Author Archives: Warren Woessner

I will start out by recommending that you read all of MPEP 2106 – Patent Subject Matter Eligibility. I rarely admire PTO policy rules and guidelines, but this section reflects a lot of work, particularly in the standards for evaluating … Continue reading →

In Exergen Corp. v. Kaz USA, Inc., Appeal No. 2016-2315, 2016-2341 (Fed. Cir., March 8, 2018) (Non-precedential). A panel of Moore, Bryson and Hughes (Hughes dissenting), upheld a district court decision, following trial, that claims to a method of measuring … Continue reading →

This is a guest post from Gregory Stark, a Principal of Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner. The Vibration Dampener decision is not as bad as the headline might suggest, the claims are very broad method of manufacturing claims.  Accordingly, the claims … Continue reading →

As an introduction to this topic, please reread my post of July 5, 2017 about The Cleveland Clinic v. True Health Diagnostics, subtitled “Time to Redefine ‘Inventive Concept’”? The claim were directed to diagnosing the presence of cardiovascular disease (CAD) … Continue reading →