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.

Become a Fan

« Vehicle Intelligence and Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015) | Main | Court Report »

December 30, 2015

Comments

"Further, it is helpful to see additional examples of software claims found to be patent eligible, which today does not happen too often.

Hey Joe,

Agreed, but we're judging these software claims under the wrong section (101), rather than the right ones (112, 102, and 103 in that order). At least this district court recognized the correctness of the Diehr rule of judging the claimed subject matter "as a whole" that Alice blithely says it obeyed but in reality didn't. The chaos created by the broken and nonsensical Alice test continues.

This opinion is clearly misguided and will be reversed on appeal. This is an abstract idea without an inventive improvement on existing technology. This judge was drinking the pro patent koolaid and does not correctly apply Alice. Yesterday's per Curiam Fed. Cir. Opinion makes this abundantly clear

The claim is to a program, but all it does is set out what the patentee wishes to accomplish. Wishes are abstract! What would be patentable is the actual programming that could carry out:

"creating such communication channel whether the personal computer is linked to the Internet directly (with a publicly addressable) dynamic IP address or indirectly via an Internet gateway/proxy (with a publicly unaddressable dynamic LAN IP address."

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2016

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