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


« The CRISPR Chronicles: Enter Toolgen | Main | USPTO Event Celebrating Three Contemporary Black Women Inventors »

February 04, 2021


A very challenging brief with a distinct new viewpoint. It is about time that SCOTUS took up this subject again, and hopefully the persuasive power of this brief and others will just tip the balance.

You have cast a stone into an ocean of intentional indifference.

On the subject of "tipping the balance", I can see two other factors that might help.

Axle is a mechanical engineering case, so is more accessible to non-specialists (including the Justices of the Supreme Court) and not as alarmingly esoteric as a data processing or DNA case. The Justices need not be frightened of getting sucked in to it.

Being a pure mech eng case, it is a good illustration of the unfortunate "creep" that is happening, of denials of eligibility into fields that are manifestly not abstract ideas. I mean, just try driving a heavy vehicle that has a prop shaft that suffers from severe vibration. See what non-abstract messages you are getting through your seat.

As Dr Johnson would have said: I refute it thus. Argumentum ad Lapidem?


Thanks for the wiki article. It is always interesting to read more on the subject of various logical fallacies, but I would add that to assume that all inductive reasoning must lead to a false conclusion is itself a fallacy.

Quite in fact, there is a fallacy involved in the assumption of the refuting by kicking the stone itself, as it is posited that the kicking the stone was ONLY inductive reasoning, and the situation was not so — the kicking was part of a larger conversation, and had context in which the plain fact of the ‘rebound’ was just not merely an asserted conclusion being repeated, but instead was a physical argument in support of the asserted conclusion.

Wiki’s are nice sources, but one must still apply critical thinking as they themselves may often be incomplete.

The comments to this entry are closed.

November 2023

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