162
xvii Foreword ............................................................................. ix Preface ................................................................................. xiii ix Preface to Patent Prosecution’s Cumulative Online Case Digest, and Suggestions for How to Use the Materials ...... xix xiii Summary 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 Main Volume Supple- ment

Detailed Table of Contents - NGB · xvii Foreword ..... ix — Preface ..... xiiiix

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    5

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 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