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

« Konami Gaming, Inc. v. High 5 Games, LLC (D. Nev.) | Main | ABA Provides Guidance on Required Disclosure of Attorney Errors »

April 18, 2018

Comments

Hey James,

A "telephone" is a machine. Machines are one of the statutory subject matter in Section 101. That should have been the end of the story in denying this motion to dismiss.

Instead, the nonsensical Mayo/Alice framework causes all this convoluted effort which should be addressing the merits of the claimed invention under Sections 102/103. What a waste of legal resources.

ping...

pong...

ping...

(where it stops, nobody knows)

well, that is as long as the concept of Void for Vagueness is not entertained....

Entirely agree with EG

The US profession appears to have entirely lost contact with the positive requirements of section 101.

Listing some of the claim elements

Telephone
Display panel
Datastore
Circuitry
Function selector

It should be realized that a display is not a manufacture or an element of a manufacture. It is an abstract idea. You simply imagine a display, say 1920 pixels by 1080 pixels and it will magically appear before you, operable at the required resolution and configured to communicate wirelessly with any other suitable device. No nasty messing about with transparent panels, electrodes and liquid crystals or OLEDs. All of that is old hat - the hand of man is not needed, simply the imagination of man. Or perhaps an imaginary man. The Federal Circuit reasoning implies it most be so, and that is therefore the way the world is.

Or should we take the view that some of the reasoning of the Federal Circuit would deserve a failing grade in any final examination in any law school where the common law is taught.


I think this decision puts a new spin on patent eligibility.

Mr. Cole,

at least until the ping-pong ball is returned across the net...

It's a patent on information, period. The information is what to show a user, based on other information about a user. There is nothing new or inventive in any of the actual technology.

If we want patents on information, fine. For a million bucks you can go down the road of the obviousness of the information. But its game playing to pretend that the technology is not utterly obvious off the dime.

In my view, information that derives its utility from direct human consumption should not be eligible, and information that derives its utility from direct machine consumption should be. Obviousness can reasonably be bounded in the machine case, but is virtually impossible to ascertain repeatably in the human case.

Over 500 downloads now- and when this politically shakes out, maybe my notion will get some traction...

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2709289

"In my view, information that derives its utility from direct human consumption should not be eligible"

You still do not comprehend utility.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 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