1. 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.
office:
FEBRUARY 12, 2013

2. 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

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

4. 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

5. 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

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

7. 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?

8. 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).

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

10. 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

11. www.bannerwitcoff.com Aseet Patel Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
For updated slides please visit
CHICAGO, IL
Ten South Wacker Drive
Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 6060 T F
WASHINGTON, DC
th Street NW
Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20005 T F
BOSTON, MA
28 State Street
Suite 1800
Boston, MA 02109 T F
PORTLAND, OR
601 S.W. Second Avenue
Suite 1900
Portland, OR 97204 T F