Patent Prosecution: Advocacy in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

Chapter 1 PREFACE


 
 Chapter 2 INTRODUCTION

 A. AN INVENTION CASE STUDY
 
 Adam Mossoff, The Rise and Fall of the First American Patent Thicket: The Sewing Machine War of the 1850s
 
 B. REVIEW OF SOME BASICS 

 1. Patents Rights are Statutory
 
 2. Patents Protect Inventions
 
 3. A Right to Exclude, Not a Right to Practice 

 4. Patents are Territorial
 
 5. Utility Patent Applications: Provisional and Non-Provisional
 
 6. Filing Date and Right of Priority

 Problem

 7. Patent Applications Publish 18 Months from the Earliest Priority Date

 Problem

 8. Example of the Use of Patent

 C. THE LIFE OF A PATENT
 
 1. Conception
 
 2. Invention Disclosure Form 

 3. Patentability Determination
 
 a. Prior Art Search
 
 4. Inventor Meeting
 
 5. Patent Application Drafting, Filing, and Prosecution
 
 6. Notice of Allowance and Issuance
 
 D. INTRODUCTION TO PATENT EXAMINATION 

 E. PARTS OF A PATENT APPLICATION
 
 1. An Introduction to the Parts of a Patent Specification
 
 2. Bibliographic Information
 
 3. Background of the Invention
 
 a. Field of the Invention
 
 b. Description of Related Art
 
 4. Summary of the Invention
 
 5. Brief Description of Drawings
 
 6. Detailed Description 

 7. Abstract of the Disclosure
 
 Problems

 F. INTRODUCTION TO PATENT CLAIMS 

 Workbook

 Problems

 G. INTRODUCTION TO FOREIGN PATENT PROSECUTION 

 1. Foreign Right of Priority

 2. International Filing Process
 
 a. Patent Cooperation Treaty
 
 b. Regional Patent Offices and the European Patent Office 

 3. Absolute Novelty 

 Problems


 
 Chapter 3 WHAT CLAIMS MEAN

 A. TRADITIONAL BUT NOW-OUTDATED CANONS OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
 
 B. MODERN RULES FOR CONSTRUING CLAIMS IN COURT
 
 1. Primacy of the Intrinsic Evidence 

 Phillips v. AWH Corp.
 
 Problems

 2. Rule Against Importing Limitations from the Specification Versus Construing Terms in View of the Specification
 
 Rhine v. Casio, Inc. 
 
 ICU Medical v. Alaris Medical Systems
 
 3. Prosecution History Statements Affect Claim Construction 

 Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. The Berkline Corp.
 
 4. Claim Differentiation
 
 Modine Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n 
 
 Problem

 C. CLAIM INTERPRETATION IN THE PATENT OFFICE
 
 M.P.E.P. § 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
 
 M.P.E.P. § 2111.01 Plain Meaning
 
 1. Patent Office Standard Explained
 
 Ex Parte Miyazaki 

 Problems

 Workbook

 D. EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE PROSECUTION 

 1. EPO Guidelines for Claim Interpretation
 
 2. Effect on U.S. Claim Scope by Statements Made to Foreign Patent Offices

 
 
 Chapter 4 THE MECHANICS OF CLAIMS

 A. INTRODUCTION TO CLAIMS TYPES
 
 B. CLAIM STRUCTURE AND CONTENT 

 1. Antecedent Basis
 
 M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(e). Lack of Antecedent Basis
 
 M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(e). A Claim Term Which Has No Antecedent 

 Basis in the Disclosure Is Not Necessarily Indefinite 

 2. Claim Preamble 


 3. Claim Transitional Phrase
 
 M.P.E.P. § 2111.03. Transitional Phrases

 Problem

 4. Claim Body
 
 5. Introduction to Drafting Claims
 
 6. Independent and Dependent Claims
 
 M.P.E.P. § 608.01(N). Dependent Claims 

 Dennis Crouch, Theory of Dependent Claims: Survey Results
 
 Problems

 7. Basis for Claim Terminology in Description
 
 M.P.E.P. § 608.01(O). Basis for Claim Terminology in Description
 
 8. Relative Terminology
 
 M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(B). Relative Terminology
 
 Problems

 9. Applicant Can Be His Own Lexicographer
 
 M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(A). New Terminology
 
 10. Functional Limitations
 
 M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(G). Functional Limitations
 
 M.P.E.P. § 2114 Apparatus and Article Claims — Functional Language
 
 Problem

 11. Negative Limitations
 
 M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(I). Negative Limitations
 
 Problem

 C. TYPES OF CLAIMS 

 1. Apparatus, Composition of Matter, and Method Claims 

 2. Jepson Claims
 
 M.P.E.P. § 2129. Admissions as Prior Art
 
 Aaron R. Feigelson, Endangered Species: The Jepson Claim
 
 3. Markush Claims
 
 M.P.E.P. § 803.02. Markush Claims 

 4. Product by Process Claims 

 Abbott Labs v. Sandoz
 
 Problems

 D. PREAMBLES AND THEIR EFFECT 

 American Medical v. Biolitec
 
 Problems

 E. MEANS-PLUS-FUNCTION LIMITATIONS 

 Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC 
 
 Cole v. Kimberly Clark
 
 Chiuminatta Concrete v. Cardinal Indus.  
 
