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

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | PTAB Life Sciences Report »

January 14, 2018

Comments

A Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art can readily see that:

"virtually any application on a mobile device improves the function of that device"

After all, that is the purposeful utility of imbuing devices with new capabilities. Such imbuing may occur along any of the various DESIGN choices of hardware/firmware/software; and the patent world equivalence of these choices has long been known.

As contrasted with (the TRIPLE undefined):

"generic computer implementation of an otherwise abstract process does not qualify as significantly more."

What (exactly) is a "generic computer?"
What (exactly) is an "abstract process?"
What (exactly) qualifies as "significantly more?"

And perhaps a few bigger questions:

How long will Congress sleep on the Court absconding with its power in the judicial rewriting of 101?

How long until a court declares the Court re-written "Two-Step" as being Void for Vagueness?

How long will this writing law (by common law evolution) be tolerated when such happens during prosecution (and by examiners under the Executive Branch administrative agency that NOWHERE has been granted such "judicial power" over a (legislative) statutory law?

"The Supreme Court's Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l case set forth a two-part test to determine whether claims are directed to patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. One must first decide whether the claim at hand is directed to a judicially-excluded law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea."

Hey Michael,

Sigh. This nonsensical two-part test is bad enough as being noncompliant with the express language of 35 USC 101. It's even worse that SCOTUS won't define a key phrase of the first part, namely what is an "abstract idea." Again, I could do better with a Ouija board predicting patent-eligibility.

While any decision allowing a claim under Section 101 is to be applauded, I recall having word processing software having these prediction capabilities on the PC I was using in the 1980's. To be honest, I disliked the feature, and kept to WordStar which was the trusted software of the time.

Rather than gibbering on about Section 101 eligibility, a bit of straightforward novelty searching might be a more fruitful approach for the defendants.

Paul there is very likely prior art, but it's a several million dollars away from a 12(b)6. Without looking, I don't know if an IPR has been filed, but that's still at LEAST a half million away from a 12(b)6 and probably too late to stay this case- gambler's risk on the 101 prior to the IPR.....

Mr. Snyder,

As I am sure that you are aware (as I have seen you be so informed), the "because of cost" is NOT a valid reason to muck up the different sections of law.

Aspersions such as "gambler's risk" tell more about you (and your use of such aspersions) than they do of your target.

Will you learn these simple lessons?

I am:

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