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