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.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 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.
Juristat_165
Juristat #8 Overall Rank

Pharma-50-transparent_216px_red

« "No Clinically Meaningful Differences": The First Accepted Biosimilar Application Has Been Recommend for FDA Approval | Main | Webinar on Prevailing Before the PTAB »

January 15, 2015

Comments

Andrew, the claim you quoted should be DOA on 103 grounds, and should be invalidated by PTAB on that basis, but I'm betting it goes down on 101 in IPR. Ugh.

Dear In Sight,

As you may be aware, section 101 is not available to attack a patent in the IPR setting. I suspect this may be why the petitioners filed the CBM patent review petition in the first place. As to whether the claim will succumb to a 103 challenge, it remains to be seen. I have not reviewed the art, and even when at first glance a claim might appear obvious, there can be insufficient facts to support that conclusion. It will be interesting to see what happens. Thanks for the comment (and I hope you get some relief).

Andrew

Andrew: "As to whether the claim will succumb to a 103 challenge, it remains to be seen. I have not reviewed the art"

Funny stuff, Andrew. When you were you born?

By the way, I just lvoe the "limitation" in the claim that the drug is under "exclusive control of an exclusive pharmacy." Raise that eligibility flag and wave it high! Low "technology" at its very lowest.

Kaptain Korwood,

Please refrain from attacking the author with the subtle intonation of a character attack (were you born yesterday), when the author merely states that an attack on 103 grounds is not discussable, given that no prior art has been proffered for such a discussion.

Further, your "view" of relative "height" of innovation is neither wanted, nor pertinent.

Let's try to stick to the issue being discussed. Thanks.

Skeptical: "the author merely states that an attack on 103 grounds is not discussable"

And I'm merely stating that the need for specific "prior art" references in order to evaluate the obviousnes or eligibility of incredibly feeble claims like this one is a cop-out.

Kaptain Korwood,

And I am merely pointing out that whether or not you "feel" it is a cop-out (it is not), it is NOT even on point to the discussion of this thread, and does not warrant the use of your ad hominem.

Let's keep the level of discussion here at a higher plane.

Skeptical: "it is NOT even on point to the discussion of this thread"

The subject of this thread is a business method claim that is almost certainly going to be deemed obvious or ineligible.

Andrew is going to "watch" because, apparently, he is unaware of "prior art" such as, e.g., the use of computers for automating information processing tasks ("determining" stuff and "confirming" stuff -- wow!); monitoring drug prescriptions for doctor and/or patient abuse (gee, sounds familiar); and/or doing stuff "exclusively" (it's difficult not to laugh).

Then there is that drug mailing step that is also "computerized." Maybe it's some sort of "exclusive" pill vending machine attached to a label marker and a robot who licks the padded envelopes. This inspiring applicant will no doubt pursue that "innovation" in a continuation.

Kaptain Korwood,

Since I can make out no point pertinent to the discussion in your latest rambling, I will presume that you have no point to add to the topic of this thread.

"I will presume that you have no point to add to the topic of this thread."

The topic of this thread was a set of ineligible and/or obvious claims that Andrew is going to "keep an eye on" for us.

It would appear to be you who has "nothing to add" to that topic. Pat yourself on the back.

And by all means, try to keep up. If Andrew doesn't remind you of the fate of these claims, then I will. After all, patent attorneys who know what eligible, non-obvious claims look like will be interested. If you're not, well, that's only to be expected.

The topic of the thread - and the disconnect from that topic that your comments represent has been clearly established.

There is no need for any "pat on the back" - if you want to discuss the topic of the thread, please do so. Your irrelevant musings are to be ignored.

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2020

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