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

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

« Conference & CLE Calendar | Main | Is It Time for Federal Circuit to Rethink Its Subject Matter Eligibility Jurisprudence?  »

August 23, 2020

Comments

While well written, your parodies simply make me both sad and angry. Sad, that genuine and valuable inventions cannot be protected by patent under today's interpretation of §101. Angry, that this nonsense has persisted, robbing inventors of the fruits of their labors, and making it impossible for patent practitioners to give useful advice to our clients regarding what is patentable in many arts. Please now turn your attention to crafting a solution to this problem and advocating it before the courts and Congress.

You only have to look at the drawing to see that the claimed invention plainly does not qualify as a "machine". There is nothing mechanical about the innovation whatsoever - it is all plainly a mental act. Judge Reyna would see that at a glance. Whatever was Mr Burroughs thinking of getting involved with the patent system?

AH, but Mr. Cole, you overlook the 'wisdom' of our Supreme Court, who in the very ALICE decision itself made clear that claims that BOTH SIDES attested to as fully falling into the machine category, were, nonetheless, abstract.

Your "nothing mechanical" merely reflects that which you have been chastised about previously - you seem to have fallen back to a view that 'exception' means NOT belonging to one of the statutory categories in the first instance.

That is just not the meaning of the word - as has been put to you so many times now.

The comments to this entry are closed.

September 2021

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