Preparing Software Patent Applications in 10 Minutes or Less USPTO Software Partnership Roundtable (Stanford University) Aseet Patel Patent Attorney (and former U.S. Patent Examiner) Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. e-mail: apatel@bannerwitcoff.com office: 312-463-5000 FEBRUARY 12, 2013

Agenda 35 USC 112, Para. 1 Enablement of Software Inventions Written Description Practice Pointers for In-house Counsel & Patent Attorneys Examination Suggestions for U.S. Patent Examiners PIeter

What Is a Software Patent? “Software is all about the implementation of a function across machines.”

35 USC 112, Para. 1 – Enablement & Written Description Enabling Disclosure? – Wand Factors: Scope/Breadth of Claims Nature of Invention Amount of Direction/Guidance Present Presence/Absence of Working Examples State of the Art Relative Skill in the Art Predictability/Unpredictability of the Art Quantity of Experimentation Needed

State of the Art & Relative Skill in the Art State of the prior art existing at the application filing date is used to determine whether a particular disclosure is enabling. file I.D.S. use incorporation by reference – 37 CFR 1.57; MPEP 2181 In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods. (Fed. Cir. 1992) “Essential Subject Matter” Relative skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the application filing date – adequacy of disclosure? the nature of the invention (Wand factor) the role of the computer program in carrying it out the complexity of the computer programming

Presence/Absence of Working Examples Commercially available product Specific hardware and off-the-shelf products Prophetic examples – “blue sky” patenting (MPEP 2164.02)

Amount of Guidance/Direction Present Algorithm, Flowcharts, & Pseudo-code functions v.s. acts Other – configuration file, XML file, data file, other human-readable file $1,000,000 question-- What level of disclosure is sufficient?

35 USC 112, Para. 1 – Enablement & Written Description “While some inventions require more disclosure, the adequacy of the description of an invention depends on its content in relation to the particular invention, not its length.” In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods. (Fed. Cir. 1992).

In-house Counsel: Who Should Be Included In Software Invention Disclosure Meetings? Outside Counsel Business Development/Marketing Project Manager Computer Programmer Others?

U.S. Patent Examiners – Examination of Software Patent Applications Glossary– contemporaneous dictionary, cite to specification Clear written record – esp. 35 USC 112, para. 6 means-plus-function claim limitations Require information submission from Applicants – 37 CFR 1.105

www.bannerwitcoff.com Aseet Patel Banner & Witcoff, Ltd. For updated slides please visit http://www.bannerwitcoff.com/apatel CHICAGO, IL Ten South Wacker Drive Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 6060 T 312.463.5000 F 312.463.5001 WASHINGTON, DC 1100 13th Street NW Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20005 T 202.824.3000 F 202.824.3001 BOSTON, MA 28 State Street Suite 1800 Boston, MA 02109 T 617.720.9600 F 617.720.9601 PORTLAND, OR 601 S.W. Second Avenue Suite 1900 Portland, OR 97204 T 503.425.6800 F 503.425.6801