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

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | USPTO News Briefs »

March 12, 2017

Comments

As pleased as I am to see this uber-troll take it on the chin, yet again I'm bothered by this being done through 101 rather than 102, 103 or 112. The fact this these sorts of invalidations have become routine shouldn't inure us to their wrongness.

What (if anything) does the spoof packet contribute to the feast?

The written description does not explain very well, and the claim considered by the court says nothing much about it.

There does not seem to be anything novel which falls into an eligible category and contributes new utility. So the case for positive compliance seems weak.

Mr. Cole,

What, if anything, is this "positive compliance" that you speak of?

You seem to have lost your way and look to a requirement that is not there in US law (leastwise, not there in the law written by Congress - you seem of late enamored with a differently written law, that being one written by the judicial branch).

The item that be novel not need be falling into an eligible category, the eligible category is not parsed down to the elements (novel or otherwise) and is instead taken (by the law as written by Congress) to the claim as a whole.

Likewise with utility.

If you are going to dabble in the US jurisprudence, perhaps you should heed some advice: it is ok to have an open mind, but do not have such an open mind that your brain falls out.

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.)

March 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