This morning I was browsing through some patents. The first one I looked at is Patent No. 8,185,967 issued to Digimarc and titled a Method and apparatus for content management. The patent claims priority to a series of continuations that lead back to a provisional application filed in 1999. And, the gist of the invention appears to be a technological method for enforcing a licensing agreement that limits the number of times a video is accessed by users.
The patent’s claim 1 includes two basic steps: (1) maintaining a list of identifiers associated with previously accessed A/V items; and (2) restricting access to those A/V items. The claim includes a limitation that the steps occur using “electronic memory” and a “programmed electronic processor” that are part of a “portable device.”
Claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
utilizing electronic memory housed in a portable device, maintaining a listing of up to N identifiers associated with previously accessed audio or video items, where N is an integer, and where each previously accessed audio or video item has an identifier associated therewith;
utilizing a programmed electronic processor housed in the portable device, i) restricting access to an encountered audio or video item if an identifier associated with the encountered audio or video item is one of the N identifiers associated with the previously accessed audio or video items, or ii) limiting a number of content items each with a different user identifier associated therewith that can be accessed in a certain amount of time.
The scope for patent protection in the modern age tends to revolve around the provision of data. To demonstrate the broad potential for patent protection, instances of the more lucrative areas of research in modern technology
anon, I will look at this. Thanks.
For at least the FOURTH time:
See the thread at link to patentlyo.com
from May 23, 2012 at 04:59 PM to May 24, 2012 at 11:18 AM.
And you say I’m acting liking a spoiled you know what? It is you that is demanding that others cater to you (and note that I have already done so).
anon, now you are behaving like a spoiled you know what.
Give me the post.
Cite it so that I might know its thread, its date, its time.
Ned,
I just simply cannot believe that you don’t know what I want.
The thread has been given to you – multiple times.
You have responded to the actual post – twice now, and neither time have you given answers.
Spotlight has spotlighted it for you.
Do the following:
– Follow the link provided – for at least the third time.
– Cut and paste any post authored by me into a word processing document.
– highlight everytime you see a question mark.
– ANSWER the question for each question mark.
– Post your answers – either here are on the original thread would be fine.
That is what I want. It really is not nearly as difficult as you have made it.
A spolight, I still do not know what Anon wants. If you have an post delineating the very question he would like me to answer, at least give me the thread, the date and the time of the post so I can find it.
Great. You finally “found” the thread where Anon asks you the questions.
Does this mean that you are finally going to answer them?
As far as your slide into indignation with some type of “my overture“, let’s move the goalposts back and keep in mind that you have NO overture, the only thing you have, the ONLY thing is to provide answers, which it should be noted, that once again you are doing everything BUT answering the questions put to you. Anon really nails you to the wall by putting everything in context AND making sure that you had seen this right from the start by replying directly to you.
The spotlight leaves no room for your usual games. Center stage and your answers are your only curtain call. Any other thing you type, in a slight adaptation of what Anon has noted, will speak volumes about the answers that most everyone already knows anyway.
Spotlight, backwards. I got "shove it" in response to my overture.
From that thread:
May 23, 2012 at 04:54 PM
Ned Heller said in reply to anon…
anon, on answering you questions, I remain your humble servant. What questions do you want to ask?
ReplyMay 23, 2012 at 04:59 PM
May 23, 2012 at 04:59 PM
anon said in reply to Ned Heller…
Ned, let’s put this on the table in its entirety.
"One cannot say that any kind of methods are eligible subject matter without determining whether they are in fact claiming abstract ideas or laws of nature or natural phenomena. Every claim is subject to the exceptions. Every."
Here's where Ned Heller is playing word games and obfuscating:
I clicked the link. It does not take one to a particular post, it takes one to a thread.
If there is a particular way of clicking a link and going to a post, and not to a thread, I would like to know how to do it.
You asked on the linked thread that Anon provided with a complimentary “ever your humble servant and the response you gave back was essentionally, shove it.
See the thread at link to patentlyo.com
from May 23, 2012 at 04:59 PM to May 24, 2012 at 11:18 AM.
