Excluding Others in the Market for Ranking Lawyers

Thomson Reuters has a new patent – U.S. Patent No. 8,412,564 entitled System and method for identifying excellence within a profession. The patent was originally filed by the folks at Key Professional Media who later sold their “Super Lawyers” business to Thomson. The basic idea behind the patent is that – using a computer – you do a peer survey to identify a pool of candidates, then evaluate individuals within that pool based upon various objective factors (and store the information in a “data storage device”); next conduct another peer-evaluation of the select group; and finally ranking the professionals.

 

 

 

 

Claim 1 of the patent (prosecuted by) reads like a bear.

1. A method on a processing device for identifying excellent performance of candidates within a profession group, the processing device comprising a processor, a user interface device, and a data storage device, the method comprising:

creating a candidate pool by selecting individuals from a profession group, including:

receiving and processing a survey of peer professionals working within the profession group, wherein the peer professionals nominate other individuals within the profession group, wherein a minimum set of qualifications exist for each of the peer professionals to provide nominations;

performing independent research to identify individuals, the independent research comprising data mining to identify the individuals who satisfy predefined criteria for outstanding performance within the profession group, wherein the data mining includes querying electronic data sources containing relevant biographical information for the individuals within the profession group; and

selecting candidates for the candidate pool based on a combination of the results produced by the survey of peer professionals and the independent research, wherein the combination is performed using a computer operation which removes duplicate candidates;

wherein biographical information about individuals identified via the survey and the independent research is compiled for each individual within the candidate pool and stored in the data storage device;

evaluating the candidates individuals within the candidate pool, including:

performing, by the processor, independent research to evaluate performance of the candidates, the independent research comprising retrieval of performance information for the candidates relevant to objective criteria specific to the profession group, wherein the retrieval of performance information is performed independent of input from the individuals in the profession group and the peer professionals, and wherein the performance information is compiled for each candidate in the candidate pool and added to the information compiled for each candidate stored within the data storage device;

for each candidate within the candidate pool, storing in the data storage device a score for each objective criterion based on the performance information of each candidate stored in the data storage device;

for each candidate within the candidate pool, compiling with the processor a point total from the scores of each objective criterion; and

identifying candidates with point totals in a first predetermined top percentage of candidates in the candidate pool;

conducting peer evaluations of only the candidates with point totals in the first predetermined top percentage of candidates in the candidate pool, including:

selecting peer evaluators from among the candidates having point totals in the first predetermined top percentage of candidates in the candidate pool;

obtaining, from the user interface device, peer evaluation scores from the selected peer evaluators; and

producing, with the processor, an averaged peer evaluation score for each candidate in the first predetermined top percentage; and

identifying, with the processor, candidates in a second predetermined top percentage of candidates in the candidate pool based on a function of the point totals compiled from the scores of each objective criterion and the peer evaluation scores obtained from the selected peer evaluators.

 

The patent includes several technology-focused limitations such as a processor, a user interface device, and a data storage device. Without those limitations, the method could be performed in a room of professionals with nothing other than pencil and paper. So the question is whether this patent is subject matter eligible. Does it matter that the originally filed claim was functionally the same but did not include the tech-specific limitations? Some of these questions will be answered by CLS Bank.

Via Bob Ambrogi

84 thoughts on “Excluding Others in the Market for Ranking Lawyers

  1. Ned: “may have been”

    Anon: What’s the basis for this position?

    101IE: There is none

    Anon: Is it found anywhere in the proceedings?

    101IE: No.

    Anon: Are you just offering conjecture?

    101IE: Yes. Ned can be a tricky lawyer.

  2. No patent has ever served the goal of encouraging innovation. NONE

    RMJ,

    Please join the search party of those who post such claptrap and find me one, just one, modern advanced country that has seen the light of your dogma and chucked IP law.

    Just a single example please.

