KRATZ, QUINTOS & HANSON, LLP

IP Newsletter

IP NEWSLETTER VOL. IV, ISSUE NO.8

Volume IV, Issue No. 8

A PATENT SPECIFICATION THAT USES A PRODUCT NAME, WHICH DOES NOT EXIST, IN DESCRIBING THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT OF THE INVENTION DOES NOT NECESSARILY VIOLATE THE "BEST MODE" REQUIREMENT UNDER 35 U.S.C. §112, FIRST PARAGRAPH

by  Mel R. Quintos

 

 

In the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) case of Green Edge Enterprises, LLC v. Rubber Mulch Etc,, LLC, decided September 7, 2010, Green Edge Enterprises (owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,910,514) sued Rubber Mulch and others for infringement.

 

The patent claims are directed to a synthetic mulch (a protective covering placed on the earth around growing plants) that is colored with a “water based acrylic colorant” to imitate natural mulch. More particularly, the claimed synthetic mulch, “colored to imitate a natural mulch,” is comprised of a plurality of rubber particles “designed and dimensioned to look like natural mulch,” and the “water based acrylic colorant” coats the rubber particles (Claim 1). The claimed colorant is “a water based acrylic called VISICHROME” (Claim 3). According to the patent’s specification:–click here to read more