by Dennis Crouch
In a message to her USPTO colleagues, USPTO Acting Director Teresa Stanek Rea has announced her intent to leave the agency in the near future. Director Rea joined the USPTO in 2011 as Deputy Director after Sharon Barner stepped down from that position. Rea worked closely with then USPTO Dave Kappos in developing and implementing key elements of the America Invents Act. She has been Acting Director since Kappos stepped down in January 2013. Prior to joining the USPTO, Rea was a partner at the law firm of Crowell & Morning.
The Obama administration has not yet nominated a replacement for Dave Kappos. That decision has apparently been delayed for the past nine months because the position of Secretary of Commerce (the USPTO Director's Boss) was also open. Penny Pritzker has now assumed office as the 38th US Secretary of Commerce and we can expect an announcement of a new USPTO director within the next few weeks. It is unclear whether Director Rea will stay on until an appointed director takes office. If not, the usual succession decision would place Peggy Focarino with the duties of Acting Director (although without that title). Ms. Focarino is currently Commissioner of Patents.
The economic benefit would then switch to low cost countries which would then produce competing products without the expense of R&D costs
6 disappeared in our conversation on another thread when I used the Star Trek replicator to debunk his 102 ‘theory.’
You and he might enjoy this link:
link to news.yahoo.com
Quite correct NWPA. Sardonically, I would ask, why apply the law when you can attempt to rewrite the law to match an agenda to change the law?
But NWPA, by invoking the name of Rich, a judge who fully understood what the law said and who stood up to errant dicta by a Lochnerian Supreme Court when that body tried to invoke its policy considerations into the law and mash the 101 nose of wax, you will surely invite Ned Heller to spew his unreasoned h@tred of a man whom Ned sees as getting in the way of his agendas of anti-business method and anti-software patents.
I agree anon. There is no desire in applying the law. None. Judge Rich must be rolling in his grave.
Bold tag off.
And a question for you to consider in relation to the policy of mental steps doctrine:
Why do machines not have the same rights as humans?
Please 6, feel free to provide a link or a short summary of any such discussion. If as you say you have actually addressed the merits of my point ‘hundreds of times,’ this should be very easy for you.
How about a quick yes/no question for you:
Do machines think (as humans think)?
“I guess Allapat should never have issued as a decision. Not everyone can buy into it 🙁 ”
LOL – what kind of legal reasoning is that, 6?
What an amatuer.
“an attempt to abstract the actual details of what is actually happening in your supposedly very technical information processing, out of the claim”
LOL – are you ready yet to live up to your promise regarding the ladders of abstraction 6?
Which reminds me, Leopold, where are my answers? Please stop screaming your silence in our ‘mature’ discussion that you ran away from.
“pick on some flaw in the saying and dodge the issue?”
That.
It is the ‘picking a tree in the wrong forest’ tactic, and is a clear indicator that he does not want to actually talk about the substantive issue.
And yes, this does broadcast that the person hunting for such trees does not have anything worthwhile to add to the conversation.
>Sounds like a claim to hinges, not to a door. You >just said it recites the hinges alone.
6, why do you post such nonsense? So, you didn’t understand what I was saying or you wanted to pick on some flaw in the saying and dodge the issue?
We all know it is the latter and that is why your posts are worthless.
And, really, it is your job to educate yourself on the art if you want to comment on the art. Do you really think that “determine” as used by humans is the same as “determine” as used in a claim for information processing? Arguing with you is just ridiculous.
Which, as an old man, NWPA should know a thing or two about.
“Words like “determine” are terms of art. ”
Act as my technical interpreter for a second NWPA, what does “determine” mean in this art that is different than the everyday usage?
“Also note that none of the other anti-software patent people will even discuss this point. Their silence is deafening.”
Except all the hundreds of times when we do, but which don’t count.
” If a claim to a door was brought before Lourie that recited hinges alone”
Sounds like a claim to hinges, not to a door. You just said it recites the hinges alone.
“Each of the words in an information processing claim that are associated with human thinking do not have the same meaning.”
Then why on go d’s green earth do you drafters keep using them? Why not simply use terms that clearly do not have the same meaning?
