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.

Contact the Docs


  • "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 #8 Overall Rank


« Unwired Planet, LLC v. Google Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016) | Main | Guest Post -- USPTO Charting the Way for Subject Matter Eligibility »

November 22, 2016


If you download the first of the patents in issue, the drawings appear very linear, devoid of significant branching or feedback features which could indicate genuine ingenuity. It is therefore difficult to see what was the innovation which creates genuine new function and is the inventors' own discovery.

Interestingly,the corresponding EP-B-1173809 was granted with minimal difficulty and there was no opposition filed.

Hey Paul,

As you note, patent-eligibility law here in the States is currently a strange beast, and will remain as such until Congress tells SCOTUS to "toe the line," or more appropriately, read no exceptions into 35 USC 101.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2024

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