Patent-ip.com

Home
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