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


« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | iNO Therapeutics LLC v. Praxair Distribution Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019) »

September 02, 2019


Touche, Dr. Borella.

Hahahahah LOL (sob)

Those who do not learn the lessons of history, are bound to repeat them.

This should have been saved for April 1.
But to academically engage the joke or joker, are not all these old "substantially as set forth" or "as set forth herein" claims now improper unless somehow treated as narrow 112(f) claims limited to the specification example and thus NOT having any 101 issues?

If you actually look at the Telephone Cases decision, you will see that the natural principle point was raised and dismissed by the Court. I have made this point in amicus briefs to the courts and in magazine articles. Nineteenth century pioneer inventors were NOT treaded by the courts in the same way as inventors nowadays.

As I have written elsewhere, I would be VERY interested to see a detailed and considered opinion from knowledgeable US counsel as to positive compliance of the above claim with the "eligibility" category of 35 USC 101.

From my alien viewpoint, it is not a transformative process and does not comply. That could perhaps be a suitable subject for a further posting on this blog, which would be of great interest and potential significance.

Incidentally I sincerely doubt that the Mayo invention complied either, which is much simpler than the extended and destructive judicial garbage which we have seen on the topic of eligibility.

Mr. Morgan,

I do not follow your presumption that (even0 applying a narrow 112(f) reasoning INTERSECTS (at all) with the 101 question.

Are you aware that you are conflating 101 with 112?

Mr. Cole,

Where are you deriving the distinction between the WIDE (1952-driven) process (see 35 USC 100(b)) and your "transformative process?"

It appears from this vantage point that you have not grasped the fact that ONE of the 9-0 take-aways from the Supreme Court Bilski case was that the CAFC version of "Machine or Transformation" (of which your 'transformative' appears tied to) was NOT an actual legal REQUIREMENT -- but was merely a clue.

You need NO 'detailed and considered opinion' on this point, merely to recognize that even our Supreme Court did NOT provide that the statutory category of "Process" was so limited as to be some sort of handmaiden category to the "hard goods" categories.

The comments to this entry are closed.

April 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