For chrissakes, Ned, Anon even forsaw your duplicity and posted: “I take the time to put the questions in context and address you directly so that you cannot claim you did not see them and to reduce the chance that you take things out of context.
I receive indignation from you. I receive no answers from you.”
And you continue to L I E and say you did not see them.
How many times are you going to ask him to ask you the same questions?
Why don’t you follow the links and finally answer the questions?
CRRP Ned,
Read the blog, the link is directly below.
anon, has not posted links in any reply to me.
What is riciculous are your excuses and non-answers Ned.
Do you have trouble reading? Anon has posted links, in fact, one is directly below at 6:38 PM, posted TWO DAYS AGO.
Get off your lazy @_ss and join the blogs in a way that do not paint you the f_ool so often.
A spolight.
I am not avoiding answerng anon's questions. I simply don't know what they are. Furthermore, I have repeatedly offered to answer his questions if he was simply state what the questions are. But he refuses to do so. And so it goes.
Ridiculous.
First, the “bickering” is not about “content of personal history” (whatever that means).
The issue is whether or not you have an agenda. Clearly, you do. Whether you admit to it or not is in reality a trivial matter, as it is undoubtedly so. That point has long been made.
Second, you are trying too hard not to put a stop to “it.”
All you have to do is answer Anon’s questions. To date, you still have not done so. Why you continue to not do so is beyond me.
Thanks.
Open up the entire thread.
Click on the “find function,” typically Ctrl-F.
Type in today’s date and review by date.
looking glass, the problem of trying to follow conversations in Patently-O is that we cannot click on a message in the list of new messages and simply go to the message. Instead, we go to the thread, and we have to open the entire thread and then read through it for new messages. I find this whole procedure something to be avoided. This is why I ask, is there a better way technically of simply going to the message?
A spolight, I am just trying to put a stop to pointless bickering about the content of personal history. If one of has a point to make, make it.
I think the “computer ate my homework” excuse is a little thin.
Ned, as I told you before, part of your problem is that you do not pay attention to all of the comments. Just because a comment is not directly in response to one of your postings does not mean the comment is not germane to the discussion as a whole. You seem incoherent in your responses because everyone else reads the entire thread and knows how the discussion is evolving except you.
I am sorry if this sounds brusque, but stop being lazy. Your poor habits mar any discussion thread you join, which is to say, all of the discussion threads on Patently-O.
“I think I did answer anon’s questions despite his remonstrations to the contrary. I know of no questions that anon has asked that I have not answered.”
Go to the post at May 24, 2012 at 07:49 AM.
Ned’s reply of “put it to rest” is NOT an answer.
Then see Anon’s smackdown at May 24, 2012 at 11:18 AM.
Ned, don’t offer olive branches when you still have not provided answers. Accept defeat, provide the answers, and then gently offer suggestions that amount to olive branches. If Anon continues in his bend-over-backwards politeness towards you, he may take some of your suggestions. But as it is, the gig is up on your bias and agenda (whether you answer the questions or not, as Anon points out, what you don’t say, and when you don’t say it, speaks volumes).
looking glass,
Perhaps you can help here. Is there a filter on Dennis site so that I can look only at responses to my posts?
“ that I respond to posts via e-mail most of the time”
Ned, you have previously been advised/warned/scolded that your communication habits of posting via e-mail resulted in poor communications and that you should respond more appropriately and responsibly.
It now appears that you continue to disregard my previous advice, and that the problem may be even more rampant then previously thought.
I’ve asked before and I’m asking again: please stop posting in a manner that is convenient for you but causes problems for everyone, including you.
“The mind boggles.”
Indeed!
If Ned, who easily enjoys the title of most prolific poster, and who is second only to Malcolm for least content per post, has had many of his posts not actually make it to the comments section, would his credibility needle be buried even deeper in the Mariana Trench?
I have found recently by inspection that a some, perhaps many, of my posts are not actually posted.
The mind boggles.
Simple, I think I did answer anon's questions despite his remonstrations to the contrary. I know of no questions that anon has asked that I have not answered.
Furthermore, he has repeated this observation that I do not answer his questions, as you have just now, again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. And I have asked him again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again, what questions? I really don't know, honestly do not know, what questions he is talking about. I have repeatedly said that I remain open to any question he has. I have never said I would not answer his questions or that I would avoid them.
