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


  • "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


« Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Holds Hearings on Proposed Revisions to 35 U.S.C. § 101 | Main | FTC to the Rescue Regarding High Drug Prices and Patents »

June 18, 2019


"training a neural network to recognized handwritten numbers""

As broad as this claim is, in practice it would probably be even broader to cover something like:

"1. training a model to recognize a parameter of an input"
2. wherein the parameter is a corresponding number, and the input is digital copy of a human written paper" or something

Software drafters have brought this on themselves.

Also, I may be in the minority, but I dont see the 112(f) draft changes meaning much.Even without touching the law, the Federal Circuit is already going in that direction pretty clearly. Not sure that the draft changes actually change anything at this point.

"[T]he Federal Circuit has raised issues with broad, functional claiming... without adequate support in the context of both § 112 and § 101. The USPTO's position is that these problems can be addressed by properly applying § 112."

The USPTO is quite correct. The overwhelming majority of that which is presently treated as a §101 issue under Alice would be more cogently treated as a §112 issue under Ariad.

"Even without touching the law, the Federal Circuit is already going in that direction pretty clearly. Not sure that the draft changes actually change anything at this point."

I do not really disagree with you here, but I think that there is significance in the Congress signalling to the CAFC "we agree with what you are doing here." It is not nothing for the CAFC to receive positive feedback from the legislature. At the very least, it locks in the current trend, so that a new en banc majority does not take back what the Williamson en banc majority just gave.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

July 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