” They are terms of art. ”
Oh please. What they are, which the courts are noticing, are an attempt to abstract the actual details of what is actually happening in your supposedly very technical information processing, out of the claim. Trying to re-brand this as using terms of art is hilarious.
“I guess the appeal of the 101 nuclear bomb is just too strong for the tyrant’s brain to shun. ”
He said about one of the people on the very court that even allowed him to start up his shell game in the first place. And besides NWPA, let’s hope so.
“Yet, of course, the way to good examination at the patent office is good opinions that all can buy into.”
Oh so now this whole thing is a democracy that requires a unanimous vote? Well then, I guess Allapat should never have issued as a decision. Not everyone can buy into it 🙁 .
I basically agree with you anon, but still the technical point is that in patent law the term should be used as a PHOSITA would understand the term. Words like “determine” are terms of art. That is the dispositive point.
The ridiculous co-opting of the mental steps doctrine is another problem. I have actually had long arguments with Richard Stern regarding this exact issue. And, neither he nor the other anti’s have any interest in a fair discussion. They also want to ignore (1) the Church-Turing Thesis and (2) the conservation of information.
In light of the article above of computers replacing nearly half of all laborers in the U.S. it is an outrage that there is not a appreciation for the difference between a computer processing information (artificially and in a different manner than humans) and humans processing information.
But, in all my arguments with Richard Stern I never had the feeling that he cared about the truth. His goal was to obfuscate and to drop the bomb. And, some 40 years later his seed is still present. It all comes from Benson and Richard Stern (at the DOJ at the time). That the goal was to ride the patent system of information processing rather than learn to examine the applications. And, still Lourie wants to come back to that.
The irony, of course, for those of us that have spent years in AI is that these words used by humans are so difficult to translate into machine instructions. So many years and so much labor has gone into taking human terms and understanding how to translate them into machine instructions. And, yet, this step of the term as used by a human compared with the term as used by a computer is given no weight in Lourie’s world. Another outrage and indication of the willful ignorance of computer science by Lourie.
Check into the policy drivers of the mental steps doctrine. WHen you understand the drivers of that policy – and how that policy has been abused in an attempt to co-opt it for the battle against software patents, then you will see that anthropomorphication is exactly the right word.
Note too that Malcolm has voluntarily admitted that he really does think that machines do think. Also note that none of the other anti-software patent people will even discuss this point. Their silence is deafening.
Anon, I know the word very well. But, I don’t think it is precisely the right word in this context. The problem is that Lourie from a technical patent perspective should be using the words as PHOSITA would understand the word. So, Lourie is taking terms of art and using everyday meanings rather than PHOSITA meanings. You are right that the process Lourie is using is one of anthropomorphication, which appears to be the source of why Lourie feels like he understands the art.
But, within patent law, the problem is that he is not using the terms as a PHOSITA would use the terms. Where Lourie is getting his definitions is beside the point.
“Each of the words in an information processing claim that are associated with human thinking do not have the same meaning.”
The word: anthropomorphication
Have someone switch every processor Lourie interacts with a bare processor with no software and let’s see if he notices any differences.
And, yes, those that are intellectual honest can see the connection between Lourie and a Na$i.
One more thing to consider:
How is the Lourie helping the good prosecution effort? The 101 bomb will take out all of electronics/computer science and will result in massive gamemanship.
So, instead of using 102, 103, 112 which would enable the average examiner to reject a claim that is too broad in a reasonable way that they could convince an applicant of the fairness of the rejection, Lourie turns to a tyrant’s privilege and executes the claim. Not helpful. Result more gamesmanship no real guidance for examiner’s.
Lourie should be impeached for not applying the law. He soils the office.
The other odd thing about this too is the use of 101. If a claim to a door was brought before Lourie that recited hinges alone, would Lourie say that the claim was abstract and ineligible for patentability? I don’t think so.
There is some bizarre connection between the fact that computers process information and Lourie type brains make no distinction between the words used in an information processing claim and words used in everyday English. When the words are very different. Each of the words in an information processing claim that are associated with human thinking do not have the same meaning. They are terms of art. Yet, Lourie type people feel they know what the term means as their brains also perform the same function.
