-
xvii
Foreword
.............................................................................
ix —Preface
.................................................................................
xiii ixPreface to Patent Prosecution’s Cumulative Online Case
Digest, and Suggestions for How to Use the Materials ...... xix
xiiiSummary Table of Contents
............................................... xxi xv
1. Patent Protection
......................................................... 1-1 1 I.
Introduction to U.S. Patent Laws .......................... 1-9
—
A. Plant Patents: Discovery of New and Distinct Varieties of
White Oak Tree Held Not Eligible for Plant Patent
.................................. 1-23 —
II. Utility Patents
......................................................... 1-27 —A.
Supreme Court Reaffirms That Injunctions
Are Issued Under Traditional Four-Part Test Based on Equitable
Discretion ........................ 1-42 —1. Injunction Denied When
Patent Owner
Cannot Prove Irreparable Harm .............. 1-47 —B. Supreme
Court Affirms That Patent
Invalidity Can Only Be Proved by Clear and Convincing Evidence
in District Court ........... 1-50 —
C. Supreme Court Holds Factual Findings for Claim Construction
Reviewed for Clear Error
................................................................
1-56 —
D. Publication of U.S. Patent Applications ......... 1-59 —1.
Published Patent Applications and
Revised Procedures for Express Abandonment
........................................... 1-63 —
2. Published Patent Application Eliminates Trade Secret
Protection ........................... 1-64 —
Detailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
-
xviii Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
E. Filing Date—International Application and National-Stage
Application Considered a Single Application
............................................ 1-68 —
F. No Foreign Priority Claim When Foreign Application Is Filed
by Entity Not Acting for U.S. Applicant
.................................................. 1-70 —
G. No Liability for Computers Loaded With Copies of Software
Made Outside the United States
.................................................... 1-72 —
H. Patent Term Extension Under the Hatch-Waxman Act May Be
Applied to Patent Subject to Terminal Disclaimer .......... 1-77
—
I. Patent Office Misinterprets Patent Term Adjustment
Statute—Extensions Can Be Cumulative
...................................................... 1-82 —1.
Interim Procedure for Patentees to
Request a Recalculation of the Patent Term Adjustment for
Overlapping Delays
......................................................... 1-89
—
2. Time After Allowance for Continued Examination Counts Toward
Three-Year Allotment for Patent Term Adjustment .. 1-90 —
3. Patent Office Finalizes Changes to Patent Term Adjustment
Rules ................ 1-98 —
4. Actual Delay Not Required to Reduce Patent Term
.............................................. 1-99 —
5. No PTA in Divisional for Delay in Parent Application
............................................... 1-106 —
J. Patent Office Lacks Authority to Waive Statutory-Based Filing
Rules After Courier Suffered Panic Attack
...................................... 1-111 —
K. Supreme Court Holds All Steps of Claimed Method Must Be
Performed for Induced Infringement
.................................................... 1-121 —1. On
Remand, Federal Circuit Holds
Indirect Infringement Must Be Based on Direct Infringement by
Single Entity
........................................................ 1-125
—
2. On Rehearing En Banc, Federal Circuit Holds Direct
Infringement Does Not Require Single Entity for All Steps
.......... 1-127 —
III. Comparative Intellectual Property Protection ..... 1-128
11
-
xixDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
A. Trade Secret Protection ...................................
1-128 111. Unique Combination of Disclosed
Technologies or Processes Protectable as Trade Secret
......................................... 1-130 —
2. Failure to Identify Confidential Information Under
Nondisclosure Agreement Eliminated Trade Secret Violation
.................................................... 1-135 —
3. Defend Trade Secrets Act Becomes Law
............................................................. 1-141
—
4. Trade Secret Can Exist in Combination of Well-Known
Components [New Topic]
.............................................. — 11
B. Copyright Protection .......................................
1-143 141. Mathematical Model of Behavior of
Electrons Held an Uncopyrightable Idea
............................................................ 1-151
—
2. Supreme Court Holds Cheerleader Uniforms Eligible for
Copyright [New Topic]
.............................................. — 14
3. HTML Code Help Eligible for Copyright; CSS Not Eligible [New
Topic] .............................................. — 20
C. Trademark Protection ......................................
1-155 251. Supreme Court Holds Government
Cannot Refuse to Register Because It Does Not Approve of Message
[New Topic] .............................................. — 25
D. Semiconductor Mask Work Protection ........... 1-161 —1.
Copying Groupings of Transistors and
Interconnection Lines Violates Semiconductor Chip Protection Act
....... 1-161 —
E. Trade Dress Protection ....................................
1-166 —1. Product Design Is Not Inherently
Distinctive, Requires a Showing of Distinctiveness, and Is Not
Unitary .......... 1-176 —
IV. Different Types of U.S. Patent Applications ......... 1-181
—A. Original Applications .......................................
1-181 —B. Continuation Applications ..............................
1-181 —
1. Patent Office Proposes Rules to Limit Continuation
Applications ....................... 1-192 —
-
xx Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
2. Patent Office Publishes Final Rules on Continuing
Applications and Claims But Is Prevented From Implementing Rules
.......................................................... 1-194
—a. Continuations and Requests for
Continued Examination .................... 1-195 —b.
Retroactivity ........................................ 1-195 —c.
Clarification of the Transitional
Provisions Relating to Continuing Applications and Applications
Containing Patentably Indistinct Claims
.................................................. 1-196 — i.
Clarification of the Transitional
“One More” Continuing Application Provision ..................
1-196 —
ii. Treatment of Continuation-in- Part Applications Filed Before
November 1, 2007 ...................... 1-197 —
iii. Identification of Applications Having a Common Owner and at
Least One Common Inventor Under 37 CFR 1.78(f)(1)
...................... 1-198 —
3. Rules Limiting Continuing Applications and Claims Held Beyond
Scope of Patent Office’s Rule-Making Authority .... 1-200 —
4. Patent Office Clarifies Effective Dates of Claims and
Continuation Rules ........... 1-208 —
5. Claim Rules Survive, Continuations Rules Struck Down—For Now
................. 1-209 —
6. Patent Office Rescinds Continuation and Claim Rules Prior to
En Banc Hearing
..................................................... 1-222 —
7. Continuations May Be Properly Filed on Issue Date of Parent
Application ........ 1-223 —
C. Continuation-in-Part Applications .................. 1-228
—1. Continuation-in-Part Applications Can
Contain Claims With Different Priority Dates, and Patent Office
Does Not Normally Make a Priority Determination
........................................... 1-229 —
D. Divisional Applications ....................................
1-232 —
-
xxiDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
1. Patent Office Proposes Revised Standards for Restriction and
Election of Species Requirements .......................... 1-233
—
2. Safe Harbor to Avoid Double Patenting Limited to Divisionals
and Divisionals of Divisionals
................................................ 1-235 —
E. Provisional Applications ..................................
1-243 —1. Provisional Application Provided Priority
When Only One Inventor Overlapped with Nonprovisional and
Statement “This Application Is Nonprovisional of Provisional” Held
Sufficient ..................... 1-243 —
2. Provisional Application Prior Art as of Its Filing Date
............................................ 1-248 —
3. Provisional Application Filing Date Serves as Both Priority
Date and Effective Prior Art Reference Date .......... 1-249 —
4. Pilot Program Allows 12-Month Extension to the Provisional
Patent Application Period ....................................
1-251 —
5. Submission of False Inventor Name in Provisional Application
Gone Abandoned Held Not Criminal Violation
.................................................... 1-252 —
6. Pre-America Invents Act: Nonprovisional Patent Claims Must Be
Supported by Provisional Application to Receive Priority Claim
........................................... 1-256 —
F. Statutory Invention Registration ..................... 1-262
—G. Patent Office Eliminates Document
Disclosure Program ..........................................
1-262 —H. All Patent Applications in the Chain of
Continuing Applications Must Reference Earlier Filed Application
for Priority .............. 1-264 —
V. General Parts of a Patent Application ...................
1-265 28A. Specification
..................................................... 1-269 28
1. Title of Invention ......................................
1-269 —2. Cross-Reference to Related
Applications ..............................................
