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

« Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Mylan Institutional LLC (Fed. Cir. 2017) | Main | Zircore, LLC v. Straumann Manufacturing, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2017) »

February 01, 2017

Comments

Once again - ALL software can be recognized as manufactures intended to be machine components that in one way or another improve something in the context of computer capabilities.

Soft-WARE is nothing more than a design choice of "-wares" FOR the context of computer capabilities.

If your test for overcoming abstractness is to look into the specification and see if it discusses a problem and solution in a technological field, then every patent application is non-abstract.

"...[T]he Court finds the asserted CLAIMS of the ’360 Patent RECITE specific implementation of
A SYSTEM OF RETRIEVING AND ACCESSING FILES STORED IN A COMPUTER STORAGE DEVICE". (emphasis added).

I'm not sure which claims were asserted, but No, mr. judge man, Claim 1 does not recite a system of retrieving and accessing files stored in a computer system. It's a method comprising 3 steps, creating a table, creating a directory, and creating a filter. There's no use of the three data structures even recited in the claim. At least ones of the claims in that patent are abstract.

But again, I think he was deciding "is there at least one claim that isn't abstract?", to which the answer could easily be yes.

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 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
31