  3. The US patent system is such an unbelievable joke. I would laugh, but the horrific damage it causes is tragic. No patent has ever served the goal of encouraging innovation. NONE. Instead, we have built a massive entitlement society where every business believes they are entitled to protection from competition and entitled to rent payments for every random idea.

  4. and Stevens had the temerity of pointing this out

    And as has been pointed out, Stevens was no saint in what he was trying to do. There is a very good reason he lost his majority position.

  5. may have been

    What’s the basis for this position? Is it found anywhere in the proceedings? Are you just offering conjecture?

  6. anon, good point. But we had the majority opinion that was under review. It had held the claims invalid for failing to pass the MOT, not because the claims wholly preempted a mathematical algorithm.

  7. But, since that was not the asserted basis for its ultimate holding

    Wasn’t it?

    Did anyone along the way rewrite the rejection (or the basis of the rejection) of the examiner?

  8. 101, the mathematical formula may have been a further limitation of one element in claim 1.

    But, if the mathematical algorithm exception was the unpatentable subject matter that was preempted, I can only wish that the Supreme Court had said so. The legal basis for their opinion was unfathomable, and Stevens had the temerity of pointing this out.

  9. “anon, they agreed on what? Not that the subject matter of claim 1 was math. That was claim 4″

    Claim 4 was the same invention as claim 1, was it not?

  10. “sure, though, that everyone would agree that the Supreme Court had that in mind”

    All nine justices agreed. That’s all that matters. See anon @ Apr 03, 2013 at 09:01 PM

  11. 101, claim 1 was a method of hedging risk they said. If "hedging risk" is a type of mathematical algorithm, then you are right. I am not sure, though, that everyone would agree that the Supreme Court had that in mind.

  12. anon, thanks for the quote.

    The case would have been comprehensible if it had started with the proposition that claimed subject matter was a mathematical algorithm. But, since that was not the asserted basis for its ultimate holding, we are left with basis for its ultimate holding. In the end, we still do not know what unpatentable subject matter was wholly preempted?

  13. Ned: 101, the claim in Bilski was in fact a practical method. Everyone knows it.

    101 Integration Expert Yes, a math formula, see anon @ Apr 03, 2013 at 09:01 PM

    Ned: The claim preempted what it claimed.

    101 Integration Expert Yes, a math formula,

    Ned: It is wrong only when they wholly preempt all practical uses of something that not patentable subject matter in the first place.

    101 Integration Expert: Yes, like a math formula,

    Any questions?

  14. 101, the claim in Bilski was in fact a practical method.  Everyone knows it.  See, e.g., Newman.  The claim preempted what it claimed.  But that is what claims do.  That is their very purposes.  It is wrong only when they wholly preempt all practical uses of something that not patentable subject matter in the first place.

     
    Sent from Windows Mail
     

  15. The faith shown by some of you all that there is some objective reality involved is touching….but foolhardy. This is a game of power and barking interests; Congress and the courts see what they want to see when they want to see it.

    101 or not 101, obvious or non-obvious, claims seen altogether or claims seen apart, abstract or physical, it’s all meaningless beyond the scrum of the individual contest.

    It’s like trying to parse NBA ref calls in some logical way…good luck with that….

  16. Don’t have to look too far into the decision.

    The second sentence of the syllabus:

    The key claims are claim 1, which describes a series of steps instructing how to hedge risk, and claim 4, which places the claim 1 concept into a simple mathematical formula.

    And the fourth sentence of the syllabus:

    The patent examiner rejected the application on the grounds… solves a purely mathematical problem

  17. Ned: “101, the court did not say it was math…”

    Actually the Court did but I don’t have time at the moment to pull up Bilski and cite it for you again, as I have done many, many, many times before.

    And preempting in the case of a so called Business Method applies to the concept, not the method. You conspicuously ignore this point. For what reason, I do not know.

  18. Thanks anon. Would you then say that not amending claims and instead fighting the rejection reduces the estoppel in a prosecution history?

  19. It’s called estoppel.

    It’s applied on a per case basis – and does not carry the force of law affecting any rights of others not involved.

  20. Stevens also had the temerity to attempt to actively rewrite the actual words of Congress.

    No saint, there.

  21. 101, the court did not say it was math, that is the problem. They said the method was well known, which sounded their opinion in novelty.

    As I said, the opinion is a mess. Stevens even had the temerity to point that out.

    But, you and I agree that if business methods are not excluded from patentability, wholly preempting them is no vice.

  22. Wait a minute.

    Are you saying, that if my claims are rejected for reading on entirely mental steps, or being a mental process, and it’s asserted by the Examiner there are no machines or technology whatsoever in the claims, and I then in fact amend my claims to include technology or machines, that I then can’t later use as a defense, that no technology or MoT requirement exists for my process to be patent eligible subject matter??

  23. That misses the point just a bit, 101 Integration Expert.

    If during prosecution a rejection on the non-tech items was made (for example, the non-tech method may have been written such that it did read on ENTIRELY mental steps),

      AND

    The applicant, by virtue of amending and not overcoming the rejection, gave up that ground (the non-tech ground), then he cannot retrieve it.

    He did not fight that fight, and this case will remain silent on that point.

  24. “Please note the rest of my post. The key, given the change from the initial non-tech claim to the tech claim has to do with 112 rather than 101.”

    Well, then I would say if both claims, tech and non tech, meet the conditions and requirements of 112, they pass 112 and we move on to 102 and 103. Neither can be denied under 101 for non tech issues.

  25. I believe Ned’s issue is his fundamental inability to grasp “methods” as an equal category to the “hard” categories.

  26. Keep in mind, that I guided Ned to an understanding of the actual holding in Bilski (i.e. abstract as opposed to business methods) using his own-supplied reference on the difference between holding and dicta, and his acknowledgement of this is archived on this site – but this will not stop Ned from backsliding.

  27. “But when we get to business methods, they are not excluded subject matter according to the 5-4 Kennedy majority in Bilski. One would think there would be no vice then in monopolizing all practical uses of something that was not excluded from patentable subject matter as a matter of law.”

    Well, if you go back to my example of the Super Market invention, then there would be no laws against having a monopoly on all applications of the concept for a process under 101. Say, I you decide to use my Super Market idea to open a retail store based on the same concept and call it JC Penney, it will still meet the requirements under 101, no problem.

    So, the Kennedy majority got it right when it comes to business methods.
    Now Laws of Nature, and Natural Phenomenon are excluded. And Abstract ideas, are ideas that all men “dream” from observing Laws of Natural and Natural Phenomenon. Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomenon and the dreams ( Abstract Ideas) they inspire, belong to all men and are free for all to use for innovative applications. Thus the Courts rationale for exclusion of these principles.

    And as has been explained to you, many, many, many times Bilski claim was reduced to pure math, and since math is considered abstract by the Court, Bilski was denied his patent at 101. Business methods had nothing to do with why his patent application was denied.

    You are really kicking up a lot of dust for no reason it seems.

  28. in any class (machine, process, manufacture or composition).

    Once again, the Story-English-does-not-do-method-claims bias shows.

    Ned, you really should try to undersand our law. It is your treatment of methods as a second class category to the “hard” categories of “things” that causes you to be befuddled.

  29. 101, but 101 is about patentable subject matter and 112 about written description, enablement, and definiteness.

    101 excludes patents on Laws of Nature, Natural Phenonmena, and according to Benson, mental processes and mathematical alogrithms. Clearly the basis for the exclusion of Laws of Nature and Natural Phenomena is that they are in the public domain. It is not so clear that mathematics are in the public domain, but they are according to Benson. Mental processes are inherently ephemeral, and would not be included as a matter of law in any class (machine, process, manufacture or composition).

