E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.

Disclaimer

  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.

  • Law Blogs

Become a Fan

« Docs @ BIO -- Federal District Court vs. the PTAB | Main | Conference & CLE Calendar »

June 27, 2014

Comments

They need to define what an "abstract idea" is. This can be done based on SCOTUS precedent going back to Gottschalk v. Benson. An "abstract idea" has been defined as: laws of nature, a broad claim to a mathematical formula (though a novel method is not disqualified merely because it includes of a mathematical formula), and prior art methods that are not made novel merely because they are implemented with a computer (though implementing a novel method with a computer does not disqualify it).

Michelle Lee spoke at Stanford on Thursday, title "Speaking Truth to Patents: the Case for a Better Patent System". Nothing of substance - I was disappointed.

Derek,

Perhaps she should have listed the aid of the master of truthiness, instead....?

Alas, perhaps Mr. Colbert would have ended up skewering the wonderful Miss Lee and the lack of an appointed and vetted leader. After all, how many hundreds of days DOES it take to get to the center of a lollipop?

The "and prior art methods that are not made novel merely because they are implemented with a computer" is clearly a bastardization of the law and is not a proper 101 argument.

Maybe that's why the Court refused to give a definition.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30