1-271 —a. Priority Claim Requires Correct
Application Number for All Applications in the Chain
................... 1-272 —
3. Field of the Invention ............................... 1-278
—
-
xxii Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
4. Background of the Related Art ................ 1-279 —5.
Summary of the Invention ....................... 1-280 28
a. Advantages/Objects of Invention Do Not Limit Claims That Do
Not Recite Such Advantages/Objects........ 1-282 —
b. Summary of the Invention Limited Claim When Restricted to
Specific Embodiment ........................................ 1-287
—
c. Description That Invention Achieves Several Objectives Does
Not Limit Claims to Structures Capable of Achieving All
Objectives...................... 1-290 —
d. Invention Objects Used to Interpret Scope of Claim Language
................... 1-293 —
e. Objects of the Invention in Background Art Section Used to
Broaden Claim Interpretation ............ 1-296 —
f. Multiple Objectives of Invention Confirmed That Claim Term
Should Not Be Read Restrictively .................... 1-298 —
g. Summary of the Invention Section Used to Broaden Claim
Interpretation ...................................... 1-301 —
h. Summary of Invention Used to Limit Claim to Interactive Data
Messaging ............................................. 1-303 —
i. Objects of Invention in Summary of Invention Section Used to
Limit Claim Term “Excising” to Exclude Laser Ablating
...................................... 1-305 —
j. Summary of Invention Used to Interpret Means-Plus-Function
Element ................................................ 1-308
—
k. Summary of the Invention Limited Claim to Exclude All
Anti-Infectives... 1-311 —
l. Statement of Purpose/Objects of Invention Limited Claims in
Combination With Specification ........ 1-314 —
m. Summary of Invention Used to Interpret Claim [New Topic]
.............. — 28
6. Brief Description of the Drawings ........... 1-319 —
-
xxiiiDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
a. Drawings Used as Prior Art Without Description When Clearly
Disclosed .............................................. 1-320
—
b. Drawings Alone May Provide an Adequate Written Description
............ 1-323 —
7. Description of the Preferred Embodiments
............................................ 1-327 —a.
Incorporation by Reference and
Amendments to the Specification ...... 1-329 —b. Partial
Incorporation by Reference Is
Not Sufficient ....................................... 1-336 —c.
Specification Must Disclose Some
Structure Under 35 U.S.C. §112, Paragraph 6; Mere Incorporation
by Reference Is Insufficient ..................... 1-338 —
d. List of Prior Art References in Background Art Section Not
Corresponding Structure .................... 1-341 —
8. Claims
........................................................ 1-346 —a.
Basic Parts of a Claim ........................ 1-354 —
i. Preamble .................................... 1-354 — ii.
Transitional Phrase ................... 1-357 — iii. Body of Claim
............................ 1-360 — iv. “Containing” Is
Open-Ended
Transitional Phrase ................... 1-360 — v. Markush
“Group of” Without
“Consisting” Held Open- Ended
........................................ 1-362 —
vi. Presumption That “Comprising” Was Open- Ended Did Not Reach
Into Method Steps ............................ 1-365 —
vii. “Comprised of” ......................... 1-367 — viii.
Proposed Rules for Claims
Using Alternative Language to Claim One or More Species .....
1-370 —
ix. “Comprising” Did Not Render Claim Anticipated by Device That
Contained Less Than What Was Claimed .................... 1-374
—
b. Claim No Longer Required When Filing Nonprovisional
Application ... 1-378 —
-
xxiv Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
c. Different Ways to Claim an Invention
............................................ 1-378 — i. Standard
Element or Step
Format ....................................... 1-378 — ii.
Jepson Format ........................... 1-379 — iii.
Means-Plus-Function Format .... 1-381 —
d. Different Statutory Class Claim Formats
.............................................. 1-382 —
e. Machine and Article Claims.............. 1-383 —f. Process
Claims ................................... 1-384 —
i. “Whereby” Clause in Method Claim Is Held Limiting When
Reciting Condition Material to Patentability
............................... 1-385 —
ii. Series of Functions Recited in Method Claim Promotes
Definiteness ............................... 1-387 —
g. Product-by-Process Claims ................ 1-389 — i.
Snap-Secured Structural
Relationship Did Not Convert Claim to Product-by-Process .....
1-389 —
h. Mixed-Limitation or Hybrid Claims . 1-391 — i. Process
Limitations Do Not
Generally Limit Apparatus Claim
.......................................... 1-392 —
ii. Pure Apparatus Claim With No Process Limitations Is Not
Limited to Any Particular Process
....................................... 1-394 —
iii. Claimed Mobile Station Used in Network Environment Held
Definite and Not Mixed Limitation Claim .......................
1-401 —
iv. Claim Reciting Heart Rate Monitor With Functionality of
Removing Signals Held Not Mixed Apparatus and Method Claim
.......................................... 1-406 —
i. Process of Using a Product ............... 1-411 —j. Process
of Making a Product ............ 1-411 —k. Apparatus to Make a
Product ........... 1-412 —l. Material Used to Make a Product .....
1-412 —
-
xxvDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
m. Dependent Claim Invalid When Not Further Limiting
........................ 1-412 —
n. Preamble Limits Claim When It Recites Framework of Invention
....... 1-415 —
o. “Consisting of” Does Not Restrict Claim to Recited Elements
Where Unrecited Elements Are Not Related to Claimed Invention
.......... 1-418 —
p. Presumption That Same Claim Term in Different Claims Has the
Same Meaning ............................................ 1-421
—
q. Importance of Significant Digits in Patent Claims
..................................... 1-423 —
r. Use of Definite Articles “The” or “Said” to Refer Back to
Claim Term Prefaced by “A” or “An” Reinvokes Meaning of “One or
More” ............... 1-426 —
s. Preamble-in-Preamble Format Unconventional but Acceptable
....... 1-428 —
t. Preamble of Jepson Format Claim Considered Admitted Prior Art
....... 1-436 —
u. “For Permitting” Language in Preamble Held Not a Limitation
and Entitled to No Patentable Weight
................................................ 1-439 —
v. Independent Claim Interpreted to Include Specific Range
Recited in Dependent Claim .............................. 1-442
—
w. Amendment to Preamble Held Not Limiting When Merely Intended
Use ...................................................... 1-446
—
x. Preamble Held Limiting When It Described Fundamental
Characteristic of Invention ............... 1-448 —
y. “Verifying” Language in Preamble Held Limiting When Essence
of Invention ............................................ 1-451
—
z. Preamble Limitation of “Automated” Not Presumed to Require
Automation for All Steps in Body of Claim
................................ 1-453 —
aa. Doctrine of Claim Differentiation Did Not Override Clear
Statements in Specification ..................................
1-457 —
-
xxvi Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
bb. Patent Trial and Appeal Board Accepts Use of “And/Or” in
Claim, But Prefers “At Least One of A and B”
................................................. 1-462 —
cc. Method Claim Indefinite When Only Recited Benefits and No
Clear Distinction Over Prior Art ................ 1-462 —
dd. Preamble Held Limiting When Relied on in Body of Claim
............... 1-464 —
ee. Negative Claim Limitation Supported by Description of
Alternative Features........................... 1-466 —
9. Abstract
...................................................... 1-472 —a.
Abstract Used to Confirm Meaning
of Claimed “Alkaline Salt”................... 1-473 —B. Drawings
........................................................... 1-476
32
1. Patent Drawings Do Not Convey Detail and Represent a
Preferred Embodiment .............................................
1-478 —
2. Drawings Provided Sufficient Description
................................................ 1-478 —
3. Drawings Without Precise Proportions Cannot Be Used to Limit
Claims ............. 1-482 —
4. Drawings Do Not Generally Limit Claims [New Topic]
.................................. — 32
C. Inventor Declaration ........................................
1-486 —1. Declarations Must Contain Correct Duty
of Disclosure Language—No Longer Effective in View of the
America Invents Act
..............................................................
1-493 —
2. Patent Office Adopts New Rules Concerning Representation
..................... 1-495 —
3. The America Invents Act—Inventor Declaration and Substitute
Statement ..... 1-495 —
D. Filing Fee
.......................................................... 1-497
—1. Correction of Small-Entity Fee Does Not
Require Inquiry Into Good Faith ............. 1-501 —2. No
Claiming Priority to Application
Where Filing Fee Was Never Paid ............ 1-504 —3.
Definition of Small Business Concern ..... 1-505 —4. The America
Invents Act—Definition of
Micro Entity ...............................................
1-506 —
-
xxviiDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
5. Changes to Implement Micro Entity Status for Paying Patent
Fees, Final Rule
............................................................ 1-507
—
2. Prosecution and Appeals
............................................. 2-1 35 I. Acceptance
of Patent Application for
Examination
........................................................... 2-10 —
II. Overview of the Examination Process ................... 2-14 —
III. Concept of the Prima Facie Case of
Unpatentability
....................................................... 2-17 46A.
Burden Shifted to Applicant When Examiner
Listed Claim Elements Not Found in Specification
.................................................... 2-19 —
B. Evidence Required to Rebut Prima Facie Anticipation Based on
Prior Art’s Inherent Ability
...............................................................
2-21 —
C. Evidence Rebutting Prima Facie Case of Obviousness Must Be
Considered by the Board
...............................................................
2-24 —
D. No Requirement to Rebut Defective Findings and Defective
Prima Facie Case ....... 2-30 —
E. Prima Facie Obviousness Not Established When Board Failed to
Provide Reasons for Routine Optimization [New Topic]
............... — 46
IV. Examination of Procedural and Substantive Requirements
......................................................... 2-33 —A.