    Thus preempting all practical uses of subject matter others have a legal right to use is the legal basis for a 101 rejection. (6 has been saying this for some time.) It is the actually holding in Benson, for that matter.

    But when we get to business methods, they are not excluded subject matter according to the 5-4 Kennedy majority in Bilski. One would think there would be no vice then in monopolizing all practical uses of something that was not excluded from patentable subject matter as a matter of law. That is fact is what patents DO.

    Thus, in the final analysis, Bilski is incomprehensible in that it found the method there ineligible because it wholly preempted the method. But that presumes the method was ineligible as a matter of law, but they just got done saying that it was not ineligible as a matter of law.

    Abstractness, is not a 101 issue as is made clear by reading Morse. Abstractness was there defined as a problem of claim scope, of lack of written description, of lack of enablement, of indefiniteness. These are all 112 issues, not 101.

    I think the Supreme Court needs to parse this issue one more time as Bilski so muddled everything as to make the law all but incomprehensible.

  30. No one is making that point. You can’t get a patent on an idea or concept for a business but you can get a patent on the application of that idea or concept.

    For example, let’s say I come up with the idea of the modern grocery store, at a time when people have to walk into a general store and go up to a counter and ask the owner/clerk to go and get the products they need.

    Now my new idea is, why not create pathways or aisles and let people walk around and pick their own items off the shelf and then take them to a check out line with a cash register and pay there. I might create concepts like grocery carts, prices, and even grocery bags to make it all work.

    I might reason that such a process would make it possible to serve a lot more customers, sell more groceries and make more money!

    I might call my invention a Super Market, and name it Piggly Wiggly!

    Now, I could not get a patent on the idea or concept of my new Piggly Wiggly Super Market. And I could get a patent on a concept for aisles itself,

    But I could get a very broad patent on the application of the concept of customers going through aisles and picking out their own groceries and taking them to check out lanes and paying, irregardless of the instrumentalities used.

    Such a broad business model would be entirely patentable today under 101 when applied and reduced to a set of instructions, as long as it meets all the other conditions under 35 USC, including 112, 1102, and 103. Thats a fact that can’t be disputed.

  31. Dennis wrote: “Claim 1 of the patent (prosecuted by) reads like a bear.”

    What does that mean? I’ve never heard the phrase “to read like a bear.” And what’s the deal with the “prosecuted by” in the brackets?

  32. At the risk of asking you to prove a negative, what is the basis for your supposition that this patent claim lacks substantial utility?

    Evaluation of talent is a very real utility, so on its face, I do not see how the mere claim of “it lacks substantial utility” can be made.

  33. +1

    (is that something we should implicitly read from the words Congress has chosen for 101 – the ‘expansive’ and ‘any’ arguments?)

  34. Don’t you love how Malcolm attempts to denigrate you by calling you “S0ckie the s0ckpuppet” right after he himself is busted for s0ckpuppeting at PatentDocs (the ‘Francis’ moniker there is at least the fourth moniker he has used in that forum).

    Let’s keep this real: the man is truly shameless.

    He does what he accuse others of doing, and then indicates such is ‘the worst thing eva,” even buffaloing the good professor into thinking that somehow the choice of moniker has something (anything) to do with posting quality, as the posts from Malcolm’s single moniker continue unabated here with ultra-low quality (as witnesses by offensive racial and sexual innuendoes as well as non-patent related political propaganda).

    C’est la vie.

  35. I would say no since there are no “tech-specific limitation” requirements in the statute or case law, for a claim to pass 101.

    Please note the rest of my post. The key, given the change from the initial non-tech claim to the tech claim has to do with 112 rather than 101.

    101 is a chum factor here. The claim does have elements, and a claim cannot (notwithstanding the implication from the good professor to the contrary) simply ignore the elements of the claim to attempt to reach some unstated “gist of the invention,” that does not have those elements (whether a claim without the elements being under evaluation simply is not on point).

