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


« President Biden Signs Executive Order on Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation | Main | President Biden's Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Executive Order: Funding »

September 15, 2022


The legal error is prima facia evident:

Justice Stevens LOST his majority writing position in his career-bookending case of Bilski simply due to the FACT that his position REQUIRED the negating of actual words of Congress in order to affirmatively move "business methods" to be Categorically not eligible.

His "Dissent dressed as a Concurrence" would have clearly violated the Constitution itself (in At Least violation of the Separation of Powers doctrine).

As Congress refused to endorse his views, ALL ensuing judicial actions that CHANGE the law to the effect Desired by Justice Stevens are ultra vires.

Any attorney not willing to see and understand -- and decry -- this judicial malfeasance are NOT "defending" (or "supporting" or any myriad other terms in the various State Oaths of Office that attorneys are sworn in under) the Constitution and instead are alleviating one of the Co-Equal Branches of the government Above the other two Branches.

The first question, which is almost invariably overlooked, is whether the claimed subject-matter qualifies, in this instance as a process, under 35 USC 101. Looking at the claim in issue I can see no feature of a technical character and am not surprised at the result.

Mr. Cole,

Your not being a U.S. attorney is showing.

Where in 35 USC 100 or 101 do you see any such requirement -- by Congress -- of this "technical character?"

@ Skeptical

"Nonetheless, what the Court was likely looking for here is a contention (supported by evidence in the claim itself or in the specification) that the invention improves a computer or some other technological component or process. Since the PTAB stated that the claim involved, at best, "an improvement in business practice for which generic computer components are used in their ordinary capacity," this was enough for the Court to affirm the rejection."

That is the point.

Mr. Cole,

Your assertion of, "that is the point" - ON a point many consider ultra vires - does NOT provide the legal foundation (especially tracked to the actual words of Congress).

The ball is still in your court [sic] to answer my question put to you.

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