Petition to Make Special—Accelerated
Examination
..................................................... 2-37 —1.
Changes to Practice for Petitions to
Make Special for Accelerated Examination
.............................................. 2-40 —a.
Requirements for Petitions to Make
Special for Accelerated
Examination......................................... 2-40 —
b. Decision on Petition to Make Special
.................................................. 2-43 —
c. The Initial Action on the Application by the Examiner
.................................. 2-43 —
d. Reply by Applicant ............................... 2-44 —e.
Post-Allowance Processing ................. 2-44 —f. After-Final
and Appeal Procedures .... 2-44 —g. Proceedings Outside the
Normal
Examination Process ........................... 2-45 —
-
xxviii Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
h. More Information: Eligibility .............. 2-45 —i.
Clarifications Regarding the
Accelerated Examination Procedures
........................................... 2-46 —
2. Changes in Accelerated Examination Practice in View of Patent
Law Changes .....................................................
2-47 —
B. The America Invents Act—Prioritized Examination
..................................................... 2-48 —
C. Patent Office Expands Prioritized (Track I) Examination
Program Under the America Invents Act
........................................................ 2-51 —
D. Patent Office Proposes Changes to Information Disclosure
Statement Requirements
................................................... 2-52 —1. Pilot
Concerning Public Submission of
Peer-Reviewed Prior Art .......................... 2-55 —E.
Information Is Material if Its Disclosure
Would Have Prevented Patent Issuance ......... 2-59 —F. Change
in Procedure for Handling
Nonprovisional Applications Having Omitted Items
................................................. 2-65 —
G. Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan for Small Entities
.............................................................. 2-68
—1. Sunset of the Patent Application
Backlog Reduction Stimulus Plan and Limited Extension of the
Green Technology Pilot Program ....................... 2-70 —
H. Ombudsman Pilot Program ............................ 2-70 —I.
Centralized Delivery and Facsimile
Transmission Policy for Patent-Related Correspondence, and
Exceptions Thereto .... 2-72 —1. General “Centralized Delivery”
Policy ..... 2-73 —2. Exceptions for Certain Hand-Carried
Correspondence ....................................... 2-73 —a.
Access Requests.................................... 2-74 —b. Patent
Term Extensions Under
35 U.S.C. §156...................................... 2-74 —c.
Assignments to Be Recorded .............. 2-74 —d. Office of the
General Counsel ............ 2-74 —e. Solicitor’s Office
.................................. 2-74 —f.
Interference-Related
Correspondence .................................. 2-74 —
-
xxixDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
g. Secrecy Order ...................................... 2-75 —h.
Explicit Foreign Filing License
Petitions ............................................... 2-75
—i. Petitions to Withdraw From Issue....... 2-75 —j. Documents
Requested by the Office
of Patent Publication ........................... 2-76 —k.
Elimination of Certain Previously
Authorized Exceptions ........................ 2-76 —l. Office
of Enrollment and
Discipline ............................................. 2-76
—m. Office of Finance ................................. 2-76 —n.
Office of Public Records ..................... 2-77 —
3. Exceptions for Certain Facsimile- Transmitted Correspondence
.................. 2-77 —a. Patent Cooperation Treaty
Operations and Legal Administration
..................................... 2-77 —
b. Office of Patent Publication ............... 2-77 —c. Office
of Pre-Grant Publication .......... 2-78 —d. Electronic Business
Center ................. 2-78 —e. Assignment Branch
............................. 2-78 —f. Central Reexamination Unit
.............. 2-79 —g. Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences........................................ 2-79 —h.
Office of the General Counsel ............ 2-79 —i. Office of the
Solicitor .......................... 2-79 —j. Licensing and Review
.......................... 2-79 —k. Office of Petitions
................................ 2-79 —l. Office of Enrollment
and
Discipline ............................................. 2-80
—m. Office of Finance ................................. 2-80 —n.
Office of Public Records ..................... 2-80 —
J. America Invents Act Final Rules for Citation of Prior Art in
Pending Applications .............. 2-80 —
V. First Office Action
.................................................. 2-81 —A. Section
1.105 Request for Information .......... 2-83 —
1. Failure to Respond to Request for Information May Cause the
Application to Become Abandoned ............................. 2-85
—
B. Reviving for Unintentional Abandonment Does Not Extend to
Failure to Prosecute Application Within Six Months
...................... 2-89 —
-
xxx Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
C. First Action Interview Pilot Program .............. 2-95 —D.
Enhanced First Action Interview Pilot
Expanded
......................................................... 2-96 —E.
Patent Office Expands First Action
Interview Pilot Program ...................................
2-100 —F. No Claim Construction Required as Part of
Patent Office Examination Process ................. 2-101 —G.
Examiner’s Reliance on Per Se Rule of
Obviousness Is Improper; Examiner Must Compare All Elements of
Claim With Prior Art
.....................................................................
2-103 —
VI. Response/Amendment by the Applicant ............. 2-106 —A.
Format of Response/Amendment .................. 2-109 —
1. Amendments to the Claims ...................... 2-110 —2.
Amendments to the Specification ........... 2-111 —3. Amendments to
Drawing Figures ............ 2-111 —4. Notice Regarding Acceptance
of
Certain Non-Compliant Amendments .... 2-112 —B. Content of
Response/Amendment ................ 2-113 —
1. Arguments Applied to Representative Claim Apply to All Claims
When No Separate Patentability Argument ............. 2-117 —
C. Incorporation by Reference and Amendments to the
Specification ................... 2-121 —1. Incorporation by
Reference in an
Intervening Patent Application Must Be Clear to One of Ordinary
Skill ................. 2-124 —
D. Procedures for Filing Confidential Information
...................................................... 2-129 —
E. Miscommunication Between Applicant and Attorney Did Not
Warrant Withdrawal of Filing
.................................................................
2-129 —
VII. Interview
.................................................................
2-134 —A. Interview Procedure for Registered
Practitioner Acting in a Representative Capacity
............................................................ 2-139
—
VIII. Final Office Action
................................................. 2-139 —A.
Response/Amendment After Final Office
Action
................................................................
2-141 —1. Amendment After Final Must Provide
Good and Sufficient Reasons for Broader Claims
......................................... 2-141 —
-
xxxiDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
B. Premature Final Office Action ........................ 2-148
—C. Post-Prosecution Pilot (P3) Program .............. 2-149 —
IX. Advisory Action
....................................................... 2-150 — X.
Notice of Allowance and Issue Fee ........................ 2-150
—
A. Revival of Abandoned Application Improper When No Action for
Over Two Years .............. 2-155 —
B. Failure to Challenge Reasons for Allowance May Affect Claim
Interpretation ..................... 2-159 —
C. Unavoidable Standard to Revive an Application Removed;
Revival Available Under Unintentional Standard After December 18,
2013 .......................................... 2-162 —
D. Examiner’s Supplemental Notice of Allowability/ Reasons for
Allowance Used to Interpret Claim Limitation
.............................. 2-163 —
XI. Appeal to Patent Office
.......................................... 2-166 46A. Pre-Appeal
Brief Conference Pilot
Program
............................................................ 2-175
—B. The America Invents Act—Patent Trial and
Appeal Board and Appeals to the Federal Circuit
..............................................................
2-179 —1. Inter Partes Review Under America
Invents Act Does Not Violate Constitution
.............................................. 2-179 —
C. Board Erred in Refusing to Consider Evidence in Response to
Overlapping Values Identified for First Time in Decision
.............. 2-186 —
D. Rule Changes for Ex Parte Appeals ............... 2-189 —1.
Revised Procedure for Board Review of
Appeal Briefs.. ...........................................
2-196 —2. Patent Office Will No Longer Accept
Appeal Briefs Under Prior Format .......... 2-198 —3. Amended
Final Rules for Ex Parte
Appeals to the Board ............................... 2-199 —a.
Background ......................................... 2-199 —b.
Purposes of the Rule Changes ........... 2-200 —c. Significant Rule
Changes .................... 2-201 —d. Additional Rule Changes
.................... 2-202 —e. Factual Situations That Constitute
a
New Ground of Rejection ................... 2-205 —
-
xxxii Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
f. Factual Situations That Do Not Constitute a New Ground of
Rejection .............................................. 2-206
—
E. Failure to Clarify Claims During Prosecution Resulted in
Unfavorable Interpretation by Board
...............................................................
2-207 —
F. Rejections by Representative Claims Must Share Common
Limitation and Board’s Obligation Cannot Be Waived
......................... 2-210 —
G. Claim Indefinite When Appeal Brief Failed to Identify Any
Algorithm as Corresponding Structure
........................................................... 2-214
—
H. Time for Filing Appeal From Board ............... 2-221 —I.
Board Did Not Have Jurisdiction Over
Drawing Objections .........................................
