| |
| |
| Foreword | |
| |
| |
| |
| Preface | |
| |
| |
| Introduction | |
| |
| |
| |
| Claims Part 1: Basic Elements of a Claim | |
| |
| |
| |
| Claim Structure | |
| |
| |
| |
| Introduction | |
| |
| |
| |
| Example | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Class and Preamble | |
| |
| |
| |
| Transitional Phrases | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Claim Body | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Purpose Clause | |
| |
| |
| |
| Essential Form | |
| |
| |
| |
| Claim Fundamentals | |
| |
| |
| |
| Single Statutory Classification | |
| |
| |
| |
| Completeness | |
| |
| |
| |
| Definiteness | |
| |
| |
| |
| Dependent Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Claims Part 2: Types of Inventions and Types of Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Apparatus Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Method Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Product-by-Process Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Means-Plus-Function Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Markush Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Jepson Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Software and Beauregard Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Chemical Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Pharmaceutical Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Business Methods Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Claims Part 3: Claim Construction | |
| |
| |
| |
| Choosing Essential Elements | |
| |
| |
| |
| Broad vs. Narrow Claiming | |
| |
| |
| |
| Apparatus Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Method Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Choice of Language | |
| |
| |
| |
| Punctuation | |
| |
| |
| |
| Plural Elements | |
| |
| |
| |
| Ranges and Measurements | |
| |
| |
| |
| Brevity | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Summary of the Invention and the Abstract | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Summary of the Invention | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Abstract | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Specification | |
| |
| |
| |
| Title | |
| |
| |
| |
| Priority Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Background of the Invention | |
| |
| |
| |
| Field of the Invention | |
| |
| |
| |
| Description of the Related Art | |
| |
| |
| |
| Brief Description of the Drawings | |
| |
| |
| |
| Detailed Description of the Preferred Embodiments | |
| |
| |
| |
| Language | |
| |
| |
| |
| Incorporation by Reference | |
| |
| |
| |
| Sequence Listings | |
| |
| |
| |
| Deposit of Biological Material | |
| |
| |
| |
| Best Mode Requirement | |
| |
| |
| |
| Enablement | |
| |
| |
| |
| Miscellaneous Considerations | |
| |
| |
| |
| Information Disclosure Statement | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Drawings | |
| |
| |
| |
| 35 U.S.C. � 101: Utility and Patentable Subject Matter | |
| |
| |
| |
| Patentable Inventions | |
| |
| |
| |
| General Utility Requirement | |
| |
| |
| |
| Mental Steps | |
| |
| |
| |
| Printed Matter | |
| |
| |
| |
| Products of Nature | |
| |
| |
| |
| 35 U.S.C. �112: Enablement, Form, and Language | |
| |
| |
| |
| First Paragraph | |
| |
| |
| |
| Written Description | |
| |
| |
| |
| Enablement, Inoperability, and Best Mode | |
| |
| |
| |
| Second Paragraph | |
| |
| |
| |
| Articles of Speech | |
| |
| |
| |
| Alternative Language | |
| |
| |
| |
| Negative Limitations | |
| |
| |
| |
| Relative Language | |
| |
| |
| |
| Sixth Paragraph: Means-for Language | |
| |
| |
| |
| 35 U.S.C. �102 and �103: Considering Prior Art | |
| |
| |
| |
| A More Complex Example with Prior Art Considerations | |
| |
| |
| |
| Client's Original Disclosure | |
| |
| |
| |
| Prior Art Search and Analysis | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Essential Elements and the Point of Novelty | |
| |
| |
| |
| Sketches | |
| |
| |
| |
| Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Summary | |
| |
| |
| |
| Abstract | |
| |
| |
| |
| Specification | |
| |
| |
| |
| Finalized Drawings | |
| |
| |
| |
| Issued Patent | |
| |
| |
| |
| Prosecution using the Complex Example | |
| |
| |
| |
| Office Action | |
| |
| |
| |
| Examiner's Cited Prior Art | |
| |
| |
| |
| Interview | |
| |
| |
| |
| Amendment | |
| |
| |
| |
| Notice of Allowance | |
| |
| |
| |
| Algorithms, Business Methods, Computers, and Software | |
| |
| |
| |
| Introduction | |
| |
| |
| |
| Overview | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Supreme Court Trilogy | |
| |
| |
| |
| Bilski v. Kappos | |
| |
| |
| |
| Background of Bilski | |
| |
| |
| |
| The CAFC Decision | |
| |
| |
| |
| Conclusion | |
| |
| |
| |
| Patent Office Guidelines and the Post-Bilski Aftermath | |
| |
| |
| |
| Post-Bilski Case Law | |
| |
| |
| |
| USPTO Guidelines | |
| |
| |
| |
| Latest Application of Bilski | |
| |
| |
| |
| Claiming | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Specification | |
| |
| |
| |
| Further Examples of Different Classes and Types of Applications | |
| |
| |
| |
| Apparatus | |
| |
| |
| |
| Method/Process | |
| |
| |
| |
| Product-by-Process | |
| |
| |
| |
| Improvement with Jepson Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Computers, Algorithms, Software, and Business Methods | |
| |
| |
| |
| Chemical | |
| |
| |
| |
| Pharmaceutical and Treatment Methods | |
| |
| |
| |
| Strategy and Enforcement | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Doctrine of Claim Differentiation | |
| |
| |
| |
| The Usage of Dependent Claims | |
| |
| |
| |
| Target Claiming | |
| |
| |
| |
| Realistic Enforcement | |
| |
| |
| |
| Design Patent Applications | |
| |
| |
| Appendices | |
| |
| |
| |
| Example of Complete Application and Forms for Filing | |
| |
| |
| |
| Claim Drafting Checklist | |
| |
| |
| |
| Glossary | |
| |
| |
| |
| USPTO Interim Examination Instructions (August 24, 2009) | |
| |
| |
| |
| USPTO Interim Business Method Training Material (August 2009) | |
| |
| |
| |
| USPTO Guidelines for Business Methods (July 27, 2010) | |
| |
| |
| |
| 35 U.S.C. �101-Practical Tips | |
| |
| |
| |
| Update on Business Method Patents and Best Practices to Streamline Examination | |
| |
| |
| |
| More on Business Methods | |
| |
| |
| |
| Bibliography | |
| |
| |
| Index | |