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
Juristant #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

« IPO Webinar on Federal Circuit Appeals and Remands to the PTAB | Main | A Glimmer of an Idea on an Experimental Use Exemption »

November 06, 2018

Comments

It cannot comport with due process that these eligibility determinations are like lotteries- totally random based on the draw of the District Judge and their personal notions of 101 and 12(b)6 in general.

This "invention" is absurd. Flight simulators always start with a selection of locale- usually where the trainee flies or will be flying.

Consulting the GPS you happen to have in your hand to determine your location is not exactly inventive. It's also an abstraction.

ping pong ping...

Mr. Snyder, the "consumer" of the GPS location is the machine - per your own dictates, this CANNOT be an abstraction.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 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