I guess the appeal of the 101 nuclear bomb is just too strong for the tyrant’s brain to shun. Yet, of course, the way to good examination at the patent office is good opinions that all can buy into. 101 arguments that are absurd on their face do nothing but polarize. Lourie can burn some patents at the stake, but it does nothing but infuriate and energize the opposition to his pogram.
Ah well, so it goes…..
Or according to Lourie that there is no difference between a bare processor and a processor + software.
Another thing that occurred to me was Lourie:
20 years ago Lourie would not have not had any idea what a database was or a processor. Now, because he thinks he knows what these are he feels he can run down the elements of a claim and say that they are not patent eligible.
link to technologyreview.com
So, machines that are going to replace 45% of people are not eligible for patentability?
Trollbillion: I believe I’ve read that you are an examiner, and so am not at all surprised to see an argument from tautology.
You really can’t beat the 100% pure ad hominem b.s. that flows from the mouths of the True Believers.
the copycats … who will be delightfully free to copy the now unprotected innovative developments of others in our brave new world
You still got the DMCA, bro’. What’s the matter? Not good enough for the fat gamblers whose pockets you need to pick? Boo hoo hoo hoo.
Those billions of dollars would be losses to the tech industry – meaning they would be losses to shareholders of the tech industry – meaning they would be losses to the big pension funds who hold stock directly (or through mutual funds, indirectly) in the tech industry. The big pension funds, if you don’t know, hold the retirement money of middle class America.
LOL. Did you hear that folks? Software has to remain patentable or middle class Americans will lose all their retirement money!
The class warfare Kool-Aid does not become anyone particularly when it starts dripping down one’s chin.
How about when you are spraying the Kool-Aid out of a hose while ranting that the pensions of “middle class America” depend on the continued existence of software patents? Is that “becoming”?
Whenever I think I’ve heard everything, there’s always another True Believer with another talking point that is so desperate and b*tt-st*pid it makes me f’in puke. Congrats. You’ve lowered the bar.
I believe that Prof. Chien just received an appointment too.
Her guest posts here were critically panned.
Not sure if it’s related, but I find disturbing the recent appointment of Andrew Byrnes to chief of staff. The bio on the USPTO site is nice and sanitized but it doesn’t take much digging to discover that he’s a fanatical party operative.
6,
Stop being lazy and break out of your lemming ways.
You continuously seek and stick with conversations that mirror what you already want to believe and you keep on ignoring the points of law (and fact) that are inconvenient for your ‘world-view’
To wit:
”I disagree, but so what if it is”
Lol, your disagreement does not change the logic. The ‘so what’ is that your logic is a fallacy. Sticking with your fallacy even as the fault is clearly pointed out to you is just plain folly.
”but I don’t feel like playing today. ”
Again LOL as your mere labeling my comment as “semantical games” does not make it so – You are merely running away from the point I have made. Innovation is not copying. If you are blocked from the act of copying, there is no blocking of innovation, and the ‘tale of woe’ you preach is a fallacy.
Man up 6 – deal with the points I make (I am not going away, so you might as well simply deal with them now).
”Brother anon…”
What the h311 CRP is this? Move the goalposts back and deal with the points I have made. Don’t attempt to switch the subject (besides which, you still are wrong with who you think I am – and I have been forthright about that. Purposefully maintaining your error can only harm you.
”how it goes with the trolls.”
LOL – the rest of the lemming herd has moved away from this over-hyped ‘Troll’ nonsense. See the GAO report. See the series of articles by the Tafas lawyer over at IPWatchdog. Not only are you a lemming, you are a lazy and p1ssp00r lemming who cannot even bother to follow the updated lemming script. The rest of the herd are now marching up a different cliff.
From what I am seeing the corporate crowd has won. We can expect Obama to appoint henchmen at all levels.
My suspicions regarding you Ned are that you are incredibly naive. In the U.S. most of these people will compromise every aspect of their personalities to get appointed. They do a deal of I’ll burn it down for the title of director. I won’t apply the law. I need the position for my family.
That captures almost every person in the US now. Those that are older and set in a tenured position or not in the US job market cannot understand.
My prediction is that we are about to get another Dudas experience.
