xxiii

Detailed Table of ContentsMain

VolumeSupple-

ment

Foreword .................................................................................... vii —Preface ........................................................................................ ix vAcknowledgments ...................................................................... xi —About the Authors ...................................................................... xiii viiSummary Table of Contents ....................................................... xxiii xix

I. DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO SEEK PATENT PROTECTION

1. Trends in Software and Business Method Patents From 1996 Through 2013 [Substitute Text] ........................ — 1-1§1.01 Introduction .......................................................... — 1-2§1.02 Identifying Software and Business Method

Patents .................................................................. — 1-3§1.03 Software Patent Trends ......................................... — 1-5

A. Software Patenting Over Time ...................... — 1-5B. Assignees ...................................................... — 1-8C. Geographic Distribution ................................ — 1-8D. Top-Cited Patents ........................................... — 1-10E. Pendency ........................................................ — 1-11

§1.04 Business Method Patent Trends............................ — 1-11A. Business Method Patenting Over Time ......... — 1-12B. Assignees ....................................................... — 1-14C. Geographic Distribution ................................ — 1-14D. Top-Cited Patents ........................................... — 1-15E. Pendency ........................................................ — 1-16

§1.05 Conclusion ............................................................ — 1-17

2. Relationship to Other Intellectual Property Areas ............... 21 2-1§2.01 Introduction .......................................................... 23 —§2.02 Trade Secret Protection ........................................ 23 2-3

A. Overview of Trade Secrets ............................. 23 2-31. Trade Secrets Defined [SubstituteText] ... — 2-3

Electronic and Software Patents—2014 Cumulative Supp.xxiv

Main Volume

Supple- ment

2. Elements of a Trade Secret ...................... 25 —3. Actions for Trade Secret

Misappropriation ..................................... 26 —a. Proving the Existence of the Trade

Secret ................................................ 26 —b. Proving the Trade Secret Was

Improperly Obtained ........................ 27 —4. Remedies for Misappropriation ............... 28 —

B. Trade Secrets Compared to Patents ............... 29 —1. Disclosure ................................................ 29 —2. Newness: Novelty and

Nonobviousness ....................................... 30 —3. Inventorship ............................................. 32 —4. Term of Protection................................... 32 —

C. No Preemption by Patent Law ....................... 33 —D. Trade Secrets and the America Invents Act

[New Topic] ................................................... — 2-5§2.03 Trademark Protection ........................................... 34 —

A. Trademarks Defined ...................................... 34 —B. Trademark Protection Compared to Patent

Protection ....................................................... 35 —1. Creation of Rights ................................... 35 —2. Length of Protection................................ 35 —3. Infringement ............................................ 36 —

C. Trade Dress and Utility Patents ..................... 37 —§2.04 Copyright Protection [Substitute Text] ................. — 2-7

A. Overview of Copyrights ................................. 37 2-71. Copyright Defined ................................... 38 —2. Copyright Registration ............................ 39 —3. Copyright Infringement ........................... 39 —4. Remedies for Infringement ..................... 40 —

B. Copyright Protection Compared to Patent Protection for Computer Software ................. 40 2-81. Scope and Type of Protection ................. 41 —2. Newness Versus Novelty and

Nonobviousness ....................................... 41 —3. Term of Protection [Substitute Text] ........ — 2-84. New Form of Protection for Electronics

and Software ........................................... 42 —5. Design Patents for Software Icons and

User Interfaces ........................................ 43 —6. Exhaustion [New Topic] .......................... — 2-10

C. Important Copyright Cases ............................ 44 —1. Baker v. Selden ........................................ 44 —2. Mazer v. Stein .......................................... 44 —

xxvDetailed Table of Contents

Main Volume

Supple- ment

3. In re Yardley ............................................ 45 —D. Computer Software Copyright Cases ............ 45 —

1. Whelan v. Jaslow Dental Lab. ................ 45 —2. Computer Associates v. Altai’s

Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison Test .......................................................... 46 —

3. Sega v. Accolade’s Reverse Engineering as Fair Use ............................................... 46 —

E. Patent/Copyright Interface ............................. 47 2-121. Lotus v. Borland ...................................... 47 —2. Secondary Liability [New Topic] ............ — 2-12

a. Vicarious Liability and the Doctrine of Noninfringing Use [NewTopic] .... — 2-13

b. Inducement to Infringe in the Copyright Law and the Patent Act [New Topic] ...................................... — 2-14

c. Copyright Law Implications for Secondary Liability Under the Patent Act [New Topic] ..................... — 2-15

§2.05 Combining Patent, Copyright, and Trade Secret Protection ............................................................. 48 —A. Patent and Copyright Not Mutually

Exclusive ........................................................ 48 —B. Withholding Code as Trade Secret While

Patenting Corresponding Method or Apparatus ....................................................... 51 —

C. Use of Copyright Notices in Specification and Drawing .................................................. 52 —

§2.06 Further Studies in Other Intellectual Property Areas .................................................................... 53 —

3. Searching Software Inventions ............................................ 55 3-1§3.01 Introduction and Brief History ............................. 56 —§3.02 Where to Search Software Inventions .................. 56 —

A. Types of Searches .......................................... 57 —B. Choosing Search Resources ........................... 58 —

1. Government Patent Databases ................. 59 —2. Commercial Databases ............................ 59 —3. Internet Search Engines .......................... 60 —4. Non-Patent Literature ............................. 61 —5. Non-Electronic Sources .......................... 61 —

C. Developing a Search Strategy ........................ 61 —D. Software Search Example .............................. 63 —

§3.03 Summary .............................................................. 65 —§3.04 Exhibits ................................................................ 66 3-2

Electronic and Software Patents—2014 Cumulative Supp.xxvi

Main Volume

Supple- ment

Exhibit 3-1: PTO Databases for Searching Patents ............................................................ 66 3-2

Exhibit 3-2: Commercial Database Providers ...... 68 3-5Exhibit 3-3: Internet Search Engines .................... 72 3-7Exhibit 3-4: Non-Patent Literature Databases ...... 73 3-9Exhibit 3-5: Chart of U.S. Patents on Computer

Implemented Inventions ................................. 81 3-17Exhibit 3-6: 2013 Updates to the Patent

Classification System: The Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) System [New Topic] ................................................... — 3-18

II. DRAFTING AND PROSECUTING AN APPLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES

4. Guidelines to Software-Related Inventions ......................... 85 4-1§4.01 Introduction: Impact of Alappat and the

Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions on 35 U.S.C. §101 ...................................................... 89 —

§4.02 Primary Authorities: Section 101 and the Supreme Court’s Trilogy of Statutory Subject Matter Decisions .................................................. 91 —A. Section 101: Scant Guidance .......................... 91 —B. Benson: Nonstatutory Unapplied

Mathematical Process .................................... 92 —C. Flook: Nonstatutory Postsolution Activity .... 93 —D. Chakrabarty: The Impact of Section 101 on

New Technology ............................................ 95 —E. Diehr: Statutory Use of a Mathematical

Formula .......................................................... 96 —§4.03 Rise and Fall of the Freeman-Walter-Abele

Two-Step Test ....................................................... 99 —A. Freeman: The Initial Statement of the Two-

Step Test ......................................................... 99 —B. Walter: Restriction of the Two-Step Test ....... 99 —C. Abele: Expansion of the Scope of Statutory

