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


« Ajinomoto Co. v. International Trade Commission (Fed. Cir. 2019) | Main | MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2019) »

August 15, 2019


(in the mode of 'video game')….


As a former guitar player, very unexciting main claim. Find a good music teacher. This is broadly what they do with students the whole time.

"what they broadly do" sounds a LOT like "Gist the claim to what you want it to be, then call it Abstract."

Mr. Cole, you STILL appear to be enamored with allowing the Court to continue to do what in a better analysis is notably A PART OF THE PROBLEM.

@ Skeptical

You can say what you like, but claim 1 is still boring.

Unless claim 1 is interesting and clearly leads to a worthwhile new result which is the inventor's own creation, the courts will wish to throw it out. Credibility is then lost and the other (potentially meritorious) claims then follow.

We should not offer the Federal Circuit pretexts for further disastrous decisions taken with a mistaken understanding of the true ambit of the Supreme Court opinions e.g. Mayo coupled with a selfish desire to remove cases from their dockets.

For example, the Alice invention was refused patent grant in the EPO and my late colleague Keith Beresford who was one of the most able attorneys of my generation did not succeed in successful prosecution which was abandoned at an early stage. Taking the corresponding US patent to the Supreme Court in those circumstances borders on insanity, and the decision to do so must presumably have been taken for financial motives unconnected with the merits of the case.

The whole "merely adds a computer to well-established, real world activities that have been historically performed by music teachers" is nothing but a shorthand obviousness analysis. And that is Alice and its progeny in a nutshell: it's 35 USC 103 fit for Fed. R. Civ. P. 12.

"boring" and "interesting" are NOT the (purported) hallmarks of valid jurisprudence.

As for your oddly continued desire to provide adoration to our Supreme Court (true ambit...?), well, all I can say is that such myopia is very much part of the problem.

@ Skeptical

In the early days of computing I recall a saying:

Garbage in, garbage out.

If better results are required from the Federal Circuit, a step in the right direction would be the filing of more persuasive claims accompanied where appropriate by more detailed and relevant factual arguments. That is nothing to do with detailed jurisprudential analysis, simply what might promote better outcomes.

GIGO is NOT applicable to how a court is charged to act.

Leastwise NOT in how you want to use that term.

Sure, "better claims" may well help - but such is NO EXCUSE for the muckery that we see ACROSS the judicial spectrum (and yes, that includes the Supreme Court). Such muckery has EVERYTHING to do with "detailed jurisprudential analysis," as such show that the jurisprudence is severely mal-applied.

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