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

« USPTO Issues Notice Regarding Certain Filing Receipts Issued Between March and October 2022 | Main | IPO 2022 Case Law Year in Review »

January 09, 2023

Comments

Great post. To be fair, there are many claims that could, as a thought experiment, be performed mentally without the challenges you note. Of course, it is unclear why we should be concerned if those claims are written to require computer implementation.

A constant problem with this topic is that there is some authentic root concern (e.g., someone infringing a claim just by thinking) that is lost in the game of telephone that is common law evolution. But no decision makers seem to care about the disconnect if you point it out...

Well said.

Easwaran's comment was not yet visible when I wrote my "well said" yesterday. My comment from yesterday referred to Dr. Borella's original post. Nevertheless, Easwaran's comment also merits a "well said."

I do not agree with Easwaran's contention in so far that for a claim to be infringed, ALL elements must be present, and the situating of a claim to REQUIRE computing elements necessarily means that such a claim cannot be infringed "just by thinking."

The "just by thinking," is a bit of a lazy strawman that moves the goalposts from what claims are actually present.

Further, the Mental Steps Doctrine actually is an older historical doctrine, and the references to more modern case law do not provide justice to the disconnect from the original doctrine (and why that doctrine 'aged out' -- only to resurrected as some type of anti-computing arts zombie).

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

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

Working...
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.

Working...

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.)

January 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 31