Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Patent Law Blogs -> Patently Obvious
OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Patent Law
: Patently ObviousPatently-O Bits and Bytes: Queries from Readers
By Dennis Crouch, Esq.
ADVERTISEMENTS
- Query 1: A means-plus-function claim is limited to corresponding structures found in the specification as well as their equivalents. In litigation, is the process of identifying corresponding structures merely claim construction that is reviewed de novo on appeal?
- Query 2: In the original application, applicant received a restriction requirement and withdrew the apparatus claims and did not file a divisional. Now, in the reissue application (filed within two years of issuance), the applicant wants to add new apparatus claims (that are different from the original claims), but the examiner argues that by failing to file a divisional, applicant surrendered rights to all potential apparatus claims. This appears to be an expansion of Orita, 550 F.2d 1277 (CCPA 1977), but is it proper? See MPEP 1412.01.
Full post as published by Patently Obvious on April 07, 2010 (boomark / email).
Related Searches
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.

Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 8Patent Law Blog (Patently-O)
Thank You Readers for Top Blawg Ranking
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE IN EVERYDAY CASES: ESI BYTES PODCAST
Patently-O Bits and Bytes No. 25Patent Law Blog (Patently-O)









