jump to navigation

Two separate things are not one thing, part 2 August 4, 2011

Posted by Brian Schar in General.
trackback

In a previous post, I described why a reference that discloses one of two claim elements, but not the other, does not anticipate the claim.

A recent nonprecedential BPAI decision, Ex parte Ferren et. al., summarizes this basic point of law concisely and accurately at page 7, footnote 3: “When a claim requires two separate elements, mapping one disclosed element to both recited elements is improper.”  Two Federal Circuit cases are cited in support.  I plan to start utilizing this sentence in Office Action responses and appeal briefs, when appropriate.

Advertisements

Comments»

No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: