• Webinar on New Developments in Patent-Eligibility

    McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP will be offering a live webinar entitled “New Developments in Patent-Eligibility with a Focus on the Abstract Idea Exception” on February 20, 2019 from 10:00 am to 11:15 am (CT). In this presentation, MBHB attorney and Patent Docs author Michael Borella will provide an up-to-date overview of recent 35 U.S.C. Section 101 happenings, with topics including: • An overview of the important Section 101 case law from 2018, including the impact of Berkheimer v. HP • How to rebut specific types of Section 101 invalidity contentions • A discussion of claim drafting to survive…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Webinar on Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings

    Strafford will be offering a webinar entitled “Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield — Addressing Section 112 Issues in IPR Petitions, Establishing Priority or Earlier Critical Date of Asserted Reference, and More” on February 14, 2019 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST). Jonathan R. Bowser of Unified Patents and Roger H. Lee of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney will provide guidance on Section 112 issues that arise during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, address the PTAB’s response to assertions that claims do not comply with § 112, discuss related claim construction…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Webinar on Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings

    Strafford will be offering a webinar entitled “Section 112 Issues in IPR Proceedings: Using Section 112 as a Sword or a Shield — Addressing Section 112 Issues in IPR Petitions, Establishing Priority or Earlier Critical Date of Asserted Reference, and More” on February 14, 2019 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST). Jonathan R. Bowser of Unified Patents and Roger H. Lee of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney will provide guidance on Section 112 issues that arise during an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, address the PTAB’s response to assertions that claims do not comply with § 112, discuss related claim construction…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Webinar on Biotech Patents and Section 101 Rejections

    Strafford will be offering a webinar entitled “Biotech Patents and Section 101 Rejections: Meeting Patent Eligibility Requirements — Leveraging Recent Decisions and USPTO Guidance to Overcome Rejections” on February 12, 2019 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST). Amanda K. Murphy, Steven P. O’Connor, Sanya Sukduang, and Sara A. Leiman of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner will guide patent counsel for overcoming § 101 rejections for biotech patents, review recent case law and USPTO guidance on § 101 patent eligibility, and offer strategies to address § 101 rejections. The webinar will review the following issues: • The impact of the…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Webinar on Biotech Patents and Section 101 Rejections

    Strafford will be offering a webinar entitled “Biotech Patents and Section 101 Rejections: Meeting Patent Eligibility Requirements — Leveraging Recent Decisions and USPTO Guidance to Overcome Rejections” on February 12, 2019 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST). Amanda K. Murphy, Steven P. O’Connor, Sanya Sukduang, and Sara A. Leiman of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner will guide patent counsel for overcoming § 101 rejections for biotech patents, review recent case law and USPTO guidance on § 101 patent eligibility, and offer strategies to address § 101 rejections. The webinar will review the following issues: • The impact of the…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Webinar on Conducting and Analyzing Prior Art Searches

    Strafford will be offering a webinar entitled “Conducting and Analyzing Prior Art Searches — Strategies for Validity, Patentability, Infringement, FTO and State-of-the-Art Searches” on February 27, 2019 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST). Thomas L. Irving and Christopher C. Johns of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, Kim Jordahl of KSJLaw, and Stephanie Curcio of Legalicity will guide patent counsel on structuring and conducting prior art searches, discuss reporting of search results and offer best practices for analyzing prior art searches to maximize patent protection. The webinar will review the following issues: • What are the critical considerations when determining…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Webinar on Conducting and Analyzing Prior Art Searches

    Strafford will be offering a webinar entitled “Conducting and Analyzing Prior Art Searches — Strategies for Validity, Patentability, Infringement, FTO and State-of-the-Art Searches” on February 27, 2019 from 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EST). Thomas L. Irving and Christopher C. Johns of Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, Kim Jordahl of KSJLaw, and Stephanie Curcio of Legalicity will guide patent counsel on structuring and conducting prior art searches, discuss reporting of search results and offer best practices for analyzing prior art searches to maximize patent protection. The webinar will review the following issues: • What are the critical considerations when determining…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Oral argument of the week