2-222 —J. Appeal to Board Does Not Require De Novo
Review of All Aspects of Rejection .................. 2-223 —K.
No New Arguments to the Board in Reply
Brief Without Good Cause .............................. 2-227
—L. Board Review of Obviousness Rejections
and Secondary Considerations ........................ 2-230 —M.
Review of Examiner’s Refusal to Enter
Affidavit Is by Petition, Not by Appeal to the Board
................................................................
2-231 —
N. Mere Recitation of Claim Elements Is Not Sufficient for
Claims to Be Considered Separately Argued
........................................... 2-234 —
O. Board Raised New Ground of Rejection When Relying on New
Facts ............................ 2-239 —
P. Patent Office Reexamination Need Not Defer to Court Even Over
Same Prior Art ...... 2-243 —
Q. New Ground of Rejection When Board Found a New Reason to
Combine Prior Art ... 2-247 —
R. Argument Board Adopted New Ground of Rejection Must Be Raised
in Request for Rehearing
......................................................... 2-253
—
S. Patent Office Issues Procedures for Remands From Federal
Circuit [New Topic]
.................................................... — 46
XII. Appeal to the District Court and the Federal Circuit
....................................................................
2-258 —
-
xxxiiiDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
A. Failure to Raise Argument Before Board Waives Argument on
Appeal to Federal Circuit
...............................................................
2-275 —
B. New Evidence Can Be Submitted to District Court on Same Issue
Before the Board ......... 2-278 —
C. Evidence That Should Have Been Submitted During Prosecution
Generally Not Excluded by District Court .......................
2-281 —
D. Applicant Has Burden of Showing Board’s Error Was Harmful
........................................... 2-289 —
E. New Evidence May Be Submitted in Ex Parte Appeals and
Interferences to District Court
.................................................................
2-295 —
XIII. Prosecution Tips
..................................................... 2-298 47A.
Interpreting Scope of Patent Claims .............. 2-298 47
1. Claim Interpretation: Specification Primary, Dictionaries
Secondary .............. 2-306 —
2. Interpretation of Claims in Accordance With Ordinary Meaning
........................... 2-314 —a. Claim Term With Accepted
Scientific
Meaning Not Limited by Examples in Specification
.................................... 2-315 —
b. Claim Interpreted in Accordance With Meaning at Time of the
Filing Date ......................................................
2-316 —
c. Statement in Office Action Response Insufficient to Override
Ordinary Meaning of Claim Language .............. 2-319 —
d. Absence of Embodiment Did Not Prevent Ordinary Meaning for
Claim Term .....................................................
2-322 —
3. Interpreting Claims Using Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
During Examination ..............................................
2-322 47a. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
Is Not the Broadest Meaning Not Inconsistent With Specification
[New Topic] ........................................ — 47
4. Effect of Written Description on Ordinary Meaning of Claim
Terms ......... 2-326 48a. Unenabled Reference in
Specification to an Undeveloped System Does Not Support a Claim
to It ...................................................... 2-329
—
-
xxxiv Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
b. Surrounding Claim Language Important Consideration When
Interpreting Claim .............................. 2-330 —
c. Claim Interpreted in View of Specification Did Not Rewrite or
Correct Typographical Error .............. 2-334 —
d. Two Terms Referred to as Alternatives Held Not Sufficient for
“Implied” Redefinition ........................ 2-338 —
e. Drawings Do Not Generally Limit Claims [New Topic]
............................ — 48
5. Exclusion of Ordinary Meaning by Express Representations in
Written Description or Prosecution History ......... 2-342 —a.
Claims Need Not Be Limited to All
Problems Described in Written
Description........................................... 2-347 —
b. Specification Bound Patentee to Narrower Definition Than
Ordinary Meaning ...............................................
2-350 —
c. Specification Did Not Limit Claims to Nonelected Invention
..................... 2-353 —
d. No Disclaimer When Statement in Specification Related to
Nonelected Invention ..............................................
2-356 —
e. Disclaimer of All Catalysts Containing Non-Chromium Metal
Oxides .................................................. 2-359
—
f. Markush Language in Specification Does Not Limit Claim Not
Using Markush Terminology ........................ 2-363 —
g. Term Not Interpreted According to Conventional Meaning:
“Heading” Meant “Bearing” ................................. 2-364
—
h. Claims Limited to Automatic Control When Specification
Drafted Narrowly to Preclude Operator Control
................................................ 2-368 —
i. “Static” Interpreted Narrowly to Require Manual Action in
View of “Present Invention” Statement in Specification
........................................ 2-373 —
-
xxxvDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
j. Claim Not Limited to Disclosed Embodiments
....................................... 2-379 —
k. Broadest Reasonable Construction Held Unreasonable in View of
Express Definition in Specification .... 2-382 —
l. Dictionary Definition Not Used When Inconsistent With
Specification/Intrinsic Record ........... 2-383 —
m. Disavowal via Disparagement in Specification Limited Claim
Feature ................................................. 2-386
—
n. Specification’s Focus on One Embodiment Not Limiting if Other
Embodiments Also Expressly Contemplated
...................................... 2-392 —
6. Relevance of Prosecution History to Interpreting the Claims
............................ 2-396 —a. Letter Between Applicant
and
Attorney Not Part of File History and Limited Value for Claim
Construction ........................................ 2-397 —
b. Prosecution Statement Limited Multi-Level Media Security to
Multiple Layers of Encryption ............ 2-398 —
c. Intrinsic Record Unambiguously Restricted Claim Term to Only
Two-Piece Embodiments ..................... 2-400 —
7. Interpreting Claims Under Section 112, Paragraph 6
............................................... 2-404 —a. Linkage
of Structure or Acts to
Claimed Elements Under Section 112, Paragraph 6
.......................................... 2-410 —
b. Nondisclosure of Structure or Acts for Claimed
Elements.......................... 2-411 —
c. Structure or Acts Are Corresponding When Necessary to Perform
the Recited Function ................................. 2-412 —
d. Use of Prior Art to Interpret Claims Drafted Under Section
112, Paragraph 6 .......................................... 2-413
—
e. List of Prior Art References in Background Art Section Not
Corresponding Structure .................... 2-413 —
-
xxxvi Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
f. Specification Must Disclose Some Structure Under 35 U.S.C.
§112, Paragraph 6; Mere Incorporation by Reference Is Insufficient
..................... 2-419 —
g. Means-Plus-Function Claim Limitation Held Limited to Single
Disclosed Structure and Equivalents
........................................... 2-422 —
h. Corresponding Structure Narrowed Meaning of “Seal Means” to a
Narrow Liner with Rectangular Cross-Section
........................................ 2-425 —
8. Interpreting Claims Under the Doctrine of Equivalents
............................................ 2-428 —a. Claims May
Exclude Application of
the Doctrine of Equivalents ................ 2-441 —b.
Hypothetical Claim Used to
Interpret the Scope of the Doctrine... 2-442 —c. Relationship to
Equivalents Under
Section 112, Paragraph 6 .................... 2-444 —d. All
Limitations Rule Does Not
Prevent Microcrystalline Cellulose From Being Equivalent to
Saccharide ............................................ 2-447 —
e. No Doctrine of Equivalents When the Patentee Disclaimed Motor
That Exerted Pulling Force ........................ 2-450 —
f. Doctrine of Equivalents Not Foreclosed for Claimed Ranges
......... 2-454 —
g. Ensnarement Limits Equivalents That Would Encompass Prior
Art; Determined by Judge, Not Jury .......... 2-457 —
h. Doctrine of Equivalents Not Limited by Foreseeable Equivalent
and Evaluated at Time of Infringement; Statutory Equivalents
Evaluated at Time of Issuance ..................................
2-463 —
9. Claim Interpreted When Susceptible to Only One Reasonable but
Nonsensical Interpretation
........................................... 2-466 —
10. Function of Invention Can Be Used to Interpret Meaning of
Claim Language ... 2-469 —
-
xxxviiDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
11. Independent Claim Interpreted to Include Specific Range
Recited in Dependent Claim .....................................
2-471 —
12. Multiple Embodiments in Specification Provided Broader Claim
Interpretation ........................................... 2-472
—
13. “Verifying” Claim Language Provided Patentable Weight When
Referring to Essence of Invention ................................
2-476 —
14. Claims Limited to Mouse Monoclonal Antibody in View of Claim
Cancellation [New Topic]
............................................. — 51
B. Reciting Features Relied on for Patentability
...................................................... 2-478 —1.
Patentability Arguments Must be
Supported by Claims ................................ 2-479 —C.
Avoiding Introduction of New Matter ............ 2-482 —D.
Overcoming Rejections With Affidavits or
Declarations
...................................................... 2-483 —E.