Inventions ....................................................... 101 —D. Other Section 101 Tests ................................. 103 —E. Schrader: Extreme Application of Freeman-

Walter-Abele Test........................................... 104 —§4.04 Federal Circuit Return to the Primary

Authorities ............................................................ 107 —A. Alappat: Demotion of the Freeman-Walter-

Abele Test ....................................................... 107 —

xxviiDetailed Table of Contents

Main Volume

Supple- ment

B. Warmerdam: Inapplicability of the Freeman- Walter-Abele Test........................................... 109 —

§4.05 Use of 35 U.S.C. §112, Paragraph 6, in Section 101 Determinations ................................. 111 —A. The Walter Burden (or Test) .......................... 111 —B. Iwahashi: Reliance on Disclosed Digital

Circuits ........................................................... 112 —C. Arrhythmia: Statutory Presolution Activity ... 116 —D. Donaldson: Obligatory Use by USPTO of

Paragraph 6 in 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 Determinations .............................................. 119 —

E. Alappat: Obligatory Use by USPTO of Paragraph 6 in Section 101 Determinations .............................................. 121 —

§4.06 Statutory Data Structures ..................................... 123 —A. Warmerdam: Statutory Data Structure .......... 123 —B. Lowry: Inapplicability of Section 103

Printed Matter Rejection to Data Structures .. 125 —C. Beauregard: Applicability of Lowry

Rationale to Section 101 Determinations....... 129 —§4.07 Further Refinement of Use of Paragraph 6 in

Section 101 Determinations ................................. 135 —A. Trovato: Software Disclosure ........................ 135 —B. Fraenkel: Hardware and Software

Disclosure ...................................................... 143 —§4.08 USPTO Guidelines: Expansion of Statutory

Computer-Related Inventions Based on Alappat and Its Progeny ..................................................... 149 —A. Purpose and Impact of the Guidelines ........... 149 —B. Reliance on the Primary Authorities ............. 153 —C. Functional and Nonfunctional Descriptive

Material.......................................................... 154 —D. Apparatus Claims for Specific Machines and

Articles of Manufacture ................................. 159 —E. Practical Application of the Underlying

Process ........................................................... 160 —1. USPTO Claim Example: Sale of Mutual

Funds ....................................................... 164 —2. USPTO Claim Example: Matrix

Multiplication .......................................... 165 —3. USPTO Claim Example: Training a

Neural Network ....................................... 167 —4. USPTO Claim Example: Determine

Risk of Market Securities ........................ 168 —

Electronic and Software Patents—2014 Cumulative Supp.xxviii

Main Volume

Supple- ment

F. Examination of All Inventions Under Sections 102, 103, and 112, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 6 .............................................................. 170 —

§4.09 State Street: Statutory Financial Construct .......... 171 —A. Financial Construct/Investment Structure

Protected by the Signature Patent .................. 171 —B. Signature’s Claims Held Statutory ................. 172 —C. Schrader Revisited ......................................... 175 —D. Different Rationales of the Guidelines and

the State Street Court ..................................... 184 —E. AT&T Confirms State Street and Questions

Schrader......................................................... 194 —§4.10 Lessons of Alappat (and Its Progeny) and the

Guidelines ............................................................ 196 —A. New Touchstones for Defining Statutory

Computer-Related Inventions ......................... 196 —B. Effect of Paragraph 6 on Claim and

Specification Preparation ............................... 196 —C. New Claim Formats ....................................... 199 —

§4.11 The Achilles Heel of the Guidelines .................... 200 —A. Some Examiners Do Not Follow the

Guidelines ...................................................... 200 —B. Guidelines Are Undermined .......................... 201 —C. Bowman Affirms a Section 101 Rejection

Based on the Technological Arts Test ............ 201 —D. Oligopoly and the Fall of the Technological

Arts Test ......................................................... 203 —1. Lundgren Stretches the Envelope of

Section 101 .............................................. 203 —2. Musgrave Does Not Support the

Technological Arts Test ........................... 205 —3. The Lundgren Decision Is Precedential .. 205 —

E. New USPTO Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications .............. 206 —1. Examination Steps of the 2005

Guidelines: Overview .............................. 207 —2. Examination Steps of the 2005

Guidelines: Understanding the Claimed Invention ................................... 207 —

3. Examination Steps of the 2005 Guidelines: Improper Subject Matter Eligibility Tests ....................................... 209 —

4. Examination Steps of the 2005 Guidelines: Subject Matter Eligibility Determination ......................................... 211 —

xxixDetailed Table of Contents

Main Volume

Supple- ment

5. Examination Steps of the 2005 Guidelines: Examples .............................. 216 —a. Functional and Nonfunctional

Descriptive Material ......................... 216 —b. Electro-Magnetic Signals ................. 217 —

6. Enforceability of the 2005 Guidelines .... 219 —F. USPTO’s Memo Clarifying “Processes”

Category Under 35 U.S.C. §101 ..................... 220 —G. Supreme Court and Section 101: The

LabCorp Case ................................................ 221 —1. Supreme Court Precedent on Patents

Implicating Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, or Abstract Ideas and Recent Federal Circuit Statements .......... 221 —

2. The LabCorp Case and Its Indications for the Future of Business Method Patents ..................................................... 223 —

§4.12 The Little-Used Preemption Test Is Getting Some Attention .................................................... 227 —A. 2005 Guidelines and the Government Brief

in LabCorp Explain Preemption .................. 227 —B. Benson Wholly Preempts Digital Data

Conversion Algorithm .................................. 228 —C. Diehr Teaches Reciting Particular Steps and

Elements ....................................................... 228 —D. LabCorp Phenomena Preempt All

Applications of Correlating ........................... 230 —§4.13 Post-LabCorp Decisions on 35 U.S.C. §101 ........ 232 —

A. Are Signals Patentable? ................................ 232 —1. Federal Circuit Holds Transitory

Propagating Signals Unpatentable .......... 232 —B. Methods Involving Mental Processes—Is a

Machine Required? ....................................... 237 —1. Federal Circuit Finds Mental Processes,

Standing Alone, Unpatentable in Comiskey ................................................ 237 —

§4.14 In re Bilski and Machine-or-Transformation Test for Determining Patentability Under Section 101 .......................................................... 240 4-7A. Background: Board of Patent Appeals and

Interferences Decision Affirming the USPTO’s Rejection ....................................... 241 —

B. Bilski’s Appeal to the Federal Circuit ........... 244 —C. En Banc Proceedings in Bilski ...................... 245 —

Electronic and Software Patents—2014 Cumulative Supp.xxx

Main Volume

Supple- ment

D. Federal Circuit Establishes a New Machine- or-Transformation Test for Patentable Subject Matter Eligibility .............................. 248 —

E. Interpretations of the Machine-or- Transformation Test After the Federal Circuit’s Bilski Decision ................................ 252 4-71. Interpretations of What Constitutes

Tying to a Particular Machine ................ 252 4-72. Interpretations of What Constitutes a

Particular Transformation ...................... 261 —3. Machine-or-Transformation Test and

