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


« U.S. and China Approve Trade Agreement: Part 1 | Main | Broad Institute Patents Remain Revoked in Europe »

January 27, 2020


This seems to be implying that 101 was raised by the examiner and considered by the PTAB before this patent issued, rather than considered for the first time at the D.C. after being sued on? Was that actually the case?

As a matter of English language (as opposed to patent law) doesn't the dichotomy between "ones that recite what an invention does" on the one hand, versus "how the invention accomplishes its goals," more appropriately described as "enablement"?

One dictionary definition of "enable" is to "give (someone or something) the authority or means to do something"

Isn't a properly "enabled" patent one that gives the public the means (i.e. instructions) about how to perform the invention?

Mr. Morgan,

The case is ALWAYS that an examiner must examine a patent application under ALL of the sections of law.

Or were you trying for a different innuendo?

I think he was just asking whether the PTAB ruled on 101 previously.

The PTAB, and the jury, for that matter, concluded that this claim was not invalid, or patentable. Which seems to render false the statement: "[t]here is no inventive concept in the claim elements, whether considered individually or as an ordered combination."

But such is 101 analysis. It's an abomination.

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