 Problems


 
 Chapter 5 PRINCIPLES OF CLAIMING

 A. PATENT ELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER
 
 Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l 
 
 Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 
 
 B. INDEFINITENESS IN COURT: REASONABLE CERTAINTY STANDARD
 
 Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. 
 
 C. INDEFINITENESS UNDER THE PATENT OFFICE STANDARD 

 Ex Parte Miyazaki
 
 Problem

 D. INDEFINITENESS OF CLAIMING AESTHETICS 

 Datamize v. Plumtree Software
 
 E. INDEFINITENESS BY MIXING STATUTORY CLASSES 

 IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com
 
 F. DEFINING STRUCTURE BY ITS RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER STRUCTURE
 
 In the Matter of the Application of J. William Venezia
 
 In Re Raymod Giannelli
 
 G. CLAIMING ONE OR MORE, PRIMACY OF THE SPECIFICATION 

 Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp.  
 
 Problem

 H. PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
 
 Adams Respiratory Therapeutics v. Perrigo Co. 
 
 I. WEIGHT GIVEN TO INSTRUCTIONS 

 Astrazeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc.  
 
 Problem

 J. DRAFTING ERRORS 

 Chef America v. Lamb-Weston

 K. CLAIM DRAFTING SPECIFICS
 
 Hal Wegner, Ten Patent Drafting Rules in the Era of Nautilus and Limelight
 
 Ron Slusky, Patent Prosecution Tips: Drafting Preambles
 
 Problems

 Workbook


 
 Chapter 6 CLAIMS AND INFRINGEMENT

 A. DIRECT AND INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT 

 Commil USA v. Cisco Systems 

 1. Direct Infringement
 
 2. Indirect Infringement: Contributory Infringement
 
 Ricoh Company Ltd. v. Quanta Computer Inc. 
 
 B. INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT: INDUCEMENT
 
 Commil USA v. Cisco Systems
 
 Astrazeneca v. Apotex
 
 Problem

 C. JOINT INFRINGEMENT
 
 1. Control or Direction Test
 
 Akamai v. Limelight Networks
 
 Problem

 2. Infringing Use of a Distributed System Under Section 271(a) 
 
 Centillion Data Systems, LLC v. Qwest Communications Int'l
 
 D. INFRINGEMENT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS
 
 1. Equivalents and the Presumption of Surrender
 
 Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co. 
 
 2. Rebutting the Presumption of Surrender 

 Primos, Inc. v. Hunter's Specialties, Inc.  
 
 3. All Elements Rule and Vitiation
 
 Freedman Seating Co. v. American Seating Co. 

 Primos, Inc. v. Hunter's Specialties, Inc.  
 
 Workbook


 
 Chapter 7 PRINCIPLES OF THE SPECIFICATION

 A. WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REQUIREMENT
 
 1. Possession of the Invention Standard for Written Description
 
 Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co.  
 
 2. Invalidity for Failure of the Written Description Requirement
 
 ICU Medical v. Alaris Medical Systems
 
 Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. The Berkline Corp. 
 
 Tronzo v. Biomet, Inc.  
 
 3. Relationship of Technical Problem to Claim Support
 
 Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc.  
 
 4. Drawings as Written Description Support
 
 Cooper Cameron Corp. v. Kvaerner Oilfield Products 

 5. Written Description Cases: A Higher Standard for Biotech Inventions? 

 B. CLAIM SUPPORT UNDER THE EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION 

 EPO Guidelines for Examination 6.1 & 6.3: Support in the Description and Objection of Lack of Support
 
 C. DISCLAIMER 

 1. Disclosed but Unclaimed Subject Matter is Dedicated to the Public
 
 Johnson & Johnston Assocs. Inc. v. R.E. Service Co., Inc. 
 
 2. Express Disclaimer
 
 Scimed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardio-Vascular Sys. Inc. 
 
 GE Lighting Solutions v. Agilight, Inc. 
 
 Problem

 3. Disclaimer During Prosecution

 Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. The Berkline Corp.  