I will like to observe something here – that I respond to posts via e-mail most of the time. I have found recently by inspection that a some, perhaps many, of my posts are not actually posted. I only found this out by actually reading a thread and observing an anon post that I know I reply to without my reply. That could have happened with anon once before, but I was that may not have been aware of it.
But simple, it is beyond annoying they have you and others like anon continually bring this matter up, again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again, only to have me answer like this post, again and again and again and again and again. What questions? If you have a question that I have not answered to your satisfaction, post it.
If in my honesty, you find disrespect, then that is a “you” problem that you created by your actions – and nonactions.
As What A Hoot states on link to patentlyo.com , the offer of a olive leaf -I cannot even call it an olive branch – is not an answer to my questions posed to you.
I am not asking you to announce defeat, but likewise, we have not gotten past anything if you continue to avoid answering my inconvenient questions and you continue to post spurious positions of law. I hope that you duly expect me to hold you to the professional standard that I know you are capable of in order to repair your tattered credibility.
“you anon are not immune to the propensity of the pro-software patent types to avoid any discussion of real cases.”
This comment coming from Ned Heller addressing the poster who tried to get Ned to walk through a very respectful three step process on software patenting is a slap in the face of someone who tried to treat Ned with a little respect.
Is it any wonder, Ned, that your posts gather such acrimony?
anon, I replied to this quite awhile ago. Apparently it did not get posted.
However, you anon are not immune to the propensity of the pro-software patent types to avoid any discussion of real cases. You simply say, perhaps better than most of your fellows, that you are wrong. One example of this is this very post in which you say that my citation of authority “leaves much to be desired.” This type of argument is at such a high level of abstraction that it cannot be rebutted. It amounts to an ad hominem attack while appearing not to be.
anon, I thought you and I had moved beyond this. You chided me that I never asked Malcolm to tone it down a bit. I agreed that I had not, and I asked him directly to do so in your case because of your occasional attempts to engage in substantive discussion. And in response, what do I get?
This?
I think, anon, that you should be a little more respectful in your posts to me or about me. I would also ask you to distance yourself from your fellow posters who use flame throwers in virtually every post. You know who they are, and your association with them by at least your silence is not becoming staining your own reputation.
“Gotta go with the peanut gallery here”
Rejected for indefiniteness. Which peanut gallery are you referring to?
Gotta go with the peanut gallery here. Since “valid” WRT a patent is not a concrete thing as far as the universe cares, a patent is only “valid” or not when the appropriate legal mechanism runs its course.
Here, the patent is “valid” because the PTO issued it, and valid it will stay until litigation or re-examination says otherwise.
The closest we can get is to say that IMHO, if tested, a competent court should not uphold validity.
That second alternative really seems to foul the claim under §112. The method steps don’t appear to go together in any logical fashion.
Paraphrased and parboiled…
1. A method comprising:
[x] using the memory in a portable device, maintaining a list of identifiers associated with previously accessed items;
and,
[y] using the processor in the portable device, limiting a number of content items each with a different user identifier that can be accessed in a certain amount of time.
The step in [y] has nothing to do with [x].
A method comprising the steps of:
[a] using the gas tank in an automotive device, maintaining a number of gallons of fuel;
and,
[b] using the stereo system in the automotive device, listening to some groovy tunes.
“Just because invalidity has yet to be proven in court does not mean that a patent is actually valid.”
Actually, it means precisely that.
It really does take that future and (thus uncertain) event to ACTUALLY HAPPEN in order to say that the patent is invalid. Until that ACTUALLY does happen, it’s all supposition.
Bald supposition. Especially when compared to the plain and simple truth of the moment – RIGHT NOW.
“because Section 282 exists is just silly and wrong”
Nonetheless, the law is the law and you are not free to ignore it just because you feel it is just silly and wrong.
Sorry Smitty, you too must obey the law.
I humbly submit that you don’t get how presumptions work.
I humbly submit that you don’t know what the word “presumption” means.
A presumption carries as if it were indeed fact until it is rebutted. Rebuttals of this presumption only occur in court.
Until that day in court, the patent IS valid.
That is the law.
A legal presumption only presumes a legal conclusion, not a factual one. If the presumption can be rebutted with clear and convincing evidence, then there is nothing factual about the presumption.
Section 282 merely says that an issued patent must be presumed valid in the absence of evidence to the contrary. It says nothing as to whether a patent is indeed valid under the Patent Act. Just because invalidity has yet to be proven in court does not mean that a patent is actually valid. Hence, saying that one person’s arguments for invalidity are empty or wrong because Section 282 exists is just silly and wrong.
I humbly submit that you don’t get how presumptions work.
A presumption carries as if it were indeed fact until it is rebutted. Rebuttals of this presumption only occur in court.
Until that day in court, the patent IS valid.
That is the law.
I humbly submit that “presumed valid” is not the same as “valid” or “not invalid”.
What does Alappat have to do with the 967 Patent being valid, or not?
You have ducked the point on topic, and thus have not proven 967 Patent remain invalid.
Nice strawman and red herrings but the 967 patent remains a valid patent.
David, if you look closely, you will see that A and C have nothing to do with each other.
It appears that the claim originally was to Step A + Step B. The “or step C” actually is unrelated to the A + B process.
Breaking it down, the claim claims two independent processes:
Process 1: A + B
or
Process 2: C
Obviously, the claim is trying to claim two independent and distinct inventions in one claim. This is, I think we all will agree, is a Section 112 problem.
6: Does your wife not wonder who you’re bothering when you go off by yourself to troll?
Assumes waaaaaaaay too much.
Judging, we have to remember that Alappat took place right after Donaldson where there was a war between the PTO and the Feds over the applicability of 112, p.6 to examination. The major point of the appeal was that the PTO claim construction was wrong.
From Alappat:
“As recently explained in In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 1193, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1050 (Fed.Cir.1994), the PTO is not exempt from following the statutory mandate of § 112 ¶ 6, which reads:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6 (1988) (emphasis added).[15] The Board majority therefore erred as a matter of law in refusing to apply § 112 ¶ 6 in rendering its § 101 patentable subject matter determination.
Given Alappat’s disclosure, it was error for the Board majority to interpret each of the means clauses in claim 15 so broadly as to “read on any and every means for performing the functions” recited, as it said it was doing, and then to conclude that claim 15 is nothing more than a process claim wherein each means clause represents a step in that process. Contrary to suggestions by the Commissioner, this court’s precedents do not support the Board’s view that the particular apparatus claims at issue in this case may be viewed as nothing more than process claims. ”
However, the applicant also argued on appeal that even if the PTO’s claim construction was correct, i.e., that it was claiming mathematics and not hardware, their claims were still patentable because the mathematical process was limited, by the preamble, to the graphics display.
The Feds agreed,
“Furthermore, the claim preamble’s recitation that the subject matter for which Alappat seeks patent protection is a rasterizer for creating a smooth waveform is not a mere field-of-use label having no significance. Indeed, the preamble specifically recites that the claimed rasterizer converts waveform data into output illumination data for a display, and the means elements recited in the body of the claim make reference not only to the inputted waveform data recited in the preamble but also to the output illumination data also recited in the preamble. Claim 15 thus defines a combination of elements constituting a machine for producing an antialiased waveform.”
This distinguished Flook. I agree that it did.
But Alappat, what is dishonest about proving my point?
Alappat said, "The point is that software can be claimed as a process or a machine."
What does this statement have to do with Alappat?
AI, why do you do this bro? Seriously? Just troll all day long? Does your wife not wonder who you’re bothering when you go off by yourself to troll?
Nice, but contrary to law.
Schrodinger’s Patent: neither invalid nor not-invalid until it is tested by litigation…
“if you truly understand vacuum energy, then you will note that Casual Observation, very much unlike AI, raises a nuanced point in response to Ned Heller’s proposed definition of “abstract” at 1) ”
As soon as 6 and Ned are backed into a corner with questions based on logic, fact and/or case law they cut and run and start a thread accusing the questioner of being AI.
Certainly must be flattering to AI, but it makes 6 and Ned look rather foolish and beaten in these threads.