  36. “Does it matter that the originally filed claim was functionally the same but did not include the tech-specific limitations? ”

    I would say no since there are no “tech-specific limitation” requirements in the statute or case law, for a claim to pass 101.

    Even so, I have seen my share of 101 rejections when the examiner says as a rationale for the rejection under the abstract idea exception:

    “The claims can “even” be carried out or performed by human beings, with no machines, or technology at all. ”

    Yet, the examiner never cites any evidence of a machine, or technology requirement for eligible subject matter.

  37. IBP, I find the claimed invention very useful, therefore it meets the utility requirement under 101. So, do you have any other legal rationale why this claim should even be suspect under 101? And please see my post at: Apr 02, 2013 at 09:05 PM before replying.

    Thank You

  38. Actually Benson was included in my post by the practical application of preemption in the analysis. However, since Benson was effectively cabined by Diehr, see ( Bilski Supreme Court Case, 14) it would be improper to view Benson as a “stand alone” case for rejecting computerized process claims. See, Benson, at “294 U.S. at 294 U. S. 22. stating:

    “It is argued that a process patent must either be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or must operate to change articles or materials to a “different state or thing.” We do not hold that no process patent could ever qualify if it did not meet the requirements of our prior precedents. It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold.”

    Furthermore any examiner that fails to view Benson thru the prism of Diehr is committing a gross legal error. This is compounded by the fact that Benson was a case about the preemption of a manifestly evident mathematical formula for converting BCD numerals to pure binary numerals, or an algorithm, and there is no such formula in this claim. Nor would it be proper to dissect the claim in search for any underlying formula because the doctrine of “Integration” expressly forbids such. Again see the previously cited Prometheus reconciling Flook and Diehr, to understand the application of “Integration Analysis”. So, once again, in light of the above facts, I respectfully ask any member of the Patent Community; what “legal rationale” is there to even “suspect” this claim under 101??

  39. Sluffing off the obvious chum, there might be something actually worth a discussion (for those capable of some intellectual honesty) with “Does it matter that the originally filed claim was functionally the same but did not include the tech-specific limitations?

    This may parallel a post I made awhile back that distinguished a naked claim of “on a computer,” which is better suited for 112 questions of possession and enablement.

    And yes a key word missing from this thread is anthropomorphication.

    Since machines don’t actually think (and if 112 is satisfied), then the removal of limitations to arrive at some ‘human’ equivalent of a claim should fail.

  40. Reminds me of the H1tl3r clip awhile back that included the line: “Don’t worry, business methods are not found in nature” or something to that effect.

  41. who is mostly wrong

    LOL – yet another vacuous Malcolm “accuse others of what he does”

    The fun never stops with his hijinks.

    Just how many spam letters did you not see last year, Malcolm? Why do you keep running away from this rather simple question?

  42. As has been noted, 101, the good professor is throwing out chum.

    Rather than “wanting quality,” we get this…

    C’est la vie.

  43. Why is it that you keep on bringing this up, when the ball is still in your court?

    Tell me Malcolm, does your email have a spam filter?

  44. In the “accuse others of that which you do” category, this comment, coming from Malcolm, is certainly no surprise.

    Thanks for yet another vacuous post, Malcolm.

  45. Dennis Crouch Said: “The patent includes several technology-focused limitations such as a processor, a user interface device, and a data storage device. Without those limitations, the method could be performed in a room of professionals with nothing other than pencil and paper. So the question is whether this patent is subject matter eligible.”

    Without the technology limitations of a calculator, the method of 1+1 could be performed in a room of 1st graders with nothing other than pencil and paper, so would that bring into question whether a patent on a calculator is subject matter eligible?

    Judge Newman, IIRC, brought up just such a pointed question in the enbanc hearing of CLS Bank v. Alice, and the opposing attorney had no answer.

