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.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Contact the Docs

Docs on Twitter


  • "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 | Is It Time for Federal Circuit to Rethink Its Subject Matter Eligibility Jurisprudence?  »

August 23, 2020


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.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

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.


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.)

October 2020

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 31