 D. ENABLEMENT REQUIREMENT
 
 M.P.E.P. § 2164.03. Relationship of Predictability of the Art and the Enablement Requirement 

 1. Predictable Arts
 
 2. Unpredictable Arts
 
 3. Test of Enablement
 
 M.P.E.P. § 2164.01. Test of Enablement
 
 M.P.E.P. § 2164.01(A). Undue Experimentation Factors 

 M.P.E.P. § 2164.01(B). How to Make the Claimed Invention
 
 M.P.E.P. § 2164.01(C). How to Use the Claimed Invention
 
 4. Working Examples 

 M.P.E.P. § 2164.02. Working Example 

 Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc. 
 
 National Recovery Techs, Inc. v. Magnetic Separation Sys., Inc.  
 
 Workbook

 E. DISCLOSURE OF THE BEST MODE
 
 Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp.  
 
 M.P.E.P. § 2165.03. Requirements for Rejection for Lack of Best Mode: Assume Best Mode Is Disclosed Unless There is Evidence to the Contrary 

 
 
 Chapter 8 PRACTICAL PROSECUTION ASPECTS

 A. BASICS OF CONTINUATION PRACTICE
 
 In Re Chu
 
 Santarus v. Par Pharma 

 B. ADVOCACY IN CONTINUATION PRACTICE 

 Problem
 
 C. PARTS OF THE PATENT APPLICATION REVISITED 

 1. Overview of the Background Section
 
 2. Drafting the Field of the Invention Statement 

 3. Drafting the Background Section
 
 4. EPO Perspective of Description of the Prior Art 

 5. Drafting the Summary Section 

 Hal Wegner, Ten Patent Drafting Rules in the Era of Nautilus and Limelight
 
 M.P.E.P. § 608.01(D). Brief Summary of Invention
 
 6. Drafting The Brief Description Of Drawings
 
 7. Drafting The Detailed Description
 
 M.P.E.P. § 608.01(G). Detailed Description of Invention 

 8. Drafting the Abstract
 
 M.P.E.P. § 608.01(B). Guidelines for the Preparation of Patent Abstracts
 
 9. Boilerplate Language

 
 
 Chapter 9 OFFICE ACTION REJECTION AND RESPONSE

 A. REJECTION IS DISTINGUISHED FROM OBJECTION
 
 1. Claim Objections and Antecedent Basis

 B. ANTICIPATION 

 C. THE FUNDAMENTALS OF OBVIOUSNESS 

 KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 
 
 Muniauction v. Thomson
 
 D. INVENTIVE STEP IN THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE

 EPO Guidelines for Examination Part G: Patentabilty Chapter VII: Inventive Step 

 E. COMBINING PRIOR ART REFERENCES
 
 F. REBUTTING A PROPOSED COMBINATION OF REFERENCES 

 1. The Claimed Invention as a Whole Must Be Considered
 
 G. DISCOVERING SOURCE/CAUSE OF A PROBLEM IS PART OF "AS A WHOLE" INQUIRY
 
 1. Prior Art Must Be Considered in Its Entirety, Including Disclosures That Teach Away from the Claims
 
 2. The Proposed Modification Cannot Render the Prior Art Unsatisfactory for Its Intended Purpose
 
 3. The Proposed Modification Cannot Change the Principle of Operation of a Reference
 
 4. Reasonable Expectation of Success Is Required 

 H. REBUTTING A PRIMA FACIE REJECTION BASED ON OBVIOUSNESS 

 M.P.E.P. § 2145. Consideration of Applicant's Rebuttal Arguments
 
 1. Submitting Evidence to Rebut a Rejection
 
 2. Economic Infeasibility 

 3. The Age of References
 
 4. Non-Analogous Prior Art 

 5. Obvious to Try Rationale
 
 6. Impermissible Hindsight
 
 7. Secondary Considerations
 
 Transocean Deepwater Drilling, Inc. v. Maersk Contractors USA, Inc. 
 
 Problem
 
 Muniauction v. Thomson 
 
 8. Unexpected Results
 
 In Re Zenitz
 
 I. DOUBLE PATENTING 

 M.P.E.P. § 804. Definition of Double Patenting 

 1. Overcoming a Double Patenting Rejection
 
 Quad Environmental Techs. Corp. v. Union Sanitary Dist.  

 Workbook


 
 Chapter 10 INEQUITABLE CONDUCT

 A. DUTY OF CANDOR
 
 37 C.F.R. § 1.56. Duty To Disclose Information Material to Patentability 

 Therasense, Inc. v Becton, Dickinson and Co. 
 
 B. MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS 

 Ferring B.V. v. Barr Labs., Inc.  
 
 C. DUTY TO DISCLOSE CO-PENDING PROSECUTION 

 Dayco Products, Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc. 
 
 McKesson Information Solutions, Inc. v. Bridge Medical, Inc.  

 Problem 


 
 Chapter 11 SAMPLE ANSWERS

 A. PROBLEM ANSWERS
 
 B. WORKBOOK ANSWERS

 
 
 Table of Cases

 Index