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


« Patent Trolls Beware! -- Supreme Court to Review Patent Venue Statute | Main | Webinar on Parallel Patent Proceedings »

December 15, 2016


"Whether the claims recite "known" material should be addressed under novelty and obviousness -- not as a threshold for determining whether the claims recite subject matter eligible for patenting."

You plainly don't understand how or why the 101 analysis works. If you don't understand the basics, you really have no business writing about the subject.

Put another way, it's logically impossible to have a functional screen for patent eligible subject matter without understanding the relationship of a claim to the prior art.

Again: if you can't understand this, then you shouldn't be participating in the discussion. It's basic elementary stuff.

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