Drafting the Patent Specification and
Claims for Proper Scope .................................. 2-485
—1. Specification Used to Limit Claimed
“Alkaline Salt” ...........................................
2-492 —2. Abstract Used to Confirm Meaning of
Claimed “Alkaline Salt” ............................ 2-496 —F.
Ensuring Novel Interpretation of
Terminology
..................................................... 2-500 —G.
Description May Provide Different
Definitions for the Same Term ........................ 2-501 —H.
Providing Sales Information for Access via
a Computer Does Not Infringe Claim Recitation of Providing the
Computer ........... 2-502 —
I. Reasonable Examiner Standard Applies to Statement of
Incorporation by Reference Made During Prosecution
............................... 2-506 —
J. Specification Describing Invention Having Feature and
Disparaging Prior Art Not Having Feature Disavowed Accused Product
Without the Feature [New Topic] .... — 56
3. Prosecution History Estoppel and Disclaimer Considerations
............................................................. 3-1
61
I. Amendment-Based Estoppel .................................
3-27 69
-
xxxviii Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
A. Scope of Prosecution History Estoppel When a Claim Is
Amended: The Warner- Jenkinson and Festo Presumptions
.................... 3-27 —1. Supreme Court Decision in Warner-
Jenkinson .....................................................
3-27 —2. Federal Circuit Decision in Festo Corp.
v. Shoketsu ...................................................
3-29 —3. Supreme Court Decision in Festo Corp.
v. Shoketsu ...................................................
3-35 —4. Open Issues From the Supreme Court
Decision in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu ............. 3-42 —5.
Federal Circuit Order on Remand .......... 3-44 —
a. SMC’s Aluminum Sleeve ..................... 3-48 —b. SMC’s
Sealing Ring.............................. 3-49 —c. Comments
............................................ 3-52 —
6. Festo Presumption Not Applied When There Was a Clear and
Unmistakable Disclaimer From Prosecution Argument
.................................................. 3-53 —
7. Festo Presumption Not Applied When Patent Claims One of Only
Two Structural Options .................................... 3-55
—
8. Festo Presumption Need Not Be Determined When Equivalent Was
Expressly Disclaimed ................................ 3-59 —
B. Narrowing Amendment ................................... 3-59
691. No Narrowing Amendment When
Added Limitation Inherent in Claim ...... 3-59 —2. No Narrowing
Amendment When
Amendment Made Express That Which Was Implicit
............................................... 3-60 —
3. Festo Applies to New but Narrower Claims
........................................................ 3-61 —
4. Amending Objected Claims in Independent Form Is Narrowing
Amendment/Claims Need Not Be Amended
................................................... 3-61 —
5. Festo Presumption Not Triggered Because Functional Words
Within Claim Element Not Amended ................. 3-65 —
-
xxxixDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
6. Rewriting Dependent Claim in Independent Form Creates
Presumption of Surrender When Original Independent Claim Is
Canceled .................................................... 3-69
—
7. Amendment Not Narrowing When Limitation Is Implicitly
Contained in Original Term
........................................... 3-74 —
8. Amendment Considered Narrowing Even Though It Broadened Claim
in Certain Respects ....................................... 3-76
—
9. Presumption Applies Even If Narrowing Amendment Does Not
Achieve Allowance, and Applies Even to Claims Not Amended Having
the Added Limitation
.................................................. 3-79 —
10. No Estoppel When Amendment Was Merely an Intended Use and
Did Not Structurally Limit the Claim .................... 3-85
—
11. Estoppel Limiting Equivalents Created by Mere Claim
Cancellation [New Topic]
.............................................. — 69
C. Reasons Relating to Patentability .................... 3-88
—1. Reason Relating to Patentability Will
Not Likely Be Avoided With Pro Forma Remarks
..................................................... 3-88 —
2. Amendment Made to Overcome 35 U.S.C. §112 Rejection Held
Related to Patentability ..........................................
3-89 —
D. Rebutting Presumption of Estoppel ............... 3-91 —1.
Equivalent Foreseeable ............................. 3-91 —
a. Only Patent Prosecution History May Be Used to Rebut Festo
Presumption, and Equivalent Is Foreseeable When Patentee
Specifically Amends Claim to Avoid Prior Art Equivalent
............................ 3-91 —
b. Narrowing Amendment Made to Avoid Prior Art Equivalent Not
Unforeseeable ...................................... 3-95 —
c. Alternative Foreseeable If Known in Field of Invention as
Reflected in Claim Scope Before Amendment ...... 3-97 —
-
xl Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
d. Alternative Foreseeable and Presumption Not Rebutted Even
Though Asserted Equivalent Was Not Ideal
.............................................. 3-110 —
2. Amendment Tangential ........................... 3-114 —a.
Festo Presumption Rebutted Because
Narrowing Amendment Was Tangential to Accused Process
............ 3-114 —
b. Amendment to Avoid Prior Art that Contains Equivalent Not
Tangential ............................................ 3-117 —
c. Tangentialness Is Very Narrow Criterion That Can Overcome
Presumption of Estoppel ................... 3-121 —
d. Amendment Adding Adjoining Region Limitation Not Tangential
With Respect to Accused Structures With Nonadjoining Regions
............... 3-122 —
e. Tangentialness May Be Difficult to Determine
............................................ 3-125 —
f. Amendment Not Tangential When No Reason for Narrowing
Amendment ........................................ 3-126 —
3. Some Other Reason .................................. 3-133
—a. Correction of Inadvertent Omission
Not Considered Narrowing Amendment
......................................... 3-133 —
b. Narrowing Amendment Held Tangential to the Accused Device
...... 3-137 —
4. Additional Considerations When Rebutting Presumption of
Estoppel ........ 3-140 —a. New Matter Not Directly Relevant in
Rebutting Festo Presumption ............... 3-140 —b. Festo
Presumption Not Rebutted
When Broader Claims Canceled ........ 3-144 — II. Argument-Based
Estoppel ..................................... 3-146 74
A. Reliance by Patent Office Not Necessary for Argument-Based
Estoppel ............................... 3-148 —
B. “Criticalities of Using Fatty Acid Wax Over Metal Stearates”
Disavowed Metal Stearates as Equivalents but Not All Fatty Acid Wax
Equivalents .......................................................
3-151 —
-
xliDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
C. Claim Term Interpreted Restrictively When Limiting Statements
Directed to Invention as a Whole
......................................................... 3-154
—
D. Separate Arguments Create Separate Estoppels and Apply to
Same Term in All Claims
...............................................................
3-159 —
E. No Argument-Based Prosecution History Estoppel When Meaning
of Claim Term Made Explicit That Which Was Already Implicit in the
Specification ............................ 3-163 —
F. Statements in Prosecution History Disclaimed Laptop Computers
Even Though Multiple Arguments Were Presented
.......................................................... 3-168
—
G. Prosecution Statement Limited Multi-Level Media Security to
Multiple Layers of Encryption
....................................................... 3-172 —
H. Reply to Rejection That Prior Art Lacked Claimed Feature
Disavowed Accused Product Without Feature [New Topic] ........... —
74
III. Prosecution Disclaimers
......................................... 3-175 78A. Failure to
Claim Distinct Embodiment of
Invention May Create a Disclaimer: Disclosure-Dedication Rule
............................. 3-175 —
B. Disclosure-Dedication Rule Formalized: Disclosing Plastic But
Claiming Only Metal Dedicated Plastic to Public
.............................. 3-179 —1. Disclosure-Dedication
Rule: Unclaimed
Subject Matter Must Be Identified as Alternative
................................................. 3-182 —
2. Disclosure-Dedication Doctrine Applies Even if Subject Matter
Is Later Claimed in Continuation Application
................................................ 3-186 —
C. Disclosure-Dedication Rule a Question of Law, and Neither
Intent nor Enablement/ Written Description Requirements Needed for
Disclosed but Unclaimed Subject Matter
...............................................................
3-190 —
D. Doctrine of Prosecution Disclaimer Precludes Patentee From
Recapturing via Claim Interpretation Specific Meanings Disclaimed
During Prosecution ...................... 3-193 —
-
xlii Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
E. Disclaimer Extends to Mistakes in Prosecution That Are Not
Corrected ............. 3-197 —
F. Prosecution Disclaimer Made on Same Claim Limitation in
Ancestor Application May Attach to Subsequent Continuing
Application .......................................................
3-200 —1. Disclaimer Applies to Related
Application Only if Same Claim Limitation Used
....................................... 3-201 —
G. Prosecution Disclaimer Not Found Even Though Remarks
Unnecessarily Broad and No Response to Examiner’s Interpretation of
Claim ............................................................