Sorry Ned, but your history of “citation” – for both law and facts – leaves too much to be desired.
You simply have lost credibility due to your blind and passionate pursuit of your agendas. You may continue to post in your own name, but there is no accountability accruing from that. Your choice of comrades-in-arms further erodes any credibility that you may wish to build.
I wish you well, and enjoy the conversations when I actually have success in pulling answers out of you, but the larger picture is as clear as it is not in your favor.
The point is that software can be claimed as a process or a machine.
It is quite intellectually dishonest of you to take a position that Alappats invention could only be interpreted as a machine and then post claim 15 which is a means claim.
All of this begs the question, of why is the 967 patent invalid?
And since nothing in Alappat invalidates the 967 Patent you have once again failed to answer this question with any prior art, or legal analysis and citation.
Thus, the 967 Patent remains valid.
Deal With It.
Ahhh now we can add…
“Man, this blog has the d-mbest trolls.”
to the list of
” Ding Ding we have a winna”
“Big ol computer brain”
“GFY”
and pretty much any post by Hans Blix to identify Malcolm Mooney, AKA MM, the original tr-oll and s-ckpuppets.master of Patently O
It seems, the great Ned Heller loses quite a bit to the self admitted rank amateurs on this board.
That others, obvious professional patent attorneys, have to point out these mistakes and defeats is just plain embarrassing
What I get from the sock puppet is “you are wrong.” That’s it.
Ahh the classic “I am normal. Everyone else is crazy.”
clear paranoid delusion and denial from one suffering from psychosis,
MTBHTDT stands for “Man, this blog has the d-mbest trolls.”
Actually, it’s mainly just one or two trolls and their ever-devolving s-ckpuppets. But they are d-mber than rocks.
No, I cite authority, I cite facts, etc. What I get from the sock puppet is "you are wrong." That's it.
Since there is no machine, transformation, or technology requirement by the Court or statute, what else could there be beyond the application and integration of the concept?
Umm..let’s see.
One commenter provides analysis and rational arguments with citations to legal authority and you respond with attacks.
This of course combined with your well documented pathological ha tred for Judge Rich, and the denying that software and business methods are patent eligible subject matter suggest you may be the one with a severe psychosis.
You are more than just a little thick, aren’t you 6?
The questions were not asked for my benefit. They were asked to point out those making shallow comments really don’t know what they’re talking about.
I now include you in that group, as you too have failed to answer the question.
But thanks for playing anyway.
Thank you for better explaining the nature of your t ardation without requiring me to tell you about vacuum energy. Turns out that you’re t arded with, and probably to further, an agenda by your own admission. Specifically, it appears that you wish to cast into question what the nature of physicality is so that you might be able to claim things which otherwise you would not.
Interesting, but not all that unexpected. Indeed, I have applicants trying to do the same t arded thing in actual prosecution. I of course slap them down with ease and their attorney calls me up all laudatory over deftness of my approach. It is really quite amusing to witness in real life. And the reason is that it is not the courts, or me, or some other esteemed institution that is confuzzled over the “nature” of nature itself, or of the subject matter over which we preside. It is the applicants who sit and watch specials on physics without any actual training who get all confuzzled and do not understand.
“Will you assist me in dropping an anvil on those who bandy the term “physical” in disregard to what that term entails and to what patent law applies?”
No you tard.
Just btw, you can find the answer to your question if you read the wiki on the subject in full, down to the very last sentence.
I’m, pretty sure they did. It’s in the MPEP, so unless you are admitting that the PTO LIED, I’m going to have to go with Yes and Dave on this.
The PTO told you no such thing.
Agreed. I merely point out that your rebuke may have been overly harsh, given that it is obvious that it is AI you are talking to, you know he is not a lawyer, and the fine people at the USPTO (who were lawyers) took a similar stand.
That being said, AI is WRONG in how he is viewing the Alappat claim.
But then again, it is known that you harbor incorrect views of Alappat, and you supposedly are a lawyer.
Umm..I am guessing the PTO?
This post is an ad hominem attack in lieu of a legal analysis and explanation referenced with cited case law.
It illustrates that the poster has lost the debate and fears it may be to a non attorney.
I submit the poster must be Ned Heller.
