Category Archives: Patenting Methods/Processes

Indefiniteness After Nautilus – A Very “Delicate Balance”

In Interval Lighting v. AOL, Inc., Appeal no. 2013-1282, -1283, -1284, -1285 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 10, 2014), the appealed indefiniteness finding by the district court was affirmed by the Fed. Cir. panel. This was not surprising, since the disputed term … Continue reading

Posted in Patenting Methods/Processes | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Claims to “New Uses of Old Compounds” – The Noose Tightens

In Perricone v. Medicis, 432 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court reversed the Board, and found that a claim to treating sunburn with certain vitamin esters was patentable in view of art disclosing the same compounds to benefit normal … Continue reading

Posted in Patenting Methods/Processes | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

ANOTHER “HAIL MARY” CLAIM BITES THE DUST

In my post of April 22, 2009, I spent quite a lot of time discussing why “mechanism of action” claims may issue but, like the “Hail Mary” pass in football, remain vulnerable to invalidation as inherently anticipated by the prior … Continue reading

Posted in Patenting Methods/Processes | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

"LOOKS BAD FOR BUSINESS METHODS" — A note by Erwin J. Basinski

The Bilski case before the US Supreme Court came up for oral argument on November 9. After a couple of reads, My initial impressions are: 1. Most of the questions from the Justices (primarily Scalia, Breyer, Roberts, Sotomeyor, Stevens, Kennedy, … Continue reading

Posted in Patenting Methods/Processes | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment