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 | Shire Development LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017) »

February 13, 2017

Comments


1. The concept of transferring funds between accounts without a pre-established link between the accounts is an abstract idea.
2 The claims broadly recite functions that can be performed by any generic computing device, no new inventive step was identified.

What happened to "the computer system being adapted to being accessed by a human sender's communication medium device?"

Specialized hardware is not required, but the claim requires hardware configured in a new way (adapted to being accessed...). Therefore, it should survive the test, unless the "adapted to being accessed by communication medium device" is not novel, under section 102.


According to the USPTO at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html:

While abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patenting, methods and products employing abstract ideas, natural phenomena, and laws of nature to perform a real-world function may well be.
Thus, if a claim is directed to a judicial exception, it must be analyzed to determine whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself - this has been termed a search for an inventive concept. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2357, 110 USPQ2d at 1981. This analysis considers whether the claim as a whole is for a particular application of an abstract idea, natural phenomenon, or law of nature, as opposed to the abstract idea, natural phenomenon, or law of nature itself. Mayo Collaborative Serv. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. _, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965-66 (2012) (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187, 209 USPQ at 7).

CIP,

Your 1) reveals a primary fault of the "Gist/Abstract" sword:

ALL concepts (and you can gist ALL claims down to a "concept" of something), are - by definition - abstract ideas.

Your 2) reveals the fallacy of what has been recognized as the Big Box of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons:

It is not merely "the functionality that individually may be performed by "generic" computing devices (a lovely term, but like other gobbedlygook such as "abstract" or "significantly more," is very much like a nose of wax, being undefined), but rather, the particular configuration that matters.

If indeed, by what is meant by the "phrase" is that any old existing computer loaded with per chance a particular set of software (kind of important not to gloss over what that may actually mean, mind you) can cover the claim, then the correct patent doctrine to apply would not fall under 101, but would would under 102 or 103 and the doctrine of inherency.

We should not be accomplices to the emperor parading around in the buff.

Dear Skeptical:

I didn't decide the case, I am questioning the judgment and rationality of the test and its application.

FYI, the following points are not mine, but from the article and the basis for the judgment - the two-part test:
1. The concept of transferring funds between accounts without a pre-established link between the accounts is an abstract idea.
2 The claims broadly recite functions that can be performed by any generic computing device, no new inventive step was identified.

My point was, sorry it was not clear,
How can one state "claims broadly recite functions that can be performed by any generic computing device, no new inventive step was identified"
when "claim requires hardware configured in a new way (adapted to being accessed...)"?

I am not sure of your point, but per the judgment, if I take a generic computer without any modification to it, I should be able to reduce to practice "the generic concept of transferring funds." Is this what you call emperor's clothes or the new yoga pants (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/yoga-pants-emperors-new-clothes-rao-vepachedu?trk=mp-author-card)?

CIP,

I believe that we are on the same side of the fence.

The emperor's clothes has to do with the emperor (the Supreme Court) and the pundits that support the current 101 judicial muckery (the clothiers and the townspeople who pretend that the emperor's raiment are just 'so fine').

The concept you present here in your reply goes by another name: inherency.

If indeed no inventive step is present, then the "generic computer' - whatever that is - inherently already can "do" or "be" the claimed invention.

Nice echo chamber here. When you two are finished sucking on each other's feet, maybe take a moment to appreciate that the words "computer configured to perform new logic operation X" doesn't describe an inventive *structure*.

The words describe only a fantasy about a new functionality, in functional terms. That's an abstraction. It's ineligible.

As if that's not bad enough, the "functionality" in question -- moving some numbers around between "accounts" -- is also abstract garbage.

Keep up the great foot sucking guys! Between the two of you, you'll learn absolutely nothing and we'll all point and laugh. This blog, by the way, is absolutely useless if you wish to understand subject matter eligibility. Nobody in charge has any idea what's going on and that's been well-documented.

Malcolm,

Please try again - this time with a proper patent doctrine of inherency.

Not sure where the "foot sucking" comes from though - are you projecting again?

Never mind - I really don't care to know.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

April 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