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.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

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


  • "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.


Become a Fan

« Financial Times to "the Patent Troll Narrative" -- Much Ado About Nothing | Main | Cardinal IP Presentation on Post Grant Review Strategy »

October 19, 2017


The idea of communicating information about a mail object by use of a marking is "abstract" only in an alternative reality. What could be a more concrete idea? These patents should have been held invalid under 103, not 101. Right result, wrong reasoning, based on overly wooden interpretation of Alice

One can - and should - easily see that such an "overly wooden interpretation" of Alice means that NOTHING at all is protected from the "Gist/Abstract" sword.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2018

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