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


« AbbVie Files Amicus Brief in Amgen v. Sanofi | Main | Another Group of Law Professors File Amicus Brief in Amgen v. Sanofi »

March 26, 2023


The earliest published application in the name DABUS in the Esp@cenet database is IL289683A of which claim 1 reads:

A food or beverage container comprising: (a) a generally cylindrical wall defining an internal chamber of the container, said wall having interior and exterior surfaces and being of uniform thickness; and (b) a top and a base disposed on either end of said cylindrical wall; wherein said wall has a fractal profile with corresponding convex and concave fractal elements on corresponding ones of said interior and exterior surfaces; and wherein the wall of the container is flexible, permitting flexing of said fractal profile thereof, said fractal profile of said wall permits coupliing by inter-engagement of a plurality of the containers together, and flexibility of said wall permits disengagement of said or any coupling of a plurality of the containers.

Brief perusal of the drawings and of the description and claims makes it clear that a person who believes that the subject-matter was invented by artificial intellegence is likely also to believe that the Earth is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and that burning materials evolve phlogiston. It would suffice, in my submission, to dispose of these applications on the ground that the allegation that DABUS was the inventor was not credible on the face of the document. It is surprising that hearing officers and judges can get lost in legalism when the simple answer is that the artificial intellegence inventorship is not credible on the face of the document.

The comments to this entry are closed.

July 2024

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