Tourbillion, you do know that the argument I’m making is what the law is on the subject correct? If every time a patent (or slew of patents) were invalidated by a judicial decision then the government could be sued for the supposed taking of property due to the losses of the “valuable property” caused by the government’s actions. Nobody will ever be able to bring such an action successfully, and thus I simply stand with the standard view on the matter, it has nothing to do with tautology, it has to do with having a realistic impression of the law.
“without seeming to care that they are invalid only under the novel and unusual approach of the Smith PTAB panel.”
Nah, they’re invalid under other approaches as well, the Smith panel just happened to apply one not very novel approach that is apparently novel to you.
“as I believe many CAFC judges will not like transforming a claim into a 112/f without any recitation of “means”.”
Your beliefs about what judges do or do not like are hardly here nor there in respect to the state of these patents or the law. Indeed, what the judges actually do or do not like is neither here nor there.
“As to the copycats you refer to as “innovators” who will be delightfully free to copy the now unprotected innovative developments of others in our brave new world, I will indeed happily put in my 2 cents worth to preserve a strong patent system that history has amply demonstrated worked as intended, fostering the useful arts and sciences like no other. ”
I meant a literal 2 cents, as in my share of real world money supposed “loses”. Not your or my blustering.
“First, if you outlaw ALL patents as improper, there are no losses by your ‘logic.'”
I disagree, but so what if it is? The patent system is not here as a corporate or individual welfare program. It is here to promote the progress of the useful arts. Which, I know, is something that is usually lost on folks like yourself with $$$ in your eyes.
“Second, you misapply the term ‘innovators’ if your so-called innovators are merely copying something that someone else has a patent on.”
Yeah yeah, your semantical games are fun but I don’t feel like playing today ok anon?
“You show the lemming in you with no critical thinking of your own and a wholesale swallowing of the line that you have been fed that patents block other innovators.”
Brother anon, I know that you don’t think that I personally have some skill in my relevant art but I can assure you that I do. And frankly, if I were to try to strike out on my own with my own company, even assuming I brought ground breaking designs to play and patented them, I would find myself so locked out of the market by the big player’s patents it isn’t even funny. I know that, to you, in your mind, this doesn’t make any difference because “6 isn’t an innovator” (despite the fact that I’ve invented close to a hundred things that would all make a decent patent app with at least a dozen being in my art). It does however affect my state of being in life. Though I am willing to live with it when I see the advancing of the state of my art by patents every day. And my figuring out how blocked I would be in my art should I make a start up company came well before anyone told me, on the interbuts or otherwise, about the patent system supposedly blocking other innovators.
You yourself are wanting to try to get in on the game it looks like. Though you may just be trying to troll, I think it might be your intent to give an actual business a go. I will keep an eye on your attempts anon, and if you do give a business a go, do let me know how it goes with the trolls.
“I wonder what the subtext is for letting Terry go”
Rumor is she was going to leave in Feb, but stuck around as interim for awhile. I’m pretty sure it has nothing to do with her being forced out. She was simply ready to go, just as Davi was.
I wonder what the subtext is for letting Terry go, assuming she was willing to stay on? Is this just a matter of letting the new Secretary of Commerce choose her own person, does it reflect higher ups desire for a change in direction, or is it political maneuvering among the movers and shakers in patent law to get one of their own in power?
Does anyone really knows what is going on?
Gotta love this
“processor adapted to …”
“processor … configured … to …”
are, drumroll, “means plus function” under 112, p. 6 (now f).
To the extent that Terry had anything to do with this, my hat is off to her.
I believe I’ve read that you are an examiner, and so am not at all surprised to see an argument from tautology. You start with assuming the answer you want – all those thousands (millions?) of processor claims are now invalid ergo no “loss”, without seeming to care that they are invalid only under the novel and unusual approach of the Smith PTAB panel. Those decisions are highly injudicious and also highly legally suspect, as I believe many CAFC judges will not like transforming a claim into a 112/f without any recitation of “means”. The CAFC, to its credit, has historically been far less promiscuous in this regard than the emerging decisions from the PTAB.
As to the copycats you refer to as “innovators” who will be delightfully free to copy the now unprotected innovative developments of others in our brave new world, I will indeed happily put in my 2 cents worth to preserve a strong patent system that history has amply demonstrated worked as intended, fostering the useful arts and sciences like no other. That, and not a blanket amnesty arising from new-found bad law and defective legal reasoning, is “saving the good name of the patent system as a whole”.
