Practical Guidance
Time-saving Solutions
Knowledgeable Insights

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

Partner, BakerHostetler, Philadelphia, and Adjunct Professor, Temple University Beasley School of Law & Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law
eBook :epub
$68.00
Quantity
In Stock
ISBN: 9781632832283
International Order Inquiry
Book Edition: 1CB

Product details

This book is suitable for a law school class on patent prosecution, which is advocacy in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Books on patent law are not helpful to a lawyer developing an argument for patentability, because they often apply patent office standards that are different from those in court. This book includes edited cases and problems with answers to illustrate the topics, and a single case study consistent throughout the book includes an invention story, developing a theory of patentability, preparing a patent application, surprises in the patent office, and a response to a patent examiner's rejection.

Table of Contents

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