Patent Law Practice Center

The Patentability Black Hole

Inventors in the unpredictable arts often have to face an unpredictable paradox when patenting an invention.  There seems to be a disconnect between requirements for an inventor to disclose an invention versus the prior art to render an invention unpatentable. Fenwick & West refer to this as the “patentability black hole”.  In this article, Fenwick & West discuss this dilemma and how to solve this patent law paradox.

An inventor faces a number of significant hurdles and pitfalls in patenting his invention. Having a patent specification providing proper and sufficiently thorough disclosure of the invention being claimed by the patentee can, by itself, be a large hurdle, especially in the biosciences where experimental data is essential. Section 112, first paragraph, of Title 35 of the United States Code sets forth the disclosure requirements that all patentees must meet. This section is commonly interpreted as requiring that a patent specification contain a full written description showing that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention at the time the patent application was filed (the “written description” requirement) and that a patent specification enable a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to make and use the invention based on the specification (the “enablement” requirement). See Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (2010). (more…)

Patent Drafting: Defining Computer Implemented Processes

The following post was written by Gene Quinn , of IPWatchdog and Practice Center Contributor.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office is radically updating the Patent Bar Examination starting in April 2011.  Since I teach the PLI Patent Bar Review Course that has required John White and I to revise our materials.  One of the new things tested will be the recently released 112 Guidelines, which are full of great information and explanation, particularly relating to computer implemented processes; what many would call software.  Being the “software guy” one of my responsibilities has been to work on the 112 Guidelines and the Bilski Guidelines for the PLI course.  So I thought I would take this opportunity to write, once again, about how to disclose computer implemented inventions to satisfy the disclosure requirements, which are embodied specifically in 35 U.S.C. § 112.

The statutory requirements for computer-implemented inventions are the same as for all inventions.  That means that in order to be patentable the invention must meet the patent eligibility test in 35 U.S.C. § 101, the invention must be new (§ 102), it must be non-obvious (§ 103) and it must be adequately described (§ 112).  Since the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Bilski v. Kappos, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has continually urged patent examiners to get beyond the § 101 inquiry except in extreme cases.  Prior to the Supreme Court’s Bilski decision many examiners would simply see a computer-implemented method and issue a blanket and rather non-specific rejection asserting that the invention was not patent eligible subject matter under § 101.  The USPTO focus on getting past § 101 and to the meat of the invention means that such rejections are no longer the norm.  It also means that the Patent Office is pushing the real question about whether an patentable invention is presented into the adequate description space pursuant to § 112.  Thus, a thorough and complete description is absolutely essential when your invention relates to a computer-implemented method, whether it is software, an Internet processes or a business method. (more…)

Taking Advantage of the First Action Interview Pilot Program

This post comes from Robert Hulse (Partner at Fenwick & West and Practice Center Contributor)

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) introduced its “First Action Interview Pilot Program” about two years ago. This program enables patent applicants to conduct an interview with the assigned patent examiner, by phone or in person, before the examiner issues a first office action. In the first office action, the patent examiner either allows the application or identifies grounds to reject the application based on the results of the examiner’s search of the prior art and review of the patent application.

Historically, patent applicants could conduct an interview with the patent examiner after the first office action was issued, but not before this time. With this program, the USPTO has attempted to bring the benefits of the interview earlier in the process by focusing the examiner on relevant aspects of the invention at the beginning of examination and helping the applicant understand the examiner’s interpretation of the patent claims that define the invention. (more…)

Bilski v. Kappos: A Recap Before Decision Day

 

As the entire patent community waits with bated breath for the Bilski decision, it seems like the perfect time to recap the course of events that have brought us here.  Yesterday, IPWatchdog had a guest blogger, Robert M. Suarez, who did just that in his article, “Mr. Bilski Goes to Washington: An Abridged Guide.”  It is an excellent summary of the Bilski case.  

Before he offers his guide to the case, Suarez writes, “For all of the opinions, articles, and conjecture, all one need do is study the law and look at the precedents to know that anticipating how the Supreme Court will rule in a case is akin to trying to gaze into a crystal ball. So, what will be the future of business methods as patent-eligible subject matter? Will the machine-or-transformation test stand? What will be the fate of the Bilski patent? An educated guess is the best that one can hope for in this situation.” 

Well said Suarez!! (more…)