3-206 —
H. Applicant’s Silence Regarding Examiner’s Statements, Without
More, Cannot Result in Disclaimer
.................................................... 3-210 —
I. Ambiguous Disclaimer Will Not Limit Claim Term’s Ordinary
Meaning ............................... 3-215 —
J. Disclaimer Made on Process Claims Created Disclaimer for
Product Claims ........................ 3-221 —
K. Disclaimer Does Not Require an Explicit Disavowal When Scope
of Invention Is Clearly Stated in Specification
........................ 3-223 —
L. Claim Language Amended From “Ones of Said Keys” to “One of
Said Keys” Disclaimed Plural
............................................. 3-227 —
M. Unentered Claims That Are Canceled Do Not Necessarily Create
Disclaimer .................. 3-229 —
N. Disclaimer in Parent Application Applies to Later Application
When Patentee Affirmatively Links Meaning of Claims ...........
3-235 —
O. Argument That Prior Art Reference Distinguished for One
Reason Disclaims Claim Scope Even if Also Distinguished Prior Art
on Other Grounds .......................... 3-238 —
P. Restrictive Claim Interpretation When Narrowing Arguments Not
Retracted ............ 3-242 —
Q. Prosecution Disclaimer Found to Exclude Motor That Exerted
Pulling Force ................. 3-245 —
R. General Disavowal Limited Claims That Did Not Even Recite
Specific Claim Limitation
......................................................... 3-249
—
-
xliiiDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
S. No Prosecution Disclaimer Based on Unique Amalgamation of
Facts Including Inoperable and Unsupported Remarks ......... 3-254
—
T. Statements in Prosecution History Disclaimed Laptop Computers
Even Though Multiple Arguments Presented ......... 3-258 —
U. Specification Did Not Provide Express Definition to Override
Prosecution Disclaimer
......................................................... 3-262
—
V. No Disclaimer When Statement Clearly Erroneous Not Relied on
for Patentability ..... 3-266 —
W. No Disclaimer When Permissive Language Used in Specification
....................................... 3-269 —
X. Compelling Disclaimer Trumped Ambiguous Disclosure and
Prevented Priority Claim
................................................... 3-274 —
Y. Statement in Office Action Response Insufficient to Disclaim
Claim Language ....... 3-278 —
Z. Mere Criticism of Particular Embodiment Not Sufficient to
Constitute Clear Disavowal
.......................................................... 3-281
—
AA. Prosecution Disclaimer Only Applies to Unambiguous
Disavowals .............................. 3-284 —
BB. No Disclaimer by Incorporating Subject Matter by Reference
When Not Described as an Alternative
............................................. 3-287 —
CC. Response to Restriction Requirement May Create Disclaimer
.......................................... 3-289 —
DD. Election Responsive to Ambiguous Restriction Requirement Did
Not Result in Disclaimer
.................................................. 3-292 —
EE. Statements Made by Patent Owner During Inter Partes Review
Can Support Disclaimer [New Topic]
................................. — 78
IV. Statements in the Specification and Limiting Claim
Interpretation and/or Estoppels ................ 3-297 85A. The
Specification May Create an Estoppel/
Disclaimer
......................................................... 3-297 —B.
Inventor’s Description of Invention Being
Used in a Particular Manner Does Not Necessarily Limit Scope of
Claims .................. 3-303 —
C. Specification Bound Patentee to Narrower Definition Than
Ordinary Meaning ............... 3-306 —
-
xliv Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
D. Claims Limited to Automatic Control When Specification
Drafted Narrowly to Preclude Operator Control
............................................ 3-309 —
E. Specification Limited Claim Term “Air Quality” to Contaminant
in Air and Not Meteorological Attributes
................................ 3-313 —
F. Specification Limited Claim to Exclude All Anti-Infectives
.................................................. 3-317 —
G. Specification Describing “Invention” as a Whole Can Limit
Claims ................................. 3-320 —
H. Specification Disclaimer Limited “Alkaline Salt” to Six
Cations Described in the Specification
..................................................... 3-323 —
I. Specification Designating Embodiment/ Element as “Essential”
Created Disclaimer/ Disavowal
.......................................................... 3-328
—
J. Specification Contained Disclaimer/ Disavowal With Statement
of Purpose/ Objects of Invention
....................................... 3-331 —
K. Disavowal by Disparagement Requires Repeated Derogatory
Statements About Specific Embodiment Well Beyond Preference
........................................................ 3-336
—
L. Disclosure That Prior Art Feature Inconvenient Not Sufficient
to Create Disparagement
................................................. 3-342 —
M. Specification Describing Invention Having Feature and
Disparaging Prior Art for Not Having Feature Disavowed Accused
Product Without the Feature [New Topic] .... — 85
V. Prosecution Estoppel Tips
..................................... 3-346 —A.
Amendments/Arguments for Reasons
Unrelated to Patentability ............................... 3-346
—B. Separate Arguments/Amendments ................ 3-348 —C.
Unnecessary Amendments/Arguments ......... 3-350 —D. Claims Limited
to Specific Embodiment ........ 3-352 —E. Claims Not Limited to
Described
Embodiment Only ...........................................
3-354 —F. Effect of Amendments/Arguments
Regarding One Feature of Invention on Other Features
................................................. 3-357 —
-
xlvDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
G. Prosecution History Estoppel May Prevent Infringement Under
the Doctrine of Equivalents
....................................................... 3-358 —
H. Error in Prosecution Record ........................... 3-359
—I. Estoppel Applied to Claims That Were
Never Narrowed ...............................................
3-359 —J. General Statements Not Limiting When
Limitation Not Recited in Claim ..................... 3-361 —K.
New Claims Added During Prosecution
That Include Narrow Limitations ................... 3-362 —L.
Use of Amendments/Arguments
Respecting Certain Claims to Interpret Other Claims
.................................................... 3-363 —
M. Effect of Amendments/Arguments for Claims in One Patent May
Create an Estoppel for Claims in Another Patent With Similar
Language .................................... 3-364 —
N. No Estoppel for Broader Claims in Later Application
....................................................... 3-366 —
O. Use of Examiner Amendments/Reasons for Allowance to Interpret
Claim or Create an Estoppel
............................................................ 3-369
—
P. Estoppel May Arise by Failure to Prosecute Claims in
Divisional Application in Face of Prior Art Rejection
........................................... 3-371 —
Q. Prosecution History Estoppel Applies When Claim Amended After
Notice of Allowance ... 3-372 —
R. Use of Drawings to Determine Whether Prosecution History
Estoppel Applies ............ 3-374 —
S. Estoppel Prevented Claims Reciting Manual Re-Centering From
Covering Accused Automatic Re-Centering by Equivalents .........
3-375 —
4. Inventorship
.................................................................
4-1 91 I. Inventorship
........................................................... 4-5
—
A. Discovery of Problem Alone ............................ 4-11
—B. Routine Skill
..................................................... 4-12 —C.
Inventor Contribution to Definite
Conception
....................................................... 4-15 —1.
Inventorship for Chemical
Compounds ............................................... 4-17
—
-
xlvi Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
2. Conception Requires Inventor to Appreciate Invention
................................ 4-17 —
3. Conception Does Not Require Scientific Certainty; Proof
Invention Works to Scientific Certainty is Reduction to Practice
...................................................... 4-24 —
4. Email Not Sufficient to Show Conception of Process of Making
Dietary Supplement .................................. 4-31 —
D. Inventor for Combination and Not for Individual Elements
......................................... 4-35 —
E. Derivation of Invention ...................................
4-36 —F. Suggestions of Others
...................................... 4-37 —G. Focus of
Inventorship on the Claimed
Invention
.......................................................... 4-38 —H.
Reduction to Practice Does Not Necessarily
Require Repeatability ......................................
4-39 — II. Joint Inventorship
.................................................. 4-42 95
A. Basic Requirements of Joint Inventorship ...... 4-42 —B.
Inventors Who Are Unaware of Each
Other
................................................................
4-46 —C. Common Period of Development ................... 4-47 —D.
Large Number of Inventors ............................. 4-48 —E.
State Law Claim of Unjust Enrichment
Against Joint Owner Not Preempted by Federal Patent Law
........................................... 4-49 —
F. Explaining State of Art and Supplying Inventors Product Not
Sufficient to be Considered Co-Inventor
.................................. 4-57 —
G. Joint Inventorship Requires More Than Merely Proving
Scientific Certainty of Conceived Invention
........................................ 4-63 —
H. No Requirement That Each Co-Inventor Have Independent
Conception of Final Compound
....................................................... 4-70 —
I. Contributor to Method of Making Novel Genus of Compounds Held
Co-Inventor of Genus
................................................................
4-70 —
J. Mere Contribution of Easily Obtainable Public Knowledge Does
Not Create Co-Inventorship [New Topic] ......................... —
95
III. Consistency of Inventorship Entity .......................
4-77 —
-
xlviiDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
A. Consistency With Corresponding Foreign Applications
...................................................... 4-77 —
B. Consistency With Corresponding Technical Publications
...................................................... 4-79 —
IV. Inventorship and Interference Proceedings ........ 4-80 — V.
Ownership of Invention ........................................