    The oral argument of the week is from the September oral argument of AUTOMATION MIDDLEWARE SOLUTIONS, INC. v. INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC., No. 2017-2187 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 17, 2018). I thought this oral argument was particularly interesting for Judge Hughes’ comments about where one should draw the line when claims are related to software. You can […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • ~することにより~される(する)

                            目次はこちら

    ~することにより~される(する)

    by ~ingのパターンが多い。

    (BY —ING)
    $$ By making the case UV opaque, the UV energy is then prevented from leaking during sterilisation. / このケースを紫外線非透過性とすることにより、殺菌時の紫外線エネルギーの漏れが防止される。(USP6028315)

    $$ By making the biasing constant αg greater than 1, the scaling factors are correspondingly increased closer to 1, so that their effect on the input signal samples is reduced. / バイアス定数αgを1より大とすることにより、スケーリング係数すなわち、調整係数は、1に近づくように大きくなり、したがって調整係数の入力信号に対する効果は低減される。(USP6614489)

    $$ The filter according to claim 25, in which the ridges are formed by using one of X-ray and ultra-violet interference patterns transferred by lithographic and etching processes. / 上記張り出し部は、リソグラフ及びエッチングプロセスにより転写されるX線又は紫外線干渉パターンを使用することにより形成される請求項25に記載のフィルタ。(USP6788479)

    (無生物主語)
    $$ Once the third liquid has passed along the conduit and reaches the first barrier, contact between the third liquid and the first barrier causes the first barrier to be removed / 一旦第3の液体が導管に沿って進んで第1の障壁に到達すると、第3の液体と第1の障壁が接触することによって、第1の障壁が除去される。(USP8104949): contact

    $$ The presence of activated charcoal immediately upstream of the catalyst significantly improves CO reduction. / 触媒のすぐ上流に活性チャコールが存在することによって著しく一酸化炭素を減少させる。(USP8104484): presence

    $$ Rotation of the gear 43 causes the gear 44 to counter-rotate as shown, drawing a water/fuel mixture from the inlet 32 around the periphery of the chamber 45 and out of the outlet 33. / 歯車43が回転することにより、歯車44を図示のように逆回転させ、水/燃料の混合液を注入口32からチャンバ45の周囲に沿って引き込み、排出口33から排出させる。(USP8042693): rotation

    $$ The use of reversible downconversion means considerably reduces the amount of circuitry required in a phased array module as compared to the prior art. / 可逆下方変換手段を使用することにより、従来技術に比べ位相アレイモジュールに必要とされる回路の数がかなり軽減される。(USP6441783): use

    $$ The addition of hole 130 effectively creates a region that can support propagation constants different from those supported in the rest of the fiber. / 孔130を追加することにより、ファイバの残部でサポートされる伝搬定数と異なる伝搬定数をサポート可能な領域が有効に形成される。(USP6631234): addition

    $$ In consequence, application of a bias voltage across contacts 18a and 18c results in the minority carrier concentration in the layer 12 becoming depleted because holes are removed from it but not fully replenished. / その結果、接触18aと18cの間にバイアス電圧を印加することにより、正孔が層12から除去されるが完全には補充されないので、層12中の少数キャリア濃度は欠乏する。(USP6809514): application

    $$ Comparison of the gradients of these two curves shows that the variation of mobility with temperature T is also slightly reduced by extraction. / これらの2つの曲線の勾配を比較することにより、温度Tに伴う移動度の変化も抽出によってわずかに減少することがわかる。(USP6809514): comparison