35 U.S.C. §112, Paragraph 6 ................... 264 —F. Supreme Court Review in Bilski—Machine-

or-Transformation Is Not an Exclusive Test for Patentability ............................................ 266 —1. Petitioners’ Arguments ........................... 266 —2. Respondent’s Arguments ........................ 268 —3. Supreme Court’s Decision ...................... 269 —

a. The Lead Opinion of Justice Kennedy ............................................ 269 —

b. Justice Stevens’ Concurrence ........... 271 —c. Justice Breyer’s Concurrence ........... 273 —d. Practical Considerations After the

Supreme Court’s Bilski Decision ...... 274 —G. 2009 USPTO Interim Patent Subject Matter

Eligibility Examination Instructions.............. 275 —1. Examination Steps of the Examination

Instructions .............................................. 275 —H. USPTO Guidance After the Supreme

Court’s Bilski Decision ................................. 281 —I. Federal Circuit’s Application of the

Supreme Court’s Bilski Decision in Research Corporation Technologies [Amended Heading]……… ........................... 284 4-71. The Technology of Halftoning Digital

Images ..................................................... 285 —2. Current Status of Patentable Subject

Matter ...................................................... 285 —3. Evaluation of RCT’s Method for

Halftoning Digital Images ...................... 286 —4. Further Post-Bilski Federal Circuit

Decisions [Amended Heading] ............... — 4-75. Highly Divided Court in Alice

Results in Uncertainty With Respect to Computer-Implemented Method and System Claims [New Topic] ................... — 4-11

xxxiDetailed Table of Contents

Main Volume

Supple- ment

a. Judge Lourie’s Concurring Opinion [New Topic] ..................................... — 4-12

b. Chief Judge Rader’s Concurring-in- Part and Dissenting-in-Part Opinion [New Topic] ...................................... — 4-14

c. Judge Moore’s Dissenting-in-Part Opinion [New Topic] ........................ — 4-16

d. Judge Newman’s Concurring-in-Part and Dissenting-in-Part Opinion [New Topic] ...................................... — 4-17

e. Judges Linn’s and O’Malley’s Dissenting Opinion [New Topic] ...... — 4-18

6. Federal Circuit Revisits Ultramercial [New Topic] ............................................. — 4-19

7. Patent Eligibility of Software for Organizing Insurance-Related Tasks [New Topic] ............................................. — 4-22

8. Interpretations in View of Bilski and Post-Bilski Federal Circuit Cases [New Topic] ............................................. — 4-23

§4.15 Supreme Court Review of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International and Establishment of a Two-Step Test for Determining Patent Eligibility [New Topic] .......................................................... — 4-25

5. Drafting the Specification.................................................... 289 5-1§5.01 Introduction .......................................................... 290 —§5.02 Enablement Requirement ..................................... 291 5-2

A. The Skilled Person and Experimentation ...... 291 —B. Applications to Electronic and Software

Inventions ....................................................... 293 —C. Enablement and 35 U.S.C. §101 ..................... 296 —D. Enablement and Best Mode ........................... 297 5-2

§5.03 Best Mode Requirement ....................................... 299 5-3§5.04 Written Description Requirement ........................ 301 5-4

A. The Changing Use of the Written Description Requirement ............................... 301 5-4

B. Ariad v. Lilly .................................................. 302 5-5C. Written Description Priority—New Versus

Original Claims ............................................. 304 —D. Development of the Current Law on Written

Description ..................................................... 304 5-6E. Claim Differentiation ..................................... 308 5-7F. How Much Description Is Needed to Satisfy

Written Description? ...................................... 311 5-8

Electronic and Software Patents—2014 Cumulative Supp.xxxii

Main Volume

Supple- ment

G. Dictionary Definitions and the Intrinsic Record ............................................................ 320 5-11

H. Written Description From Related Applications ................................................... 325 5-12

I. Rescinding Prosecution Disclaimer ............... 326 5-12J. Claim Breadth and Written Description ........ 327 —K. Inherency ....................................................... 329 —

§5.05 Definiteness Requirement ................................... 330 5-13A. Means-Plus-Function and Step-Plus-

Function Claims ............................................. 330 5-13B. Claims Not Under Section 112, Sixth

Paragraph ....................................................... 332 5-16§5.06 Preparing the Specification .................................. 333 5-17

A. Understanding the Invention .......................... 333 —B. Describing the Invention ................................ 335 —

1. Functional Block Diagrams ..................... 336 —2. Flowchart Diagrams ................................ 337 —3. State Diagrams ........................................ 339 —

C. Alternative Embodiments .............................. 340 —D. Effect of KSR v. Teleflex ............................... 341 —E. Effect of Bilski v. Kappos ............................. 344 —F. Effect of Mayo Collaborative Services v.

Prometheus Laboratories [New Topic] ........ — 5-17§5.07 Conclusion ............................................................ 347 —

6. Crafting the Claims ............................................................. 349 6-1§6.01 Introduction .......................................................... 351 —§6.02 Preparing to Draft Claims .................................... 351 —

A. Gathering Information About the Invention ........................................................ 351 —1. Interview Step One .................................. 351 —2. Interview Step Two ................................. 351 —3. Interview Step Three ............................... 352 —

B. Planning and Outlining the Claims ............... 352 —C. Outlining the Broadest Independent Claim ... 353 —D. Outlining the Dependent Claims ................... 353 —E. Outlining Additional Independent Claims ..... 354 —F. Critical Review of Claim Strings ................... 356 —G. Converting Claim Outlines to Claims ........... 356 —H. Patent and Trademark Office

Considerations ............................................... 357 —I. Festo Considerations ...................................... 358 —J. Coping With In re Bilski ............................... 359 —

§6.03 Basic Rules of Claim Drafting ............................. 362 —A. Claim Overview ............................................. 363 —B. Claim Structure ............................................. 364 —

xxxiiiDetailed Table of Contents

Main Volume

Supple- ment

1. Preamble.................................................. 364 —2. Transitional Phrase .................................. 365 —3. Body ........................................................ 365 —

C. Basic Claim Types ......................................... 366 —1. Method Claims ........................................ 366 —2. Apparatus Claims .................................... 367 —3. Article Claims ......................................... 367 —

D. Mathematical Algorithms .............................. 368 —E. Claim Differentiation ..................................... 368 —

§6.04 Sample Electronic Circuit and Hardware Claims .................................................................. 369 —A. Sample Electronic Circuit Claims ................. 369 —

1. Sample Apparatus Claim (Without Means-Plus-Function Language) ............. 370 —

2. Sample Apparatus Claim (With Means- Plus-Function Language) ......................... 371 —

3. Sample Method Claim ............................ 372 —B. Sample Electronic Circuit Claims of

Varying Scope .............................................. 372 —C. Sample Hardware Claims .............................. 374 —

1. Sample Apparatus Claim (Without Means-Plus-Function Language) ............. 375 —

2. Sample Apparatus Claim (With Means- Plus-Function Language) ......................... 375 —

3. Sample Method Claims ........................... 376 —4. Sample Apparatus Claim for an

Interface .................................................. 376 —§6.05 Sample Software Claims ...................................... 377 —

A. Method Claims .............................................. 377 —1. Sample Method Claim ............................ 378 —

B. Apparatus Claims .......................................... 378 —1. Sample Apparatus Claims ....................... 379 —

C. Computer-Readable Medium Claims ............ 379 —1. Sample Computer-Readable Medium

Claim ....................................................... 380 —D. Data Structure Claims ................................... 380 —

1. Sample Data Structure Claim ................. 381 —E. Application Program Interface (API) and

Protocol Claims ............................................. 381 —1. Sample API Claim .................................. 381 —

F. User Interface Claims .................................... 382 —1. Sample UI Claim ..................................... 382 —

G. Client-Server Claims .................................... 383 —1. Sample Client-Server Claims .................. 383 —2. Sample Server Claims ............................ 384 —3. Sample Client Claims ............................. 384 —

Electronic and Software Patents—2014 Cumulative Supp.xxxiv

Main Volume

Supple- ment

§6.06 Practical Tips for Broad Claiming ....................... 385 —§6.07 Claiming Methods of Doing Business and

“Abstract Ideas” in General .................................. 386 —§6.08 Post-Bilski Developments Within the Federal

Circuit ................................................................... 391 6-4A. Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC

[New Topic] ................................................... — 6-41. 2011 Federal Circuit Decision

[New Topic] ............................................. — 6-42. 2012 Federal Circuit Decision

[New Topic] ............................................. — 6-6B. Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber [New Topic] ........ — 6-8C. MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp.