4-81 —
A. Shop Right in Invention ..................................
4-83 —1. Shop Right Doctrine Does Not Extend
to Employer’s Sale of Patented Invention for Unrestricted Use by
Unrelated Third Party ............................. 4-87 —
B. Employed-to-Invent Exception ........................ 4-93 C.
Contractual Right to Assign ............................ 4-98 —
1. Patent Office Assignment Practice .......... 4-117 —2.
Contractual Right to Assign Does Not
Automatically Extend to Improvement Inventions
................................................. 4-118 —
3. Patent Policy in Faculty Handbook Obligates Inventors to
Assign Invention to University
.............................................. 4-120 —
4. Employer Owns Ex-Employee’s Idea Not Reduced to Practice
.................................. 4-122 —
5. Federal Law Governs Whether a Patent Assignment Is Automatic
Versus Obligation to Assign; State Law Governs Contract
Interpretation ............................ 4-123 —a. Question of
Whether Patent Rights
Vest in Executor at Death Not Based on Federal Law
.................................... 4-125 —
6. “I Agree to Assign,” in Agreement as Mere Promise to Assign
Rights in Future, and Purchaser Was on Constructive Notice
.................................. 4-126 —
7. Title Transferred By Operation of State Foreclosure Law Even
Without Written Assignment
................................................ 4-131 —
8. Exclusive Licensee Has Standing Even Though Other Licensees
Hold Limited Sublicense Rights
...................................... 4-137 —
9. Bayh-Dole Act Does Not Confer Title to Federally Funded
Inventions on Contractors or Authorize Contractors to Unilaterally
Take Title .............................. 4-142 —
-
xlviii Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
10. Patent Licenses Are Presumed to Cover Continuation
Applications for Licensed Products
..................................................... 4-145 —
11. Language in Agreement That Delayed Assignment to Future Date
Was Insufficient to Confer Standing ............... 4-146 —
12. Assignment of Inventions in Employment Contract Not Revived
in Subsequent Consulting Contract ............. 4-149 —
13. Assignment of Invention May Be Made Prior to Patent Issuance
With No Liability for Patent Infringement ............ 4-152 —
14. Former Employee Could Not Be Sued for Failure to Assign
Invention When Employer Waited Too Long ..................... 4-157
—
D. Joint Inventors Presumptively Co-Owners of Invention
.......................................................... 4-163
—
E. Rights of Co-Owners of Invention ................... 4-164
—1. License Agreement Required
Accounting For Royalties to Joint Owner
........................................................ 4-168
—
F. U.S. Government Rights in Inventions Made by Government
Employees ............................. 4-172 —1. U.S. Government
Will Receive at Least
Nonexclusive License When Government Resources Are Used to Test
Invention ........................................... 4-177 —
2. U.S. Government Owns Invention When Invention Is Reduced to
Practice While Government Employee Inventor Is on Official Duty
.............................................. 4-180 —
3. U.S. Government Owns Invention by Employee Hired for Research
Even Though Not Hired to Invent ................... 4-181 —
4. Government Desire to Publish Invention Does Not Forfeit
Government’s Rights ................................ 4-182 —
5. U.S. Government Owns Invention When Invention Conceived While
Not on Official Duty but Tested Using Government Time and
Facilities ............. 4-184 —
6. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ....... 4-185 —
-
xlixDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
7. U.S. Government Environmental Science Officer’s Duties Did
Not Include Research or Development .......... 4-185 —
8. Mere Use of Government Information Insufficient to Require
Government Ownership of Invention ........................... 4-186
—
9. Government Owned Invention When Invention Was Made on
Government Time Using Government Funds .............. 4-187 —
G. U.S. Government and Inventor Rights in Inventions Under
Secrecy Order .................... 4-190 —1. Invention Secrecy Act
Does Not Provide
Damages for Use After Patent Has Issued
......................................................... 4-193
—
2. Claim Amendments Do Not Prevent Compensation Under Invention
Secrecy Act ................................................ 4-197
—
H. U.S. Government Rights in Inventions by Government
Contractors ................................. 4-198 —
VI. Correction of Inventorship
.................................... 4-203 —A. Correction While
Application Is Pending ...... 4-204 —B. Correction After Patent Is
Granted ................ 4-205 —C. Correction Through Reissue
........................... 4-207 —D. General Factors Involved in
Correcting
Inventorship
..................................................... 4-208 —1.
Error ..........................................................
4-208 —2. Deceptive Intent—(No Longer
Required as of September 16, 2012) ....... 4-210 —3.
Diligence—(No Longer Required as of
September 16, 2012) ................................ 4-213 —4.
Identification of Contribution of
Inventor .....................................................
4-215 —5. Changing the Order of Inventor
Names ........................................................
4-216 —6. Correction of Inventorship for
Unenforceable Patent .............................. 4-217 —E.
Inventor Does Not Have Standing to
Correct Inventorship if No Financial Interest in Patent
.............................................. 4-219 —
F. No Private Cause of Action to Challenge Inventorship Before
Patent Issues .................. 4-224 —
-
l Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
5. Antedating Prior Art References
................................ 5-1 99 I. Antedating Prior Art
Under First-Inventor-to-File
System
.....................................................................
5-3 —A. Overview of Significant Changes to
35 U.S.C. §102
.................................................. 5-4 —B Amended
35 U.S.C. §102 and Antedating
Prior Art
............................................................ 5-4
—C. Antedating Prior Art Under Rule 130—
Available for Patent Applications Under First-Inventor-to-File
System ............................ 5-8 —
II. Antedating/Disqualifying Prior Art Under Rule 131—Available
for Patent Applications Under First-to-Invent System
................................. 5-11 —
III. Prior Art That May Be Overcome Under Rule 131—Available for
Patent Applications Under First-to-Invent System
................................. 5-14 —
IV. Prior Art That May Not Be Overcome Under Rule 131
..................................................................
5-19 —A. Statutory Bar Under Section 102(b) ............... 5-20
—B. Statutory Bar Under Section 102(d) ............... 5-20 —C.
U.S. Patent That Claims Same Invention ....... 5-21 —D. Applicant’s
Own Invention .............................. 5-22 —E. Admitted
Prior Art ........................................... 5-22 —F.
Prior Art Under Section 102(g) ...................... 5-25 —
1. 35 U.S.C. §102(g) Provides Prior Inventor Rights, Not Prior
User Rights ... 5-28 —
2. Product Claims Do Not Necessarily Require an Enabling
Disclosure to Negate Abandonment, Suppression, or Concealment
............................................. 5-30 —
3. Testimony Used to Invalidate Patent Based on Prior Inventor
Requires Corroboration ...........................................
5-33 —
4. No Suppression When Delay of Only Six and a Half Months From
Reduction to Practice to Filing of Application .......... 5-41
—
5. No Requirement That Prior Invention Under Section 102(g) Be
“Known to the Art” or for Prior Reduction to Practice
..................................................... 5-45 —
6. Prior Invention Not Suppressed, Concealed, or Abandoned Where
Over Year’s Delay Was Due to Bankruptcy ...... 5-48 —
-
liDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
G. Prior Art Under Section 102(f) ....................... 5-52 —
V. General Considerations for Affidavits Under
Rule 131—Available for Patent Applications Under First-to-Invent
System ................................. 5-53 —A. Two General Ways
to Antedate ........................ 5-53 —
1. Reduction to Practice Prior to Reference Date
......................................... 5-55 —
2. Prior Conception and Diligent Reduction to Practice After
Reference Date
........................................................... 5-56
—
B. Inclusion of Facts in the Declaration .............. 5-57 —C.
Supporting Exhibits ......................................... 5-58
—
VI. General Requirements Under Rule 131— Available for Patent
Applications Under First- to-Invent System
..................................................... 5-59 102A.
Conception .......................................................
5-59 —
1. Appreciation of Invention Requires Connection Between
Physical Result of Invention and Belief by Inventor for Conception
................................................ 5-62 —
2. Conception Does Not Require Scientific Certainty; Proof
Invention Works to Scientific Certainty is Reduction to Practice
...................................................... 5-68 —
3. Email Not Sufficient to Show Conception of Process of Making
Dietary Supplement .................................. 5-75 —
4. Conceiver of Method of Making Novel Genus of Compounds Held
Co-Inventor of Genus
.................................................... 5-78 —
B. Diligence
........................................................... 5-84
1021. Diligence Relating to Actual Reduction
to Practice ..................................................
5-87 —2. Diligence Relating to Constructive
Reduction to Practice ............................... 5-89 —3.
No Diligence When Patent Application
Took Five Months to Prepare ................... 5-90 —4.