6,
First, if you outlaw ALL patents as improper, there are no losses by your ‘logic.’
Second, you misapply the term ‘innovators’ if your so-called innovators are merely copying something that someone else has a patent on. You show the lemming in you with no critical thinking of your own and a wholesale swallowing of the line that you have been fed that patents block other innovators.
Think for yourself man. At least try.
Please advise the point of commentary which is unconnected with the original posting
“Those billions of dollars would be losses to the tech industry – meaning they would be losses to shareholders of the tech industry – meaning they would be losses to the big pension funds who hold stock directly (or through mutual funds, indirectly) in the tech industry. ”
They aren’t really “loses” if those patents never should have been issued in the first place as would be the case if they’re found invalid. But we shouldn’t leave out the gains that will thus be had later on due to innovators in the space having their hands untied to implement “features” etc. And even if we don’t consider those, I’ll happily pay my 2 cents to help save the good name of the patent system as a whole. Will you?
Loving the warmth of the bonfire you built – with your own words – and the flames from your burning agenda.
LOL – you must really cringe to realize that your own words captured in the plain black and white of the archives captured your volunteered admissions against interests.
Your.
Own.
Words.
Against you.
LOL – the dust kicking projections of your own phantasies simply pale in comparison.
Your post at 12:35 was completely meaningless Malcolm.
Try again to answer the question put to you.
Tourbillion,
Malcolm has lost the ability (or the inclination) to be able to tell what is dripping down his chin.
His great conflation legal theory of WHATEVER is in full force.
Paul, much of the commentary here is irrelevant to Rea leaving. As I should imagine you might know, having asked the same types of rhetorical questions a half dozen times or so. May I suggest that if you find it distasteful, simply move to another thread? While this may regrettably entail relinquishing the satisfying moral preening that comes with being Hall Monitor, it may have the salutary effect of lowering the blood pressure.
“Instead we should express thanks for the work she has done and best wishes for the future.”
What work did she actually do? I read some director’s blog posts, most just self-serving copyright nonsense that one wonders why the PTO director would be involved in, but meh. Other than that I haven’t seen much out of the good director’s office. I’m sure she kept up with day to day operations and all that, but what else?
A claim that recites a “new function” for an old structure is not a claim to a new eligible invention. It’s a claim to a new “function. If the invention is a new object (e.g., an article of manufacture or a composition of matter), the distinguishing structure of that object needs to be described.
No … not an “old structure” … an old structure that has been reconfigured into a new structure. Regardless, there is no requirement that the “distinguishing structure” be described in the claims. Basic stuff.
But if your “invention” is the newly recited function, then you’ve got to describe in your claims (or indirectly, via the spec) the new distinguishing structural features that allow the functionality to be achieved. Because that’s the “invention” that is eligible for patenting. Not the function
I only have to disclose enough for one having ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. Again, basic stuff.
Do you not understand that we disagree about what is required and I’m explaining to you the basis for my position?
I agree that we disagree. However, the basis for my arguments are 35 USC 112. The basis for yours? A dislike of software?
MM I don’t know what you do for a living but I hope you’re not an economist. Those billions of dollars would be losses to the tech industry – meaning they would be losses to shareholders of the tech industry – meaning they would be losses to the big pension funds who hold stock directly (or through mutual funds, indirectly) in the tech industry. The big pension funds, if you don’t know, hold the retirement money of middle class America.
The class warfare Kool-Aid does not become anyone particularly when it starts dripping down one’s chin.
LOL, my thoughts exactly. Although, I have noticed in recent months RIDICULOUS requirements (many contrary to the law) from the intake division.
Stop all that LOL. It is really obnoxious.
1%…?
What would Jane say?
I don’t know. I do know that it’s unfortunate for your PR purposes that the Great Patent Casino caters to the whims of the wealthy gamblers who make up the vast majority of its “clients.” Most people (you know, the kind of people that still have voting rights, in spite of the efforts of the same well-heeled business people to take them away) do not share your views about the irrefutable essential awesomeness of, e.g., software patents, patents on methods of determining prices for stuff, and other j*nk. Pointing out that the most vocal adherents of your views are almost invariably people that are already eating high on the hog is additional useful information that people can consider when “making their choices”.
