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

« USPTO Sets New Deadline for Migration to Financial Manager | Main | Webinar on Patent Prosecution Post-Alice »

July 28, 2016

Comments

Another "exception" that swallows the rule...

If all you need is that somehow the patent protects something that makes money, then ALL patents of any value are swallowed up into the scope of the review.

Skeptical Dogberry categorizes as an "exception" to a "rule" the finding that:

"such concepts fail to improve an existing technological process. As a result, the PTAB found that the claims failed step 2 of the § 101 patentable subject matter determination"

He's like the guy driving the Autobahn who gets a call from his wife on his cell, warning of a car driving the wrong way on the Autobahn.

"Not just one, dear" he replies. "There are hundreds of them".

Dogberry is a fan of set theory but seems to be unable to grasp that there is no absolute prohibition on business methods simply because it is not inconceivable that something in the nature of a "business method" might one day also be viewable as a technical solution to a technical problem.

MaxDrei,

What are you babbling about?

Did you read the words in the story here? How the argument was used and unfolded?

Or did you just want to take it upon yourself to respond to the poster because of some new pet name that you have amused yourself with and an old joke that just does not fit?

The comments to this entry are closed.

December 2019

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