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


« Genentech, Inc. v. Immunex Rhode Island Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2020) | Main | In re Boloro Global Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2020) »

July 08, 2020


I squirm when I read that the accumulated, tried and tested, hard fought and proven by almost infinitely extensive experience wisdom of parents, down the decades, to manage the calorific intake of their children is to be dismissed as nothing more than an "abstract" idea. In everyday family life, all over the world, this is the proven to be effective reality of bringing up healthy children.

Frankly, it is absurd of the Inventor to assert that there is here anything in the nature of a patentable "invention".

The challenge for the court is to find a convincing way to acquaint with that plain fact an Applicant/Inventor who has been sold (at considerable cost) the absurd illusion that a patent on such an "invention" will make him as rich as Croesus (and because of that illusion is steaming full of resentment when told that his invention is nothing more than an abstract idea).

I'm not happy with this Decision, folks, not happy at all.

This one is crazy. The idea that what Zunshine has claimed here is the "abstract idea" of "reducing food intake to achieve weight loss and snacking to curb hunger" is wholly untenable in view of the claim language. I do not mean to suggest that this claim is patentable, but *clearly* there is a more detailed method being claimed here than merely "reduce food intake" or "snack modestly to curb hunger." This claimed method is quite detailed as to the means by which the ends are achieved (drink water, time between water and snack, amount of food intake reduced, time of duration for diet regime).

Again, I do not believe that this claim is patentable. I have strong suspicions of its 103 and 112(b) supportability. I would not be surprised if it were frankly 102 anticipated, given the incredible density of the diet literature. The idea that it fails 101, on the other hand, is nuts!

I have read about a perfectly wonderful invention. But this wasn't it.

Apologies to Groucho Marx

"The claims merely direct a user to manage his or her food intake according to a series of rules that humans have long followed in managing their diets."
This would be fine if the court were finding the claims unpatentable under 102/103, but how the heck is it relevant to the "abstractness" of the process? There is no logic here at all - I'd be completely baffled if I were the applicant. And the court seems content to merely baffle a pro se litigant, rather than wrestle with the actual issues presented.
Thank goodness it's a non-precedential decision.

The comments to this entry are closed.

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
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