreciate any problems identified by the examiner and how to appropriately respond. Indeed, it is my guess that patent practitioners will be yelling “AMEN” from the top of their lungs as they read various portions of the Guidelines.