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.

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

Become a Fan

« USPTO News Briefs | Main | PwC Report: 2017 Will Be Year of Equilibrium for Medical Costs »

August 01, 2016

Comments

"A process is a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing."

It is difficult to see anything sufficiently transformative in the claimed method to bring the claimed combination clearly within section 101. A quick look at the specification does not help. What can you do with the information, and how can you better control the grid?

>> In a rather amusing aside, the Court noted that the claimed invention did not "invoke any assertedly inventive programming." How the Court came to this conclusion is a mystery -- the steps of a software claim can be implemented in a virtually unlimited number of ways. And as anyone who has programmed for a living would know, even the most mundane-seeming applications can be innovatively (or non-innovatively) programmed.

Do you see any innovative algorithm or data structure in the claims? I dont, so the court's conclusion seems straightforward.

So one can just look at claims and determine whether the code to implement the invention is innovative?

I said that the conclusion that the claimed invention did not invoke any assertedly innovative programming was straightforward based on the claims.

Since the claims are on their face enabled by (as opposed to "enabled to"!) the ordinary skill of those in the art, then there is nothing asserting programmatic innovation in the claimed invention.

Claim 1. A computer configured to perform and display a fizbuzz operation.

Even if the specification discloses some absurdly novel fizbuzz solution, there is nothing innovative about the claimed invention's programming until that innovation is actually claimed.

There is no basis for concluding anything regarding the complexity of programmatic implementation of an invention from the language of its claims. Rader made this mistake as well, though in the other direction, in a few 101 cases.

So I disagree with the Court's conclusion that the claims here fail to "invoke any assertedly inventive programming."

Your position is essentially agnostic regarding the programmatic innovation of the claims, and like Agnosticism that's a supremely defensible position but not useful for advancing the discussion.

The point of the court's 'mysterious' conclusion is that the claims were enabled prior to the disclosure, so the disclosure is just a result, i.e., an abstract idea.

Bob,

That you are cognizant of the legal meaning of the terms that you are using,...

I am....

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2017

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