[New Topic] ................................................... — 6-11D. CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp.

[New Topic] ................................................... — 6-15E. Recent Board Decisions Regarding

Section 101 [New Topic] ................................ — 6-161. 11/563,897: Affirmed [New Topic].......... — 6-172. 11/850,192: Affirmed [New Topic] ........ — 6-183. 11/758,521: Affirmed [New Topic] ......... — 6-184. 11/540,769: Reversed [New Topic] ......... — 6-195. 12/055,540: Reversed [New Topic] ......... — 6-206. 10/866,433 [New Topic] ......................... — 6-207. 11/009,339: Affirmed [New Topic] ........ — 6-218. 11/483,441: Affirmed [New Topic] ......... — 6-219. 11/875,758: Affirmed [New Topic] ......... — 6-2210. 10/854,532: Reversed [New Topic] ......... — 6-2211. 10/876,215: Affirmed [New Topic] ........ — 6-2312. 10/460,955: New Ground for Rejection

[New Topic] ............................................ — 6-2413. 11/011,373: Affirmed [New Topic] ......... — 6-24

F. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International [New Topic] ................................................... — 6-25

G. USPTO Preliminary Examination Instructions in View of the Supreme Court’s Decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International [New Topic] ................................................... — 6-27

H. Experian Marketing Solutions, Inc. v. RPost Communications Ltd. [New Topic] ............... — 6-27

I. Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. [New Topic] .... — 6-29

xxxvDetailed Table of Contents

Main Volume

Supple- ment

7. Functional Claim Drafting in the Electronics, Computer, and Software Arts .............................................. 397 7-1§7.01 Introduction .......................................................... 398 —§7.02 Applicability of Section 112, Paragraph 6, to

Determinations of Patentability Under 35 U.S.C. §102 or §103: General Observations ..................... 398 —

§7.03 In re Donaldson and Its Impact ........................... 401 —A. Facts and Procedure in Donaldson ................ 402 —B. Analysis in Donaldson .................................. 403 —C. Effect of Donaldson ...................................... 405 —

§7.04 USPTO Implementation of In re Donaldson Under the USPTO Guidelines .............................. 407 —A. When Is a “Means” or “Step” for

Performing a Specified Function Within Section 112, Paragraph 6? .............................. 409 —

B. How Does Equivalency Affect the Scope of the Search and the Prior Art That May Be Cited by an Examiner? .................................. 411 —

C. How Is a Prima Facie Case Made (or Rebutted) as to Whether Prior Art Is Equivalent? .................................................... 411 —1. Making a Prima Facie Case .................... 411 —2. Applicant’s Response .............................. 412 —

D. Other Guidance .............................................. 414 —§7.05 Case Law Interpreting and Applying

Section 112, Paragraph 6 ...................................... 415 7-2A. Terminology That Invokes or Avoids

Section 112, Paragraph 6 ............................... 416 7-31. General Rule When “Means” Is

Present ..................................................... 416 7-32. General Rule When “Means” Is

Absent ..................................................... 418 7-33. Using Step-Plus-Function Terminology

in Method Claims ................................... 421 —B. Disclosure of Corresponding Structure,

Material, or Acts in the Specification ............ 424 7-71. Linking the Corresponding Structure,

Material, or Acts to the Recited Function................................................... 425 7-7

2. Incorporation by Reference ..................... 427 —3. Specificity of Disclosure ......................... 428 7-8

C. Determining What Is “Equivalent” to the Corresponding Structure, Material, or Acts ................................................................ 432 7-11

Electronic and Software Patents—2014 Cumulative Supp.xxxvi

Main Volume

Supple- ment

1. Assessing Equivalence ........................... 433 7-112. Ability of the Specification to Exclude

Potential Equivalents ............................... 435 —§7.06 Conclusion ............................................................ 436 —

8. Claim Interpretation for Patent Drafters .............................. 439 8-1§8.01 Introduction .......................................................... 441 —§8.02 Basic Rules Governing Claim Interpretation by

the Courts ............................................................. 443 8-3A. Fact Versus Law ............................................. 443 —B. Standard of Review ........................................ 443 8-3C. Defining the Inquiry: Ordinary Meaning of

Disputed Terms .............................................. 445 —D. Sources of Interpretation ............................... 446 8-5

1. Intrinsic Evidence: Claims, Specification, and Prosecution History ... 446 8-5a. Claim Language .............................. 446 —b. Specification .................................... 448 —c. Prosecution History ......................... 448 8-5

2. Expert Testimony .................................... 450 —3. Dictionaries—Texas Digital and

Phillips .................................................... 452 —4. Prior Art .................................................. 456 —5. Other Sources .......................................... 457 —

E. Putting It All Together in Light of Phillips .... 457 —§8.03 Claim Language Issues ........................................ 458 8-6

A. Functional Versus Structural Language ......... 458 8-61. Avoiding Unintentional Application of

35 U.S.C. §112(6) ..................................... 458 8-62. Defining Structure Through Function:

Explaining Inventive Concepts ................ 460 —3. Separate Functions Versus Separate

Structures ................................................ 463 —B. Linking Terms ............................................... 464 —

1. Functional Versus Structural Linking ..... 465 —2. Functionally Qualifying a Linking

Term ........................................................ 466 —3. Failing to Functionally Qualify a

Temporal Linking Term .......................... 467 —C. Claim Differentiation ..................................... 469 8-7D. After-Developed Technology and Literal

Claim Scope ................................................... 472 —1. Danger of “Conventional” or “Standard”

in Qualifying Claim Elements ................ 473 —2. Means-Plus-Function Claims and After-

Developed Technology ............................ 474 —

xxxviiDetailed Table of Contents

Main Volume

Supple- ment

3. Definitions Frozen in Time .................... 474 —E. The Preamble ................................................. 475 8-9F. Other Claim Issues ....................................... 479 —

1. Defining by Claiming ............................ 479 —2. A New Twist on “Comprising” .............. 480 —

§8.04 Specification Issues .............................................. 482 8-10A. Patentee as “Lexicographer”.......................... 482 —

1. Definition by Implication ........................ 482 —2. Definition by Varied Usage ..................... 483 —3. Risk of Adding Additional

Ambiguities ............................................. 483 —B. Specification-Based Disclaimer ..................... 484 8-10

