Patent Law Practice Center

Fundamentals Of Patent Prosecution 2011 Highlights: Boot Camp for Claim Drafting & Amendment Writing

I’m sitting in this morning on Fundamentals of Patent Prosecution 2011: A Boot Camp for Claim Drafting & Amendment Writing and the first speaker of the day is John O’Brien, Co-Chair of the program and Practice Center Contributor, who provided tips on how to take an effective invention disclosure.  Here are some highlights from the presentation:

O’Brien discussed Engagement Letters and how the letter may minimize allegations made by a client that the lawyer improperly mishandled the matter in question.  He provided a suggested Engagement Letter Checklist that included: 

• Introduction with general description of matter
• parties included in representation
• any additional parties in matter who are not represented
• specific areas in which representation will be included
• specific areas which representation will not include
• establish the expectations
• detailed payment for services and timing for payment
• grounds for attorney termination
• primary responsible lawyer (more…)

Patent Drafting: Language Difficulties, Open Mouth Insert Foot

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

Lately I have been this “educational” mindset more than is usual. Not only am I gearing up for the run of summer PLI Patent Bar Review Courses, which begin [this] week in New York City, but at the beginning of June I will be teaching a Patent Prosecution course for a week at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago, Illinois. What better topic to revisit than the importance of using the right language when describing an invention and dealing with an examiner. Patent attorneys darn near need to be magicians when it comes to language, which is the primary tool of our craft. Picking the right word and the right way to say things is critical. Even more critical, perhaps, is not saying the wrong thing, or worse yet saying something that is clear but not what you intended.

When dealing with the topic of picking and using the right language to describe an invention in a patent application it is worth observing that having a dictionary and thesaurus at the ready is a pre-requisite to being a good drafts-person. If you are not consulting a dictionary and thesaurus you are doing yourself, or your client, a tremendous disservice. But picking the right word is but one of the problems, and probably the easiest to deal with if you train yourself not to assume you have a Shakespearean grasp of the English language and force yourself to consult that dictionary and thesaurus. So today I thought I would focus on a couple big ticket matters that are easy to overlook, at least when patent novices are doing the drafting.

Click here for the full IPWatchdog article.

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…)

Centocor v. Abbott Labs: When Is A Biotech Invention Complete And Ready For Filing?

The following post was written by Gerald M. Murphy, Partner at Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP and Practice Center Contributor.

On February 23, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Centocor v. Abbott Labs set aside a $1.7 billion jury verdict in favor of the patentee (Centocor) and held the patent claims at issue were invalid for lack of written description.  This decision reflects a trend of the Federal Circuit in recent years to invalidate patents for lack of written description and offers little guidance as to what is necessary to actually comply with the written description requirements. This case dealt with a somewhat “unpredictable” biotech invention, where there was not an actual reduction to practice of the claimed invention.  In the pharmaceutical fields, it is very common to have method claims directed to treatment of humans and it is very unusual to have had an actual reduction to practice of the method prior to filing the patent application.  However, in this case, the claims were not directed to a method of use, but rather, a new product (antibody).  Based on this and other cases, it appears that the trend of finding lack of written description may become more common in so-called “predictable technologies.” (more…)

Goeddel V. Sugano: What’s The Difference Between “Envisioning” An Invention And Being “In Possession” Of The Invention?

The following post was written by Gerald M. Murphy, partner at Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP and Practice Center Contributor.

In Goeddel v. Sugano, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has provided more guidance as to what is necessary for a sufficient “written description” of an invention, this time for a true “biotech” invention, in the context of a motion for benefit of priority in an interference.  This case involved two interferences; one directed to DNA encoding human fibroblast interferon (hFIF) unaccompanied by a hFIF presequence (mature hFIF) and one directed to a composition comprising  non-glycosylated hFIF.  Sugano filed a motion for benefit of its Japanese priority application (Sugano priority application) and was granted priority by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the Board) in both interferences.  Goeddel appealed that decision on the grounds that the Sugano priority application did not constitute a constructive reduction to practice because it did not enable the Counts and did not provide a sufficient written description of the Counts.  The Federal Circuit reversed on the ground that the Sugano priority application did not provide a sufficient written description of the Count because the inventors were not “in possession” of the invention. (more…)