Maybe I should patent a method of communicating that information “automatically”, using a computer? LOL.
How about the fact that Malcolm himself voluntarily admitted that ‘configured to’ is structural language?
How about the fact that Tr0 llb0y voluntarily admitted that his parole officer caught him behind the 7-11 “making friends” while wearing only a hospital gown?
Fun game, Tr0 llb0y. Will you start the next round, as usual?
Still beating that strawman I see Malcolm.
@ta boy
duplicity
Tr0 llb0y back to his game of finding “equivalance” somewhere on the Internet — anywhere! — to justify the behavior of his arrogant s*ckie friend who pops in every few weeks to tell everyone that only ignorant dishonest people disagree with his views because … “technology”! Or something like that.
Good luck, Tr0 llb0y. Never stop believing that the world really does care about your bizarre obsessions with the pseudonyms people use on other blogs, no matter what your nurse tells you.
“Ultimately, the PTAB deemed a processor is a “verbal construct devoid of structure.””
I think to be clear, the deemed a processor “configured to x” is a verbal construct devoid of structure. Processors themselves are fine.
“That is the great thing about the USPTO, the left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing. Additionally, the PTAB doesn’t know what the Federal Circuit is saying.”
See, some people want to apply the law, other people want to apply the Federal “we make factual findings as a matter of law” Circuit “law”.
How about the fact that Malcolm himself voluntarily admitted that ‘configured to’ is structural language?
Or how about the fact that Malcolm himself voluntarily admitted that he understood the controlling law regarding the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine?
LOL – some very toasty facts.
You’re right NWPA, what they should have said was: link to en.wikipedia.org
HAHHAAHAHAHAHA
“The ability to infer the (hypothetical) meaning of a nonsense word from context is used to test for brain damage.”
^what the claimed term really is: a test for brain damage!
Malcolm,
Why do you hide behind an ever-changing line-up of pseudonyms when you post over at PatentDocs and then QQ about your own perception of someone doing the same thing here?
Why the duplicity?
“Specifically, we construe processor in “a processor adapted
to” as a nonce word invoking § 112, sixth paragraph, and find that the
Specification does not disclose sufficient structure, in the form of a general
purpose processor and an algorithm, corresponding to “perform an action in
response to identifying the at least one object descriptor that matches the
first object descriptor,” as required by Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v.
Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).”
Wait for it, wait for it…
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
And also, let me just say that I’d very much like to see that structure in the drawings.
That’s the way things used to be, but now we usually find that these people have committed many acts that are less than honorable.
Sorry, Paul, but now public service usually means lining your pocket or lining someone else’s pocket to set yourself up for your exit job.
Reality.
s uckie the s uckpuppet: Functional limitations are used ALL THE TIME for machines and machine components
Right, but if the only difference between the claimed article or composition and the prior art is the new function, you have to recite the distinguishing corresponding structure (directly or indirectly if you rely on 112p6) responsible for the new functionality or your claim is unenforceable j*nk.
Go ahead and show everyone a few of the examples that you are thinking of. Go find, say, some claims to a new can opener and show us where you see new functionality, sans structure, as the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention. Then we can discuss whether such a claim is enforceable. Should be easy for you, right? Because this happens “all the time.”
1%…?
What would Jane say?
Paul,
Your comments and kvetching are coming across as overbearing and Pollyanna.
While it may not be the most polite thing to do, commenting on how the Office is a royal CF under her watch – she is in charge of the PTAB, you know, is entirely appropriate.
You don’t have to join in that conversation, but your attempt at censorship is itself uncalled for.
Please stop.
Do you really think that you are qualified to write a post on this
LOL. Only people that gramps thinks are “qualified” can comment here! Too funny.
Why is “No” hiding behind a new pseudonym? He’s been doing this quite a bit lately.
But the “configurable machine” is still the same old “configurable machine.”
No. Different arrangement of parts = different machine.
Run with it, man. It’s a winner! Type it in bold caps with italics and it’ll be even more persuasive. Maybe get Gene Quinn to put on a toga, climb to the top of a high hill, and scream it out of a megaphone until his lips bleed. Then nobody (except the truly ignorant, of course) will ever doubt your awesome conclusion!
