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_165
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


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 to Remain Open during Government Shutdown | Main | Trans-Pacific Partnership Becoming a Reality »

January 22, 2018

Comments

"The claim explicitly recites "a television," "a relevancy-matching server," "a mobile device," and "a content identification server," each of which processes data and communicates various data amongst each other. How we have come to a place in the law where "a television" is an abstract idea is a bit puzzling for sure."

Couldn't agree with you more. A TV is NOT abstract. But until lower court judges are willing to stand up to SCOTUS and tell the judges of that court that they're full of @#$% when they say that a TV is abstract, we're going to have to advise our clients that a judge may say a TV is abstract.

Myself, I'd ding claim 1 under 112: "a fingerprint data". Data is plural. You can't have "a data". (Is it too much to ask that *all* USPTO examiners to be fluent in English?)

Second case that I have seen this month with the "Pass the First Step and need go no further" edict.

Every single one of those claim elements, including a television, should be interpreted as 112(f).

"The claim explicitly recites "a television," "a relevancy-matching server," "a mobile device," and "a content identification server," each of which processes data and communicates various data amongst each other."


Read again-- every single one of those claim elements recites intended use of the structure, not actual use (or configuration) of the structure; "a television TO ...", not "a television that..."

The comments to this entry are closed.

August 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