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

« USPTO Issues Updated Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance | Main | USPTO Patent Quality Chat Webinar Series »

January 08, 2019

Comments

Who wants to be the first to note that the latest USPTO announced guidance for patent eligibility would have STILL allowed the patent claims that here have been determined to be patent ineligible?

Clearly claims that actually implement a business method WILL satisfy the "practical application" thrust of the new Office guidance, and yet will NOT actually change what a court will view as satisfying the law. No matter how anything is deemed "conventional," one must recognize that conventional application is still practical application.

Yet another case where the real problem is blatant obviousness and/or lack of written description sufficient to allow PHOSITA to make and use the inventions, rather than something fundamental about the form of the invention.

The invention should be fundamentally ineligible because a gift-certificate is a pure abstraction- no more or no less than an account debit, regardless of any physical token used to represent that debit. It's no more tangible than a dollar, but not a dollar-bill. Improving the dollar-bill does not improve the dollar, but the former should be eligible and the latter not eligible.

A gift certificate is an item of information, user by persons to decide to provide a good, or service, or financial asset to another.

Such information should not be eligible for patent protection.

Mr. Snyder, does not the nature here of the items being consumed by machines (the electronic nature) dictate a finding of eligibility based on your published views?

Mr. Snyder apparently has abdicated his stance as to eligibility depending on whether consumption of information is by machine (not possible to be abstract) or by a human.

Here, even machine consumption appears to be "fundamentally abstract" because some later utility is utility by humans.

I wonder how a consistent application of a "any later utility by humans" would play out in ALL of patent law....

Would we even HAVE patent law?

Being entirely objective and consistent with the position advocated by Mr. Snyder, everyone should be:

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 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