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

« Court Report | Main | Docs @ BIO -- Federal District Court vs. the PTAB »

June 25, 2014

Comments

[T]he memorandum makes it clear that the decision "neither creates a per se excluded category of subject matter, such as software or business methods, nor imposes any special requirements for eligibility of software or business methods."

Michael,

I'll believe that statement when I actually see an Examiner heed that statement. So far, that has not been my experience.

Speaking for my brother Curious for a moment,

Why would a memorandum spell out that the decision is not CREATING a per se excluded category, if, as many members of a certain philosophy already hold, such categories are ALREADY in place?

If such are already in place, would not the Office memo AFFIRM that understanding, rather than distance itself from that understanding?

I have no doubt that an over-zealous examiner could take a narrow view of 101. However, with the PTO guidelines in hand, at least you could point out to him or her that there is no per se ban on software or business method patents, and that he or she needs to provide the two-prong analysis.

the tests are unless if examiners don't follow them.

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