Granted, the USPTO construed the claims to be equivalent to method claims. Their claim construction, however, was overruled by the Federal Circuit
Not likely.
Huh?
Break this down just a bit more.
“seems to claim”
Without passing judgment on the actual claim, the notion that the claim “seems to claim” is mere conjecture and is plausibly coming from the reader’s lack of understanding of the subject matter rather than the claim itself.
“not qualified to post on this forum because you seem to not know the basic difference between a claim to a machine and a claim to a process”
You would rule from being qualified from posting on this forum the USPTO, as that was precisely one of their positions.
Actually, in order to construe the valid claim according to accepted norms, the antecedent basis guides what the later generic term covers, not the other way around.
This post is absolutely beyond pathetic. It illustrates that the poster is not an attorney. I submit the poster must be AI.
“Mr Heller, you have failed now in every discussion in this thread.”
If you are not AI, I would be very surprised. You have the same way of expressing yourself as that gentleman identified by 6. You reply to a post with a comment, perhaps with a citation to authority, and then state with absolute certainty that you have “crushed”or “beaten to a pulp” the person to whom you addressed the post. Your pathology is self-evident for all to see.
Perhaps you should seriously consider seeking medical help.
The claim, as others have noted, is an alternative form in a least two instances. The second instance is very interesting. The claim can be broken down as follows:
Claim 1: maintaining a list of AV items, and restricting access to items on the list.
Claim 2: limiting the number of accesses to content items over a given period of time.
This seems to claim two different inventions in one claim. As such, the claim seems hopelessly invalid under §112.
YTiaVP, what I am saying Mr. VP, is that the limitations to audio and video are substantially irrelevant, in that they are only particular examples of proprietary “content.” In fact, later in the claim, the drafter of the claim seems to refer to both in a generic term, “content items.” If the claim is not to fail for lack of antecedent basis for “content items,” then the court will have to construe “audio” and “video” as mere examples of the broader genus described by the term “content items.”
But, obviously, you are not qualified to post on this forum because you seem to not know the basic difference between a claim to a machine and a claim to a process. Alappat was a claim to a machine. Below, for your inspection, is the claim at issue in Alappat.
“Claim 15, the only independent claim in issue, reads:
A rasterizer for converting vector list data representing sample magnitudes of an input waveform into anti-aliased pixel illumination intensity data to be displayed on a display means comprising:
(a) means for determining the vertical distance between the endpoints of each of the vectors in the data list;
(b) means for determining the elevation of a row of pixels that is spanned by the vector;
(c) means for normalizing the vertical distance and elevation; and
(d) means for outputting illumination intensity data as a predetermined function of the normalized vertical distance and elevation.”
6, your questions are misdirected.
In fact, if I were to answer them, I would, in essence, be answering my own question, which is not the point of my asking the question in the first place.
As to too “t arded to learn about the subject yourself,” I already “learned” the subject. If you think my question requires a short essay to answer my question, you may consider that you haven’t learned enough. My question was a relatively easy question.
The “nature” of my premise is to expose the shallowness of the posters Ned Heller and IANAE, the shallowness of conventional thoughts towards “physical” as applied to patent law, or both.
If you truly understand vacuum energy, then you will note that Casual Observation, very much unlike AI, raises a nuanced point in response to Ned Heller’s proposed definition of “abstract” at 1) above, and that point concerns the poorly understood “nature” of nature itself.
As to answering my question, if you can, a correct answer will be in concert with my point, vibrating in harmony. Will you assist me in dropping an anvil on those who bandy the term “physical” in disregard to what that term entails and to what patent law applies?
Alappat was a process for making a smoother diagonal line on a computer.
Go read the case before trying to comment on it again.
The 967 patent is for a process. The steps of the process ARE the structure so there is no way , or need to read any structure into the claims.
The claims pass 112.
You fail to invalidate the patent.
Back to the end of the line.
Next?
Alappat was a claim to a machine. I think we are now in agreement not in disagreement.
Sent from iPhone
"Application of a concept…." You're leaving something off that is critical. What is that?
Sent from iPhone
You are still reading a lot of structure and function into the claims.
Sent from iPhone