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.


  • "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.

Become a Fan

« Amicus Briefs in Support of Sequenom's Petition for Rehearing En Banc: Novartis AG | Main | PLI Patent Litigation 2015 »

September 24, 2015


"Unfortunately for the applicants here, the examiners' rejections of both applications were ultimately upheld on other grounds."

What a pity. That means we'll never get a chance to see those junk claims tanked under 101 which is plainly what should have happened here.

"While the blessing of the PTAB is in no way a guarantee that a reviewing court will come to the same conclusion"

No kidding. It's actually worse than "no guarantee." When it comes to subject matter eligibility, the PTO's reasoning and decision-making is next to worthless unless their hand is being held by an actual patent attorney who knows what subject matter eligibility is, why it exists, and how it works.

"Particularly, both claim sets involve or incorporate a physical-world aspect."

If you are suggesting to your readers that "incorporate a physical-world aspect" makes their claims more likely to pass 101, congrats! You are learning. If you are suggesting that such "incorporation" ends the analysis or even comes close to ending the analysis, then you are doing a grave disservice to your less intelligent readers who don't know any better.

"Notoriously unclear and difficult to apply in practice"

LOL. It helps if you actually try to understand. In most cases it's quite simple and straightforward.

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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 31