William John Stoffel Esq.

Patent and IP Law

Home
Personnel
Services
Patent
Trademark
Consultations
IP Blog
Bulletins
Sitemap
Client portal
Contact Us
IP Blog
  
 
Title Summary Body
Senate Patent Reform Leaders Release Amendments - March 12, 2008  
3/12/2008, Senator Leahy issued a press release detailing more than a dozen dozen possible amendments to important patent reform legislation awaiting consideration in the Senate.
 
3/12/2008, Senator Leahy issued a press release detailing more than a dozen dozen possible amendments to important patent reform legislation awaiting consideration in the Senate.
 

The amendments released include:

 

  • “Best Mode” – eliminates ‘best mode’ as a ground for invalidating a patent, but maintains it as a requirement to obtain a patent
  • Ex Parte Provision – restores third party ex-parte reexamination
  • Federal Circuit Judges – ensures that any Federal Circuit judge who does not reside within a 50-mile radius of Washington, DC, must use the chambers of an existing courthouse in the district where they reside
  • Interference – technical amendment to allow for appeal to the Federal Circuit of USPTO board interference decisions commenced prior to the date of the Act
  • Interference – amends the bill to delete interference-related provisions and replace with new derivation-related provisions
  • Interlocutory Appeals – limits interlocutory appeals of claim construction orders to those for which the District Court determines there is a reasonable basis for disagreement and the appeal may advance the ultimate termination of the litigation
  • Marking Provision – deletes the marking provision in the bill and maintains the current law
  • “Objective Recklessness” – codifies the Federal Circuit court’s ruling in Seagate, holding that infringement is only willful if the infringer acts with objective recklessness of the patent
  • Patent and Trademark Board Judges – ensures that the appointment of patent and trademark judges is consistent with the Appointments Clause
  • Patent Board Judges – technical amendment to clarify that the Patent Board’s duties include the conduction of derivation proceedings
  • Post-Grant Review – technical amendment to delete a redundancy in sec. 338 as created in S 1145
  • Post-Grant Review – corrects an inconsistency between S 337 (1) and (2), to preclude requesting or maintaining a post-grant review proceeding after a final decision in litigation on the same patent, based on any issue that was raised or could have been raised, in the litigation
  • Post-Grant Review – defines “final decision” in the estoppel provision
  • Post-Grant Review – technical amendment to delete a redundancy
  • Severability – establishes a severability clause in the bill
 
To download all of the above amendments, click here
Related links
 
 
 
 
test entry  
need to delete
 
need to delete
 
Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, a means-plus-function term in a computer implement claim must be supported by an example algorithm  

he CFAC held that to satisfy  35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, for a means-plus-function term  in a computer implement claim, the specification must disclose an example  ( "structure") algorithm for that means-plus-function term.  

 

Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, a means-plus-function term  in a computer implement claim must be supported by an  example  algorithm

Aristocrat Technologies Australia (ATA) v. International Gaming Technology (IGT) (2007-1419) (Fed. Cir. 2008)  http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/07-1419.pdf

The CFAC held that to satisfy  35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, for a means-plus-function term  in a computer implement claim, the specification must disclose an example  ( "structure") algorithm for that means-plus-function term.  

The court stated that the patentee


"was not required to produce a listing of source code or a highly detailed description of the algorithm to be used to achieve the claimed functions in order to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. It was required, however, to at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a “special purpose  computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.” WMS Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1349

 

Practice tip: include algorithm for computer mean plus function claim. Also write additional claim types without means plus function terms.
 
 
Title
Senate Patent Reform Leaders Release Amendments - March 12, 2008  
test entry  
Under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6, a means-plus-function term in a computer implement claim must be supported by an example algorithm