    (THROUGH)
    $$ This can be achieved through the application of the following equation: / これは、以下の等式の適用によって達成することができる。(USP7006435)

    $$ The yaw moment is thus delivered through the use of a counter rotated nozzle alignment. / このように、ヨーイング運動は反対回動されるノズル列を使用することにより得られる。(USP7581381)

    $$ In the presently described embodiment, this is achieved through assessment of the motor torque required to turn the motor from standstill against the prevailing reaction force. / 本実施例においては、これは、主な反力に抗して静止状態からモータを回転させるために必要なモータトルクを評価することにより達成される。(USP6132010)

    $$ The calibration process may be repeated at intervals to correct for small drifts in performance, e.g. through changes in temperature over time. / 較正プロセスは、例えば時間の経過とともに温度が変化することによる性能における小さなずれを修正するために時々繰り返されてよい。(USP8078663)

    (OTHERS)
    $$ The response to the "K" command is verified using an internal challenge/response function in the TP 41. / “K”コマンドに対する応答は、TP41中の内部チャレンジ/応答機能を使用することにより照合される。(USP6073174): ~ing

    $$ This is achieved by reference to a model/graph of the motor and accumulator system as shown in FIG. 14. / これは、図14に示すようなモータとアキュムレータシステムのモデル/グラフを参照することにより達成される。(USP6132010): by reference to

    $$ Such flexibility is frequently achieved by the use of plasticisers having a relatively low molecular weight with respect to that of the host polymer. / 可撓性は、しばしば材料ポリマーに対して低分子量の可塑剤を使用することによりもたらされる。(USP6200677): by the use of

    $$ The different vision control effects are enabled by selection of base patterns, designs and lighting conditions applied to panels. / 異なった視認制御効果が、ベースパターン、デザイン及びパネルに照射される光の状態を選択することによって、得られる。(USP6212805): by selection of

    $$ The cantilever 8 is urged into contact by an electric field that may be generated either by the application of an appropriate voltage to a switching electrode 10 or by generation of sufficient potential on the substrate 2. / カンチレバー8は、スイッチング電極10に適切な電圧を印加することにより、または、基板2に十分な電圧を発生させることにより発生可能な電界により接触するよう付勢される。(USP6509605): by the application of

    $$ This includes sensors for carrying out in vitro testing, whose accuracy may be affected by increased bacterial counts. / これには、バクテリア数が増大することにより精度が悪影響を受けることがある生体外試験を行うためのセンサーが含まれる。(USP8141409): by PP sth

    $$ Since the gearing diaphragm forms a part of the pumping chamber 25, the volume of the pumping chamber 25 can be increased, or decreased, by operation of the actuator 23. / 連動ダイヤフラムがポンプ室25の一部を形成しているため、アクチュエータ23が動作することによりポンプ室25の体積を増加させたり減少させたりすることができる。(USP8048041): by…of sth

    $$ This is achieved by the user entering software commands to instruct the processing unit (14) to create the necessary links. / これは、必要なリンクを作成するように処理装置(14)に命令するソフトウェアコマンドを、ユーザが入力することによって達成される。(USP7578441): by sb V-ing

    $$ This effect is caused by saturated elements of the CCD array affecting nearby elements. / この効果は、CCD配列の近接した素子同士が飽和することによって生ぜしめられる。(USP7580137): by PP sth

    $$ This figure of 50% occurred for a wavelength of 1.3 μm and increased with increasing wavelength due to the corresponding increase in the mode field diameter of the light in the fibre. / この50%の数字は波長1.3μで生じ、ファイバ中の光のモードフィールド直径の対応した増加により波長が増加することにより増加する。(USP5903685): due to

                            目次はこちら

    Continue Reading ...
  • "Consumer Watchdog" case cited in Momenta case on standing


    Momenta argues that since the purpose of the America
    Invents Act is to provide an alternative to district court litigation,
    appeal should be available from the PTAB as it
    would be available from a district court decision. Momenta
    states that the estoppel provision provides injury-in-fact,
    and that this suffices to support constitutional standing.
    However, estoppel of Momenta is irrelevant now that Momenta has
    “exited” its development of the Orencia® product. Estoppel cannot constitute an injury-in-fact when
    Momenta “is not engaged in any activity that would give
    rise to a possible infringement suit.” Consumer Watchdog,
    753 F.3d at 1262; see also Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S.
    693, 704 (2013) (the party must be in the position of
    “seek[ing] a remedy for a personal and tangible harm”);
    Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916, 1929 (2018) (“the requirement
    of such a personal stake [in the outcome] ‘ensures
    that courts exercise power that is judicial in nature’”
    (quoting Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 441 (2007))).