    In addition this claim is not manifestly abstract. ( See Research Corp)

    It is a process under the statute at 101. ( See 35 U.S.C. 101, and 100 (b )

    It’s an application of a process under Diehr. ( See Diamon V Diehr Supreme Court )

    The claims are “integrated” so there is no extra solution activity and consequently no pre-emption of a Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon. (See Flook, Diehr, Prometheus to understand the application of “Integration Analysis”)

    And that this claim may be beneficial and applicable to business is not a Court created exception to subject matter eligibility. The Court and Congress has had ample opportunity to declare such processes as exceptions to eligible subject matter and both have expressly refused to do so. ( See Bilski, US Supreme Court )

    So, in light of the above facts, I respectfully ask you Professor Crouch, or any member of the Patent Community, what “legal rationale” is there to even suspect this claim under 101?

    :: Here is hoping I do NOT hear the “usual” silence::

  46. looking at the rare instances of when Malcolm does venture into substantive law, he torches his little dogmas

    This from the commenter who is mostly wrong about nearly everything. Speaking of substantive law, anon, what do you propose to tell the judge when the registered letter with receipt acknowledged by your firm is presented during the hearing regarding inequitable conduct? “The mailroom guy reviewed the letter and threw it away because it contained prior art so we never saw it.” Is that how the scheme works?

  47. Who cares? This claim is worthless.

    I’ll save our wonderful pro-software patent trollbots some time and point out that the patent has already been sold. Isn’t that awesome?

  48. if you think I am wrong, most assuredly then I am correct.

    More deep thoughts from the lamest blog troll ever.

  49. A patent law professor intent on teaching how easily the utility requirement is met might use this patent to illustrate how that hurdle is half an inch high.

  50. You want other people to do your work for them. However, when some sucker takes you up on

    Exactly like he attempted to do with the simple question of distinguishing something from nature’s warehouse and something made by the hand of man. The ball was in his court and he ran and ran and ran. Then about a month later he attempted to co-opt the question.

    Yes, this is all archived.

    And to date, Malcolm has never answered the question.

    Of course, looking at the rare instances of when Malcolm does venture into substantive law, he torches his little dogmas with self-volunteered admissions such as “configured to” is structural and his knowledge of what the controlling law is in regards to the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine.

    Never fear, Malcolm will engage in insults (including the delicious ‘dissembling’ one), won’t you, ‘Francis?’

  51. LOL,

    I am reminded of the adage: “the company you keep”

    Thanks 6 – if you think I am wrong, most assuredly then I am correct. You will just have to contend with all of the valid points I have made along the way (you know, the ones the real track star keeps avoiding).

  52. LOL

    More misrepresentations. The spin never stops from you, does it Malcolm?

    btw, you still have not answered the simple question as to whether your email has a spam filter.

    There is indeed relative motion, but I am still standing here (the poster well known for wearing track shoes and a pretty skirt – Malcolm – on the other hand…)

  53. “No, you are not”

    I’m actually going to admit that I actually was looking forward to your words of wisdom on this matter so I presume MM may have been as well.

    To be sure, I was looking forward to them for deep deep lulz therapy that I wring from your posts but still.

  54. s0ckie the s0ckpuppet: You want other people to do your work for them.

    LOL. What “work”? This is easy stuff. It’s low hanging fruit, perfect for someone like anon.

    Somewhat unexpectedly, anon was very quick to judge that “cooled analgesic” medical method we discussed earlier this week as “ridiculous” (maybe he was simply aping the musings of his blogsophere hero, Gene “Just the Facts” Quinn) but as always when asked for details anon quickly turned tail with the usual trail of nonsense/excuses and/or insults in his week. Likewise with the isolated oligonucleotide composition claims in the Rubin thread.

    Perhaps anon is busy looking for a law firm that uses staff to screen registered letters to its attorneys so any such letters that refer to prior art can be thrown in the trash without the attorney ever learning about them. He has yet to identify a single such firm but we’re all sure he will eventually. Right, anon? It’ll likely be a small firm we never heard of because of the top ten patent prosecution firms in the country, none of them use that scheme. And anon knows this. I’m sure you know it, too, s0ckie.