Diligence Does Not Require Work Every
Day During the Critical Period [New Topic]
.............................................. — 102
C. Reduction to Practice ......................................
5-93 —1. Actual Reduction to Practice ................... 5-94
—
a. Recognition of Successful Testing ...... 5-102 —
-
lii Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
2. Constructive Reduction to Practice ........ 5-103 —a.
Constructive Reduction to Practice
Does Not Require Inventor Appreciation
........................................ 5-105 —
3. Reduction to Practice Does Not Necessarily Require
Repeatability ............ 5-111 —
D. Examples of Conception, Diligence, and Reduction to Practice
...................................... 5-114 —
E. Antedating Acts in the United States or in a WTO/NAFTA
Country .................................... 5-115 —
F. Practical Utility
................................................. 5-117 —G.
Completion of the Invention .......................... 5-119 —H.
Evaluation of the Invention Date .................... 5-126 —I.
Requirements for Joint Inventor Signatures
and Explanation of Word Processing Records
............................................................. 5-126
—
J. Provisional Application Filing Date Serves as Effective Prior
Art Reference Date ............. 5-127 —
VII. When to Submit an Affidavit Under Rule 131 ...... 5-129 —
VIII. Failure to Antedate as Related to Presumption
of Obviousness
........................................................ 5-129 —
IX. Relationship Between Antedating Under
Rule 131 and Interference Practice ...................... 5-130
— X. Antedating Prior Art Reference by Showing
Derivation
...............................................................
5-131 —A. Requirements for Overcoming Prior Art
That Is Applicant’s Own Invention ................. 5-132 —B.
Personal Reduction of Invention to Practice
to Show Derivation ...........................................
5-134 —C. Authors of Prior Art Technical Papers ............ 5-136
—D. Possession of Critical Features of the
Invention
.......................................................... 5-136
—E. Independently Derived Invention .................. 5-137 —
6. Exceptions to Patent-Eligible Subject Matter ............ 6-1
105 I. General Purposes of Section 101 ...........................
6-12 —
A. Seeds and Seed-Grown Plants Are Statutory Subject Matter
.................................................. 6-21 —1.
Discovery of New and Distinct Varieties
of White Oak Tree Held Not Eligible for Plant Patent
............................................... 6-26 —
-
liiiDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
B. The America Invents Act—Tax Strategies Cannot Distinguish
Invention Over Prior Art
.....................................................................
6-30 —
C. The America Invents Act—Human Organism Not Eligible for
Patent Protection
......................................................... 6-31
—
D. Scope of Claims Not Relevant to Subject Matter Eligibility
for Synthetic, Man-Made Compound
....................................................... 6-32 —
E. Supreme Court Dismisses Certiorari on Whether Invention That
Diagnoses Vitamin Deficiency Is a Law of Nature
.......................... 6-35 —
F. Method of Administering Drug and Determining Metabolite Level
Held Patentable Subject Matter by the Federal Circuit; Supreme
Court Reverses .................... 6-37 —1. Federal Circuit
Reaffirms That
Administering Drugs to Body and Performing Clinical Tests on
Individuals Are Transformative and Statutory Subject Matter
........................................... 6-46 —
2. Supreme Court Reverses and Holds Claimed Natural Correlations
Between Drug Doses and Toxin Levels Not Patent Eligible
........................................... 6-54 —
3. Patent Office Provides Preliminary Guidance to Examiners on
Prometheus Decision
..................................................... 6-62 —
4. Patent Office Issues New Examining Process in View of
Prometheus .................. 6-63 —
G. Federal Circuit Invalidates Immunization Patent; Supreme
Court Vacates and Remands
........................................................... 6-65
—1. Method of Lowering Risk of Health
Disorder Using Immunization Schedule Held Patent Eligible;
Method of Determining Whether Immunization Schedule Affects Health
Disorder Held Not Patent Eligible
................................... 6-67 —
H. District Court Holds Isolated DNA Sequences and Method Claims
for Using Same Are Non-Statutory Subject Matter; Federal Circuit
Reverses in Part; Supreme Court Vacates and Remands; Federal
Circuit Again Reverses in Part; Supreme Court Grants Certiorari
.............................................. 6-75 —
-
liv Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
1. Federal Circuit Reverses in Part and Holds That Isolated
Human DNA Molecules Are Eligible for Patent Protection; Supreme
Court Vacates and Remands
............................................ 6-77 —
2. On Remand, Federal Circuit Reaffirms That Isolated DNA
Molecules Are Patent Eligible
........................................... 6-89 —
3. Supreme Court Holds Isolated DNA Not Patent Eligible, but
That cDNA Is Patent Eligible
.......................................... 6-92 —
4. DNA Primers and Diagnostic Methods to Identify Genetic
Mutations Held Not Patent Eligible
.......................................... 6-94 —
I. Federal Circuit Reaffirms That Treatment Methods Are
Transformative When Drug Administered to Body
...................................... 6-100 —
J. Prenatal Noninvasive Diagnostic Methods for Determining Risk
of Fetal Down Syndrome Held Not Patent Eligible ...............
6-104 —
K. Live-Born Clone Not Patent Eligible Because It Was an Exact
Genetic Copy of Donor ......... 6-108 —
L. Patent Office Issues Revised Guidelines for Claims Reciting
or Involving Laws of Nature
...............................................................
6-112 —
M. Method for Prenatal Diagnosis of Fetal Abnormalities Held Not
Patent Eligible ........ 6-114 —
N. Patent Office Issues New Examples of Patent-Eligible Life
Science Claims ................ 6-121 —
O. Abstract Idea: Wagering Game Rules Using Real or Virtual
Standard Playing Cards Held Abstract and Not Patent-Eligible
........... 6-122 —
P. Method of Twice Thawing and Re-freezing Liver Cells Held
Patent Eligible: Repeating Step That Prior Art Taught Should be
Performed Only Once Was Not Routine ........ 6-125 —
Q. Memorandum to Examiners for When a Claim Is “Directed To” a
Law of Nature ......... 6-132 —
II. Utility Rejections
.................................................... 6-133 —A.
Introduction to Prima Facie Case of
Nonutility
.......................................................... 6-134
—B. Attacking a Prima Facie Case of Nonutility .... 6-137 —
-
lvDetailed Table of Contents
MainVolume
Supple- ment
1. Invention Useful Even Though It Has Capacity to Fool Some
Members of Public
......................................................... 6-143
—
2. Components of Assays for Monitoring Gene Expression Did Not
Provide “Substantial” Degree of Utility ................. 6-144
—
C. Rebutting a Prima Facie Case of Nonutility ... 6-154 —1.
Anecdotal Documents or Documents
Not Having Had Peer Review May Be Used to Show Inoperability
...................... 6-157 —
D. Asserting More Than One Utility .................... 6-158
—E. Utility of Chemical Compounds and
Processes
........................................................... 6-160
—1. Chemical Compounds Demonstrated
Using Laboratory Animals ....................... 6-160 —2.
Chemical Intermediates ........................... 6-162 —3.
Therapeutic Compounds ......................... 6-163 —4. Chemical
Compounds Demonstrated
Using In Vitro and In Vivo Tests .............. 6-164 —5.
Negative Limitations “Non–Naturally
Occurring,” “Nonhuman,” and “Not Isolated” Avoid Statutory
Subject Matter Rejection .......................................
6-165 —
F. Relationship Between Utility and Operability
........................................................ 6-169 —1.
Claim Must Recite Impossible
Limitation for All Embodiments to Lack Utility
................................................ 6-171 —
G. Relationship Between Utility and Reduction to Practice
......................................................... 6-174
—
H. Relationship Between Utility and Priority From Earlier-Filed
Applications ...................... 6-176 —
I. Selected Decisions Regarding Sufficiency of Statements of
Utility ......................................... 6-177 —
J. Computer-Based System for Comparing Nucleic Acid Sequences
Did Not Disclose Specific Utility
................................................. 6-179 —
III. Printed Matter Rejections
...................................... 6-182 —A. Introduction to
Printed Matter Rejections ..... 6-182 —B. Determining the Line
Between Patentable
and Unpatentable Inventions Related to Printed Matter
.................................................. 6-184 —
-
lvi Patent Prosecution—2018 Supplement
MainVolume
Supple- ment
1. Claim Term Considered Printed Matter Only If It Claims
Content of Information
............................................... 6-187 —
C. Cases Involving Statutory Subject Matter Rejections
......................................................... 6-191 —1.
Perforated Railway Ticket: Statutory
Subject Matter ........................................... 6-191
—2. Encoder Pattern Disc: Statutory Subject
Matter ........................................................
6-191 —3. Paper Indexes: Not Statutory Subject
Matter ........................................................
6-193 —4. Map Projection Method: Not Statutory
Subject Matter ........................................... 6-194
—5. Building Valuation Chart: Not Statutory
Subject Matter ........................................... 6-195
—6. Meat Marking Method: Not Statutor