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

« BIO International Convention 2017 Preview | Main | Webinar on PTAB Full or Partial Denials »

June 22, 2017

Comments

"coded data as ineligible" "such operations should become eligible when applied to the production of images"

How do you split that particular hair? How are images not data? How is the abstract idea of sampling not stone obvious in ANY context?

All you are proposing is more arbitrary line-drawing as to what is "technical" in character.

This is an information patent, and information is 100% abstract, all the time. I'm against patents on information, but if we have to have them (and I can see a rational case for SOME information patents) than we need a clear bright line as to what is too abstract for patenting. There is one; an intuitive, repeatable, easy test. If the information is being consumed by a non-human, it's an eligible process. If the value of the information is found in its meaning to human beings, not an eligible process. In this case, machines are clearly the consumers of the encoding and, the method should be eligible on THAT basis.

But there should be a second basis to eligibility beyond adherence to a statutory category. If there is no no invention, obviousness cannot be evaluated. Without an invention, there is no PHOSITA. Only an invention can be found to be obvious or not obvious or anticipated.

Ideas that don't rise to the level of inventions are not inventions, and cannot be evaluated as inventions. If a threshold inquiry determines that there is simply nothing added by the inventor other than stating a desirable outcome or assembling well-known means to an easily foreseeable end, there is not even an invention to analyze, and the idea(s) are ineligible.

In this case, sampling is ancient and the benefits of sampling entirely foreseeable. if the algo has some novelty, there could be a patent there....

Otherwise, yea, how can we sustain MPEG patents at all?

@ Martin H Snyder

An image is a representation of a person or thing which is perceptible by a person in reflection or in emission.

Data is material in computer memory.

The skilled reader is perfectly aware of the difference. You do not need an Oxford or Harvard degree to know that.

Come to think of it there is a simple way to show the difference in the present context.

Suppose that you have burgled my house and I saw you leave. I could visit the local police station and using the FACES program there is a good chance that a likeness could be created.

A string of code data for the selected facial features could then be transmitted to a policeman having a tablet also loaded with FACES.

Nothing humanly recognizable would be produced by viewing the string of data. The policeman would be helpless to recognize you.

But if the data string were decoded and recognized at the tablet, the policeman would have a good likeness of you, would have a good chance of finding and arresting you, and you would then go to prison as richly deserved.

Your statement that this is an information patent and information is 100% abstract is what we in the UK refer to as bollocks. It is astonishing that a person of your background and knowledge should lend your name to such nonsense, even in this age of fake fact.

Mr. Snyder has ever refused to recognize that ALL utility, and especially utility in the legal world of patents, touches upon the utility "to meaning to human beings."

Try the converse: what out there that has NO meaning to human beings none-the-less has patentable utility?

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.)

July 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