1. Referencing “Invention” Versus “Embodiment” ........................................ 484 —

2. Statements of Advantage ......................... 489 8-10C. Importance of Varied Examples .................... 492 —D. Importance of Clear Examples ...................... 495 —E. Making Invention’s Purpose Clear ................ 495 —F. Making Invention’s “Way” Clear .................. 497 —G. Incorporation by Reference ........................... 497 8-11H. Section 112 Disclosure Doctrines and

Claim Scope ................................................... 498 8-121. Enablement and Claim Scope ................. 499 —2. Written Description and Claim Scope .... 500 8-12

a. Written Description Is Distinct From Enablement .............................. 501 —

b. Written Description and New Matter ............................................... 501 8-12

c. Written Description and Indefiniteness Under §112(6) ............ 503 8-12

§8.05 Prosecution History .............................................. 505 —A. Prosecution Disclaimer .................................. 506 —B. Importance of Carefully Limited

Statements Distinguishing Prior Art.............. 508 —C. Importance of Precision in Amendments to

Avoid Prior Art .............................................. 509 —D. Patentee’s Statements Affect Interpretation

Even if the Examiner Does Not Rely on Them .............................................................. 510 —

E. Statements in an Information Disclosure Statement ....................................................... 511 —

F. Examiner Statements in the Reasons of Allowance ...................................................... 512 —

§8.06 Conclusion ............................................................ 512 —

Electronic and Software Patents—2014 Cumulative Supp.xxxviii

Main Volume

Supple- ment

9. Maximizing Your Success in Patent Prosecution ................ 515 9-1§9.01 Introduction .......................................................... — 9-3

A. Putting Yourself in the Examiner’s Shoes ..... — 9-3B. What the Examiner Wants to See .................. — 9-4C. Protecting Your Client’s Best Interests .......... — 9-7

§9.02 Items to Consider Before Preparing the Patent Application ........................................................... — 9-8A. Assessing Inventorship and Obtaining

Information From the Inventor(s) ................... — 9-8B. Duty of Disclosure ......................................... — 9-9C. Pre-Examination Prior Art Search ................ — 9-11

1. Electronic Searching ............................... — 9-12§9.03 Determining the Type of Patent Application to

File ........................................................................ — 9-12A. Types of Utility Applications ......................... — 9-12B. Provisional Applications ................................ — 9-13

1. Restarting the Paris Convention Priority Year ............................................ — 9-15

C. Non-Provisional Applications ........................ — 9-15D. International Applications ............................. — 9-16

1. Benefits of First Filing an International Application .............................................. — 9-17

2. Concurrent Processing With Non-Provisional Application ................... — 9-17

§9.04 Preparing the Application .................................... — 9-18A. Preparing the Patent Application to

Ensure a Sufficient Written Description ....................................... — 9-19

1. Disclosure—35 U.S.C. §112, Paragraph (a) ........................................... — 9-20

2. Written Description ................................. — 9-213. Enablement .............................................. — 9-244. Best Mode ............................................... — 9-28

B. Claims—35 U.S.C. §112, Paragraphs (b)–(f) .......................................... — 9-29

C. Claims—Numbers and Types ........................ — 9-331. Number of Claims ................................... — 9-332. Types of Claims ...................................... — 9-34

a. Independent and Dependent Claims . — 9-34b. Jepson Claims ................................... — 9-34c. Alternative Claims ............................ — 9-35 d. Means- or Step-Plus-Function .......... — 9-35e. Product-by-Process Claims ............... — 9-38f. Genus-Species .................................. — 9-39g. Related Inventions ............................ — 9-40

xxxixDetailed Table of Contents

Main Volume

Supple- ment

§9.05 Items to Consider When Preparing to File the Application ........................................................... — 9-41A. Electronic Filing (EFS-Web and PAIR) ......... — 9-41B. Accelerated Examination ............................... — 9-42C. Track One Prioritized Examination……….. .. — 9-43D. Getting Your Application to the Desired

Technology Center ......................................... — 9-431. Classification Schedule ........................... — 9-462. Effect of the Classification Schedule

on Classification of an Application ......... — 9-46a. Example 1: Dynamic Information

Storage Medium ............................... — 9-47b. Example 2: Business Method Patent

Related to Property Lease or Rental ................................................ — 9-49

c. Example 3: Turntable for Chemical Analysis ............................................ — 9-54

E. Patent Prosecution Highway .......................... — 9-56§9.06 After the Application Is Filed .............................. — 9-58

A. Pre-First Action Interview ............................. — 9-58B. First Action Interview Pilot Program ............ — 9-59C. Pre-Appeal Brief Review Request ................. — 9-60D. Tips for Preparing and Arguing Cases

Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ..... — 9-61E. Procedures and Strategies for Third Party

Submissions……………………………….. ..... — 9-621. Overview ................................................. — 9-622. Filing Requirements ................................ — 9-633. Mechanics of Filing ................................ — 9-634. Filing Fees ............................................... — 9-645. What Can Be Submitted and When

Submissions Can Be Made ...................... — 9-646. Consideration of the Submission ............. — 9-647. Strategies for Going After a Competitor’s

Patents ..................................................... — 9-65 8. Strategies for Protecting Clients .............. — 9-65

§9.07 Conclusion ............................................................ — 9-66

III. DRAFTING AND PROSECUTING INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONS

10. Drafting and Filing International Patent Applications ........ 569 10-1§10.01 Introduction .......................................................... 571 —§10.02 Drafting Considerations for Japan ........................ 572 10-3

A. Structure of the Specification ........................ 572 —

Electronic and Software Patents—2014 Cumulative Supp.xl

Main Volume

Supple- ment

B. Description and Drawings [Substitute Text] ............................................. 572 10-3

C. Claims ............................................................ 573 10-3D. Abstract .......................................................... 573 —

§10.03 Drafting Considerations for the United States ..... 574 10-4A. Structure of the Specification ........................ 574 —B. Description and Drawings ............................. 574 10-4C. Claims ............................................................ 577 10-7D. Abstract .......................................................... 579 —E. Strategy for Drafting in the United States ..... 579 10-8

§10.04 Drafting Considerations for Europe ..................... 581 10-9A. Overview ........................................................ 581 —B. Priority Application ....................................... 582 —C. Structure of the Specification ........................ 582 —D. Description and Drawings ............................. 583 10-9E. Claims ............................................................ 584 10-9F. Abstract .......................................................... 587 —G. Scope for Future Amendments ...................... 587 10-9H. Strategy for Drafting in Europe ..................... 589 —

§10.05 International Drafting Strategies .......................... 589 10-10A. General .......................................................... 589 10-10B. Description and Drawings ............................. 590 10-10C. Claims ............................................................ 592 10-10D. Abstract .......................................................... 594 —

§10.06 Filing Strategies and Impact on Drafting ............. 594 10-11A. General .......................................................... 594 10-11B. U.S. First Filing Focus ................................... 594 10-12

1. First Strategy ........................................... 595 10-122. Second Strategy ....................................... 595 10-123. Third Strategy ......................................... 596 10-13

C. European First Filing Focus .......................... 598 10-13D. Best of Both? [Substitute Text] ....................... 599 10-14E. Accelerating Issuance of a U.S. Patent:

Strategic Use of the Patent Prosecution Highway [Amended Heading] ....................... 599 10-141. General Considerations ........................... 599 10-142. First Strategy Based on a U.K. Filing ..... 600 10-153. Second Strategy Based on a PCT