  55. Is this claim likely invalid or ineligible under 101, 102, 103 or 112, anon? If you think so, tell us why. If not, just say so.

    We’ve seen you play these games a hundred times before. You want other people to do your work for them. However, when some sucker takes you up on your request, does the work, and then asks you for something in return, you retreat to the next piece of chum throw out by Dennis.

  56. Is this claim likely invalid or ineligible under 101, 102, 103 or 112, anon? If you think so, tell us why. If not, just say so.

    Do you believe that nothing new or useful is gained by automating methods that were previously not automated? What is the method without the automation is new, but obvious? Does automation warrant patent protection in that case?

    What if the new method differs from the old method only in the name given to the data, e.g., what if I invent an automated method that is identical to the method recited in the post but instead of lawyers I’m ranking members of a new profession who have never been ranked before? Is that now patent-worthy? If so, why and how do you then distinguish an obvious claim from a non-obvious claim where the only difference between the methods is the name given to the information that is being “processed”, or to whom it is sent, or when, or where?

    Really looking forward to your words of wisdom.

  57. This was thrown into the pool of sharks to feed on. But, now, fellas, 101 is not the right way to go….

    File a PGR…

  58. Thomson’s prior system for doing the super lawyer list. You couldn’t guess that? LOL.

    This is automating a manual method. Nothing new or useful is gained or enabled by automating the existing method.

  59. Does it matter that the originally filed claim was functionally the same but did not include the tech-specific limitations?

    Only insofar as it underscores the bogusness of granting patents on processing information merely because the patents recite some “tech-specific limitations.”

    A more interesting question (because there is less consensus on the answer) is whether it would matter if the claim recited some “novel” and “non-obvious” equation that was demonstrated to yield “unexpected” accuracy in the final tally relative to merely “averaging” some arbitrary defined “scores”.

  60. Much easier than an obviousness- or anticipation-based analysis and disposal.

    I think the obviousness disposal is trivial if KSR is applied properly.

  61. Isn’t the more obvious problem obviousness under 103?

    Please identify the relevant field from which prior art may be identified, identify the prior art you are relying on for each limitation and provide an explanation as to why one skilled in the art would combine those references. LOL.

    But seriously, this claim is complete g-rb-ge under multiple statutes. Of course, it would be a completely different matter if the resultant information was transmitted to a robot car or a handheld device. Wherein the car is moving. Wherein the car includes a passenger with a first name beginning with M and a last name ending with a vowel. Wherein the car is within 1,924 miles of Fort Lauderdale. Now that would be a real invention.

  62. Insubstantial utility under 101 SS&C utility requirements.

    101 fail.

    Disposal easy as pie. Cow pie.

    Much easier than an obviousness- or anticipation-based analysis and disposal.

  63. technology-focused limitations such as a processor, a user interface device, and a data storage device

    BWAAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!!

    Great script.

  64. Because the courts have said so for the last 100 years Ned. If you require more explanation than this then you’re trying too hard.

  65. “technology-focused limitations such as a processor, a user interface device, and a data storage device”

    I’m not sure that any of those are “technology-focused”. More like “technology-unfocused” to be exact.

  66. Perhaps someone can explain to me, clearly, why preemption is even an issue in cases other than Laws of Nature or Natural phenomena. When subject matter is essentially in the public domain and not claimable, it is important to determine when the claim preempt all practical uses. But clearly, business methods are NOT in the public domain. Whether they are wholly preempted or not seems clearly beside the point.

    If anyone wishes to explain this, I am all ears.

  67. Using a computer to implement a method that does not pass the MOT — is this eligible?

    Why is this question even debatable? The fact that it debatable this long after Benson is a disgrace to which the Supreme Court is shares some responsiblity with its vague Bilski decision.

Comments are closed.