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

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

August 15, 2019

Comments

(in the mode of 'video game')….

Pong

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.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Working...
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.

Working...

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.)

September 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