Filing ....................................................... 601 10-15§10.07 Special Considerations for Drafting Software

and Business Method Patents ............................... 602 10-16A. Brief Overview of the Law in Japan, the

United States, and Europe ............................. 602 10-161. Japan ........................................................ 603 —2. United States ........................................... 604 10-16

xliDetailed Table of Contents

Main Volume

Supple- ment

3. Europe ..................................................... 607 —a. EPO Practice ..................................... 607 —b. The Failed EU Directive .................. 610 —

B. Drafting Hints and Tips ................................. 612 10-171. Structure and Function ............................ 612 10-17

a. Structure ........................................... 612 —i. Physical Structure .................... 613 —ii. Code Structure ......................... 613 —iii. Data Structure .......................... 613 —

b. Function ............................................ 613 —2. Claim Types ............................................ 617 —

§10.08 Awareness of Foreign Filing Requirements ......... 620 —A. General Considerations .................................. 620 —B. Requirements in the United States ................. 621 —C. Requirements in the United Kingdom ........... 621 —D. Requirements in France ................................. 622 —E. Requirements in Germany ............................. 623 —F. Requirements in Japan ................................... 623 —

§10.09 Conclusion ............................................................ 623 10-18

IV. BUSINESS METHOD PATENTS AND DESIGN PATENTS

11. Practical Considerations for Working With Business Method Patents .................................................................... 627 11-1§11.01 Introduction .............................................................. 629 11-4

A. What Are Business Method Patents? ............. 630 11-41. Competing Definitions of Business

Method Patents ........................................ 631 11-4a. Legislative and Administrative

Definitions ....................................... 631 11-4b. Practical Definitions ......................... 633 —

i. Computer-Implemented Business Methods .................... 634 —

ii. E-Commerce ............................ 634 —iii. New Business Methods ............ 635 —

B. Policy Issues for Business Method Patents .... 635 11-51. Pressures of Increasing Growth .............. 635 —2. Public Criticisms ..................................... 635 —3. Legislative Response ............................... 636 11-54. USPTO’s Consideration of Business

Method Policy ......................................... 637 —§11.02 Historical Development in the United States ....... 639 11-6

A. The “Business Method” Rejection ................. 640 —

Electronic and Software Patents—2014 Cumulative Supp.xlii

Main Volume

Supple- ment

1. Hotel Security Checking Co. v. Lorraine Co. ............................................ 640 —

2. In re Wait ................................................. 641 —3. The Railroad Coupon Cases ................... 642 —4. The Drive-In Cases ................................. 642 —5. CCPA Avoids the Issue ........................... 643 —

B. Early Judicial Considerations of Business Method Patents and Inventions ...................... 644 —1. In re Johnston .......................................... 644 —2. In re Deutsch ........................................... 645 —3. In re Meyer .............................................. 645 —4. Paine Webber v. Merrill Lynch ............... 646 —5. In re Grams ............................................. 646 —6. In re Schrader ......................................... 646 —

C. The Death of the Business Method Rejection 647 —1. State Street Bank v. Signature

Financial ................................................. 647 —2. AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications

Inc. ........................................................... 648 —D. The USPTO’s Evolving Guidelines ............... 649 11-6

§11.03 Business Method Patent Cases ............................. 651 11-7A. General Principles ......................................... 652 —B. Specific Cases ................................................ 652 11-7

1. Patentable Subject Matter Cases ............. 652 11-7a. In re Comiskey ................................. 652 —b. In re Bilski ....................................... 654 —c. In re Ferguson ................................. 655 —d. Bilski v. Kappos ................................ 657 —e. Research Corp. Technologies, Inc.

v. Microsoft Corp. ............................. 658 —f. Fort Properties, Inc. v. American

Master Lease, L.L.C. ....................... 659 11-7g. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail

Decisions, Inc. ................................. 660 11-7h. CLS Bank International v. Alice

Corp.. ................................................ 662 11-8i. Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber

[New Topic] ...................................... — 11-11j. Bancorp Services, LLC v. Sun Life

Assurance Co. [New Topic] .............. — 11-12k. Mayo Collaborative Services v.

Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. [New Topic] ...................................... — 11-14

l. Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC [New Topic] ...................................... — 11-15

xliiiDetailed Table of Contents

Main Volume

Supple- ment

2. Refusal to Limit Claims to Specification ............................................ 664 —a. Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v.

CompuServe, Inc. ............................. 664 —b. Amazon.com, Inc. v.

Barnesandnoble.com, Inc. ................ 667 —c. Ziarno v. American National Red

Cross ................................................. 668 —d. MercExchange L.L.C. v. eBay,

Inc. .................................................... 669 —e. Akamai Technologies v. Cable and

Wireless............................................. 673 —f. Charles E. Hill & Associates v.

CompuServe ..................................... 675 —3. Limitations From the Specification ......... 675 —

a. Telemac Cellular v. Topp Telecom .... 675 —b. Netword, LLC v. Centraal Corp. ...... 676 —c. Wang Labs v. AOL ............................ 677 —d. Cabinet Vision v. Cabnetware .......... 677 —e. Catalina Marketing International v.

Coolsavings.com ............................... 677 —f. On Demand Machine Corp. v.

Ingram Industries, Inc. .................... 678 —g. Default Proof Credit Card Systems,

Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. ........ 679 —4. Statements During Prosecution ............... 680 —

a. Fantasy Sports v. Sportsline.com ..... 680 —b. Apple Computer v. Articulate

Systems ............................................. 681 —c. Business Objects, S.A. v.

Microstrategy, Inc. ............................ 682 —5. Extrinsic Evidence .................................. 683 —

a. CIVIX-DDI, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. ................................................ 683 —

b. IMS Technology v. Haas Automation ....................................... 683 —

c. Optimal Recreation Solutions v. Leading Edge Technologies .............. 684 —

d. nCube Corp. v. SeaChange International, Inc. ............................. 684 —

6. How to Construe Claims ......................... 685 —a. WMS Gaming v. International

Game Technology ............................. 685 —b. Globetrotter Software v. Elan

Computer Group ............................... 686 —c. Wang Labs v. AOL ............................ 686 —

Electronic and Software Patents—2014 Cumulative Supp.xliv

Main Volume

Supple- ment

d. Telemac Cellular v. Topp Telecom .... 687 —e. ACTV v. Walt Disney ........................ 688 —f. Lava Trading, Inc. v. Sonic Trading

Management, L.L.C. ........................ 689 —7. Refusal to Invalidate Claims Based on

Assertion That Terms Are Not in Specification ............................................ 690 —a. Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v.