    Continue Reading ...
  • Continental Circuits prevails in appeal against Intel at CAFC

    The outcome indicated an error in claim construction by the district court of Arizona:

    Continental Circuits LLC appeals from the judgment
    of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
    of noninfringement of the asserted claims of U.S. Patents 7,501,582
    (“the ’582 patent”); 8,278,560 (“the ’560
    patent”); 8,581,105 (“the ’105 patent”); and 9,374,912 (“the
    ’912 patent”). See Final Judgment, Cont’l Circuits LLC v.
    Intel Corp., No. 16-2026 (D. Ariz. Sept. 12, 2017), ECF No.
    273. The parties stipulated to a judgment of noninfringement,
    see Stipulation & Joint Motion, Cont’l Circuits LLC
    v. Intel Corp., No. 16-2026 (D. Ariz. Sept. 7, 2017), ECF No.
    266, based on the district court’s claim construction of certain claim terms,
    see Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., No.
    16-2026, 2017 WL 3478659 (D. Ariz. Aug. 9, 2017) (“Claim
    Construction Order”). Because we conclude that the district court erred
    in its claim construction, we vacate the
    judgment of noninfringement and remand for further proceedings.

    An issue was reading a limitation into the claims:

    The district court construed the Category 1 Terms to
    require that the “surface,” “removal,” or “etching” of the
    dielectric material be “produced by a repeated desmear process.”
    See Claim Construction Order, 2017 WL 3478659, at
    *2–3 (emphasis added). The district court concluded that
    Intel had “met the exacting standard required” to read a
    limitation into the claims. Id. at *3. Specifically, the district court
    found that the specification not only “repeatedly
    distinguishe[d] the process covered by the patent from the
    prior art and its use of a ‘single desmear process,’” id. at *4,
    but also characterized “the present invention” as using a
    repeated desmear process, see id. at *5.

    The CAFC take on Teva is recited:


    Claim construction is ultimately a question of law that
    we review de novo. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
    135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015). Any subsidiary factual findings
    based on extrinsic evidence “must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.”
    Id. But “when the district court reviews
    only evidence intrinsic to the patent (the patent claims and
    specifications, along with the patent’s prosecution history),
    the judge’s determination will amount solely to a determination of law,”
    which we review de novo. Id.

    Continental prevailed:


    We agree with Continental that the district court erred
    in limiting the claims to require a repeated desmear process.
    In construing claims, district courts give claims their
    ordinary and customary meaning, which is “the meaning
    that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in
    the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips
    v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312–13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en
    banc). “[B]ecause patentees frequently use terms idiosyncratically,
    the court looks to” sources including “the words
    of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification,
    the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant
    scientific principles, the meaning of
    technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id. at 1314
    (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration
    Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004))

    Continue Reading ...
  • The meaning of "invention"

    35 U.S. Code § 100 (a) defines invention:

    The term “invention” means invention or discovery.

    However, note keydifferences.com states:


    Each and everything that surrounds us and we are using in our day to day
    life is either discovered or invented, by experts. Most people have
    a misconception regarding the words discovery and invention
    , due to
    which they end up with the supposition that these two are one and the same thing.
    But that is not true, as discovery means uncovering something, which already existed,
    but not recognised by anybody else before, i.e. finding something unexpected.

    On the other hand, the invention refers to creating something new and useful,
    with one’s ideas and experiments. In short, it means creating or designing something.
    So, check out this article to know the difference between discovery and invention in detail.

    link: https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-discovery-and-invention.html

    Withing episode 11 of the first year of the tv series “Numbers,” one finds Larry
    speaking to Charlie:

    Science you know, science, not this, but real science, is discovery, Charles.
    It’s not invention.
    The truths are there, whether we find them or not.

    link: https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=numb3rs&episode=s01e11

    Continue Reading ...