Hartford Life Insurance Co. ............. 690 —§11.04 Conclusion ............................................................ 691 —

12. Design Patents for the Information Age .............................. 693 12-112.01 Design Patent Law ................................................ 694 12-2

A. Introduction ................................................... 694 —B. Obtaining Design Patents .............................. 694 12-2C. Infringing Design Patents .............................. 696 —D. Design Patents and Trademarks ..................... 697 —

§12.02 Design Patents for Computer Software ................ 698 12-2A. Patentability of Designs for Computer-

Generated Icons ............................................. 698 —B. USPTO Guidelines for Computer-Generated

Icons ............................................................... 702 12-2C. Practical Considerations for Computer-

Screen Design Patents .................................... 703 12-31. Article of Manufacture Consideration ..... 703 —

a. Software as Article of Manufacture Embodying Ornamental Features ..... 704 —

b. Possible Claim Language ................. 706 —2. Copyright of the Drawings of a Design

Patent ....................................................... 706 —3. Description of the Invention .................... 707 12-34. Classification of Design Patents .............. 708 —5. Other General Considerations ................. 708 12-36. Special Considerations for Software

Companies ............................................... 709 12-47. Special Considerations for

Practitioners ........................................... 710 12-5

V. MANAGING PATENTS IN BUSINESS AND LITIGATION

13. Patent Portfolio Development: An In-House Counsel Perspective ........................................................................... 715 13-1§13.01 Overview .............................................................. 716 —§13.02 Motivation ............................................................ 717 —

A. Managing Competing Interests and Roles ..... 717 —

xlvDetailed Table of Contents

Main Volume

Supple- ment

B. Aligning Interests of Inventing Engineer and Company: The Incentive Program .......... 718 —1. Financial Incentives ................................ 719 —2. Recognition Incentives ............................ 720 —

C. Aligning Interests of Patent Department, Engineering Management, and Company: High-Quality Portfolio at Reasonable Cost With Limited Engineering Resource Burden ........................................................... 722 —

D. Motivational Blocks ....................................... 722 —§13.03 Execution .............................................................. 723 —

A. In-House Patent Counsel and Outside Patent Counsel ............................................... 723 —1. In-House Counsel .................................... 723 —2. Selection and Supervision of Outside

Drafting and Prosecution Counsel .......... 725 —a. Selection of Outside Counsel ............ 725 —b. Supervision of Outside Counsel and

Control of the Patenting Process ...... 726 —B. Patent Administrator and Docketing

Program ......................................................... 728 —1. Patent Administrator ............................... 728 —2. Docketing Program ................................. 729 —

C. Electronic File Storage and Budget ............... 730 —1. Electronic File Storage ............................ 730 —2. Budget ..................................................... 731 —

D. Patent Searcher/Agent .................................... 732 —§13.04 Managing Success ................................................ 733 —

A. Signs of Success ............................................. 733 —B. Techniques for Managing Success ................. 734 —

§13.05 Managing Change: Adjusting and Planning for Swinging Pendulums Embodied in New Case Law and Legislation [Substitute Text; Amended Heading] .............................................. — 13-3A. Pendulum Swings in Case Law

[Amended Heading] ....................................... — 13-41. Obviousness Swings

[Amended Heading] ................................ — 13-4a. Standard of Obviousness

[New Topic] ...................................... — 13-5b. Burden of Proof for Obviousness

[New Topic] ...................................... — 13-82. Subject Matter Swings

[Amended Heading] ................................ — 13-9a. Bilski v. Kappos [New Topic] ........... — 13-9

Electronic and Software Patents—2014 Cumulative Supp.xlvi

Main Volume

Supple- ment

b. Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. [New Topic] ...................................... — 13-12

c. CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp. Federal Circuit Decision [New Topic] ...................................... — 13-14

d. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. [New Topic] ...................................... — 13-24

e. Ultramercial v. WildTangent Federal Circuit Opinion After First Remand [New Topic] ................ — 13-25

f. CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp. and Ultramercial v. WildTangent Supreme Court Decisions: Judge Rader’s Mystery Solved and Last Word on Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis? [New Topic] ...................................... — 13-31

B. Pendulum Swings in Legislation: The America Invents Act [Amended Heading] ..... — 13-321. Effective Dates [Amended Heading] ....... — 13-322. Expanded Prior Art Scope Rules

[Amended Heading] ................................ — 13-323. Reduced Disclosure Burdens

[Amended Heading] ................................ — 13-35C. How Do We Adapt and Evolve in an

Ever-Changing Environment? ........................ — 13-351. Navigating the Obviousness Standard ..... — 13-35

a. Unearthing the Surprising and Unexpected ....................................... — 13-36

b. Preparing Toeholds for the Future .... — 13-37c. Worldwide Filing .............................. — 13-38

2. Securing Subject Matter Patentability ..... — 13-393. Hedge Against Change: Maintain

Pendency, Diversify, and Keep Current .................................................... — 13-40

4. Summary and Process Flow Checklists ................................................ — 13-41a. Develop the Story ............................. — 13-41b. Maintain Pendency ........................... — 13-42c. Diversify the Patent Portfolio ........... — 13-42

§13.06 Conclusion ............................................................ 751 —

14. Noninfringement and Invalidity Opinions ........................... 753 14-1§14.01 Introduction .......................................................... 754 —

xlviiDetailed Table of Contents

Main Volume

Supple- ment

§14.02 Background .......................................................... 755 14-3A. Historical Context .......................................... 755 14-3

1. Pre-1982 .................................................. 755 —2. The Federal Circuit Before In re

Seagate .................................................... 756 —3. In re Seagate ........................................... 757 —4. The America Invents Act [New Topic] .... — 14-3

B. Why Obtain an Opinion of Counsel? ............. 758 14-41. Avoid Liability [Substitute Text] ............. 759 14-42. Willful Infringement [Substitute Text] .... 761 14-73. Increased Damages ................................. 763 14-9

§14.03 Preparation of Opinions ....................................... 767 —A. When to Obtain the Opinion ......................... 768 —B. Who Should Provide the Opinion? ................ 770 —C. How Should an Opinion Be Prepared? .......... 772 —

1. Investigation ............................................ 773 —a. Facts .................................................. 774 —b. Searching .......................................... 774 —c. Determining the Status of the

Patent ................................................ 775 —2. Form (Written or Oral) ............................ 776 —

D. What Should the Opinion Contain? ............... 777 —1. Overall Tone ............................................ 777 —2. Noninfringement or Invalidity ................ 778 —3. Practical Suggestions............................... 779 —

a. Issues ................................................ 780 —b. Facts .................................................. 780 —c. Analysis ............................................ 782 —d. Recommendations ............................ 785 —

E. Follow-Up ...................................................... 786 —F. Conclusion ..................................................... 787 —

§14.04 Noninfringement Analysis ................................... 788 14-10A. Overview ........................................................ 788 —B. General Noninfringement Analysis ............... 789 14-10

1. Claim Interpretation ................................ 789 —a. Intrinsic Evidence ............................. 790 —

i. Ordinary Meaning of Claim Language .................................. 791 —

ii. Doctrine of Claim Differentiation .......................... 792 —

iii. Effect of Preamble as Claim Limitation ................................ 793 —

iv. Using the Specification ............ 795 —v. Means-Plus-Function

Limitations ............................... 796 —

Electronic and Software Patents—2014 Cumulative Supp.xlviii

Main Volume

Supple- ment

vi. Using the Prosecution History ..................................... 798 —

b. Extrinsic Evidence ............................ 799 —2. Claim Application ................................... 801 14-10

C. Doctrine of Equivalents ................................. 804 —1. Overview ................................................. 804 —2. The Tripartite Test ................................... 805 —3. Not a License to Ignore Claim

Limitations .............................................. 806 —4. Other Factors ........................................... 807 —

D. Prosecution History Estoppel ........................ 808 14-11E. Indirect Infringement ..................................... 811 14-12

1. Inducement to Infringe—35 U.S.C. §271(b) ..................................................... 812 14-12

2. Contributory Infringement—35 U.S.C. §271(c) ..................................................... 813 —

§14.05 Invalidity Analyses ............................................... 814 14-13A. Overview ........................................................ 814 —B. Validity Analysis ........................................... 814 14-13

1. Anticipation ............................................. 816 14-132. Obviousness............................................. 821 —3. Enabling Disclosure ................................ 824 —4. Written Description ................................. 826 —5. 35 U.S.C. §101 ......................................... 827 —6. Indefiniteness [New Topic] ..................... — 14-14

§14.06 Attorney-Client Privilege ..................................... 830 —A. Opinion Letters—Relying on the Advice of

Counsel .......................................................... 830 —1. Scope ....................................................... 831 —

a. Subject Matter ................................... 831 —b. Person ............................................... 833 —

2. Work Product Immunity ......................... 836 —

15. Design-Around Techniques ................................................. 841 15-1§15.01 Introduction .......................................................... 842 15-2

A. Benefits and Challenges of Designing Around ........................................................... 842 15-2

B. Overview of the Process ................................ 849 15-3§15.02 Omitting a Claimed Element From the

Designed-Around Product .................................... 851 15-4A. Selecting an Element to Omit ........................ 851 15-4B. Omitting the Element..................................... 852 —

1. Beware of Equivalents of the Omitted Element ................................................... 852 —

2. Omitting Means-Plus-Function Elements .................................................. 853 —

xlixDetailed Table of Contents

Main Volume

Supple- ment

§15.03 Substituting a Component in the Designed- Around Product .................................................... 854 15-4A. Structural Elements ....................................... 854 15-4

1. Substituting a Nonequivalent................... 854 —2. Substitute an Equivalent That Is

Precluded From Causing Infringement ... 856 15-4a. Prosecution History Estoppel ........... 857 15-4b. Prior Art ........................................... 859 —c. Subject Matter Disclosed (or

Otherwise Known) but Not Claimed ............................................ 860 15-5

d. Vitiation ............................................ 862 15-7B. Means-Plus-Function Elements ..................... 868 15-8

1. Substitute a Nondisclosed Means That Is Not an Equivalent ................................ 869 —

2. Substitute a Nondisclosed Means That Is Precluded From Causing Infringement ............................................ 870 15-8

§15.04 Conclusion ............................................................ 872 —

16. Litigation of Patents Involving Software Technology ......... 873 16-1§16.01 Introduction .......................................................... 875 —§16.02 General Comments ............................................... 875 —

A. Software Technology ..................................... 875 —1. Features of the Industry .......................... 875 —2. Features of Participants ........................... 876 —3. Technology .............................................. 876 —

B. Features of Patents Involving Software ......... 877 —§16.03 Specific Issues and Strategies .............................. 877 16-4

A. Infringement .................................................. 877 16-41. How to Determine Infringement ............. 877 16-42. How to Prove Infringement ..................... 880 16-4

a. Direct Infringement .......................... 880 16-4i. In the United States .................. 881 —ii. Multiple actors ......................... 882 —iii. Capability to infringe ............... 885 16-4iv. Other issues .............................. 887 —

b. Indirect Infringement........................ 887 16-4c. Supplying for Combination

Abroad .............................................. 889 —d. Practice of a Method Abroad ............ 891 16-5e. Doctrine of Equivalents .................... 892 —

3. How to Defend Against Infringement ..... 892 —4. Litigation Strategies ................................ 893 16-5

a. Jurisdiction and Venue ...................... 893 —b. Preliminary Relief ............................ 894 16-5

Electronic and Software Patents—2014 Cumulative Supp.l

Main Volume

Supple- ment

B. Validity .......................................................... 895 16-61. Statutory Subject Matter [Substitute Text] 895

16-6a. Subject Matter Challenges May Not

Require Claim Construction Prior to a Decision on the Merits [New Topic] ...................................... — 16-10

b. Post-Bilski and Alice, Computer Claims May Be Required to Reference or Require a Specific Machine to Impart Patentability [New Topic] ................. — 16-11

c. Beauregard Claims [New Topic] ...... — 16-112. Prior Art .................................................. 896 16-12

a. America Invents Act (AIA) .............. 896 —b. Where to Find Prior Art ................... 897 —c. On Sale ............................................. 898 —d. Public Use ......................................... 899 —e. Experimental Use ............................. 903 —f. Prior Invention and Knowledge of

the Invention [Substitute Text] .......... — 16-12g. Publications ...................................... 905 —

3. Enabling Disclosure ................................ 908 —4. Best Mode ............................................... 910 —5. Written Description ................................. 911 16-14

a. Claims Broader Than Specification ..................................... 911 16-14

b. No Support for Claim Element ......... 912 —6. Indefinite Claims ..................................... 913 16-15

a. Vague Terms ..................................... 913 16-15b. Lack of Support for a Software

Means-Plus-Function Element .......... 917 16-18c. Mixing Structure and Function ........ 921 —

7. Obviousness............................................. 922 —C. Claim Construction ........................................ 926 16-19

1. Principles ................................................. 926 16-192. The Claims .............................................. 926 16-20

a. Ordinary Meaning as Understood by Persons of Ordinary Skill ............ 926 16-20i. Ordinary skill ........................... 926 —ii. Ordinary meaning .................... 928 —

(a) Dictionaries ..................... 928 —(b) Nontechnical terms and

rules of grammar ............. 931 —(c) Business terms ................. 932 —(d) Timing ............................. 933 —

liDetailed Table of Contents

Main Volume

Supple- ment

iii. Context of claims ..................... 934 16-20iv. Claim differentiation ................ 938 16-20

b. What to Do With the Preamble ........ 939 —3. Using the Specification ........................... 942 —

a. General Principles ............................ 942 —b. Terms Defined in the Specification .. 942 —c. Proper Use of the Preferred

Embodiment—Absence of an Explicit Definition, Resolution of Ambiguities, and Upholding Validity ..................... 946 —

d. Improper Importation of the Preferred Embodiment ..................................... 953 —

4. Prosecution History ................................. 958 16-205. Order of Steps in a Method Claim .......... 964 —6. Means-Plus-Function Elements ............... 964 —

a. When to Invoke 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶6 .. 964 —b. Corresponding Structure .................. 969 —

i. Only software disclosed ........... 969 —ii. Hardware and software

disclosed ................................... 971 —iii. Other issues .............................. 972 —

c. Proving Equivalence ......................... 974 —D. Relief .............................................................. 974 16-21

1. How to Prove Damages ........................... 974 —a. Lost Profit ......................................... 974 —b. Reasonable Royalty .......................... 976 —

2. How to Limit Damages ........................... 978 —3. Injunctions ............................................... 979 16-214. Attorneys’ Fees [New Topic] ................... — 16-21

E. Standards ....................................................... 980 —1. Estoppel ................................................... 980 —2. Fraud ....................................................... 982 —

F. Inequitable Conduct ....................................... 983 —§16.04 Conclusion ............................................................ 984 —

APPENDIXES

Appendix A: Patent Application Checklist ............................ 985 —Appendix B: Sample Software Patent ................................... 991 —Appendix C: Sample Electronics Patent ................................ 1035 —Appendix D: Sample Business Method Patent ...................... 1067 —Appendix E: Sample Design Patents ..................................... 1103 —

Table of Cases ............................................................................ 1129 T-1Index .......................................................................................... 1161 —