The fact that some people believe something doesn’t impress me in the slightest.
You’re so awesome! A real free-thinker.
claims are only required to distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art
A claim that recites a “new function” for an old structure is not a claim to a new eligible invention. It’s a claim to a new “function. If the invention is a new object (e.g., an article of manufacture or a composition of matter), the distinguishing structure of that object needs to be described.
There is no requirement to describe (in the claims) the structural features that confer the part with its stated functionality.
Right, you can certainly recite means plus function or other functional language in a claim. Thats permitted. But if your “invention” is the newly recited function, then you’ve got to describe in your claims (or indirectly, via the spec) the new distinguishing structural features that allow the functionality to be achieved. Because that’s the “invention” that is eligible for patenting. Not the function.
Why do you have such trouble understanding this concept?
I understand “the concept” perfectly. Do you not understand that we disagree about what is required and I’m explaining to you the basis for my position?
“Functionality” is not an eligible invention for patenting. You can’t tack “new functionality” onto a claim to an old device or compossition and get an enforceable patent. And it’s never been enough to say “Oh well I’ve described this new functionality so that one skilled in the art could make a device/composition with that functionality so give me my patent on any and all modifications to the old composition, whatever they may be, regardless of the form they take, as long as they achieve the stated funcationality.” Patent law has never worked that way.
But the “configurable machine” is still the same old “configurable machine.”
No. Different arrangement of parts = different machine. I can make dozens of different machines from an erector set … I just rearrange (configure) them differently.
You can’t patent the “newly configured old configurable machine” merely by reciting a new function achievable by the new configuration unless you describe the new configuration in structural terms
Been happening for decades. Where have you been?
This is the way it has always been for claimed articles of manufacture and composition of matter
No – not even close. Functional limitations are used ALL THE TIME for machines and machine components (which are articles of manufacture or an improvement to a machine, depending upon how you want to look at it).
until this magical hand-waving by a few judges and the PTO changed everything to please some people who “wanted to get rich off the Internet”.
Uh … most of the important decisions were rendered well before the ‘internet boom.’ Nice try though.
Plenty of people who understand the technology and the law are persuaded by this (including me).
I read where a majority of Republicans believe that Obama is hiding information about his birth. The fact that some people believe something doesn’t impress me in the slightest.
For starters, the “technology” (to the extent that term is even applicable) is not very difficult, particularly at the level practiced of the worst offenders in this area
A lot of people practice not-very-difficult chemistry (e.g., burning wood, making beer). However, that doesn’t mean that they understand what is actually going on at a fundamental level.
Let me know if you have trouble understanding any of the “facts.”
When you present them, let me know.
We already have people willing to say that actual hardware is abstract.
Who? Name them and show us the quote so we can see why you are so very concerned.
Or maybe consider shutting tfu with your asinine lies?
I realize it’s tempting to make stuff up when “your side” is stacked top to bottom with some of the most arrogant, caustic and self-entitled blowhards that ever walked the face of the earth. But you’re not “helping” your cause any.
LB is lending you a hand and all you can do is bite it. That’s not going to work out well for you.
half of the CAFC has no problem with jeopardizing a few million claims worth billions of dollars
Worth “billions of dollars” to whom? Oh right: to the top 1% income bracket who can easily afford the loss.
The negative economic impact of the loss of patent protection for software will be close to zilch.
By the way, s*ckie, your lame s0ckpuppetry bugs
I see MM has deemed the conversation over and has now engaged in insults and threats. Way to uphold your reputation MM.
it needs to be claimed like other allegedly new “machine components” and any other physical composition: by a description of the structural features that confer the part with its stated functionality
You still don’t get that claims are only required to distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art … not enable the invention (i.e., the difference between the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of 35 USC 112). There is no requirement to describe (in the claims) the structural features that confer the part with its stated functionality.
Why do you have such trouble understanding this concept?
Aharonian says a C source-code listing is “clearly” a computer program.
Then he is wrong.
If you’re telling me that a “computer program” is not “software,” then we’re back again to the original point
What I said, quite clearly, is that there is a difference between a computer program (i.e., software) and a computer program listing (i.e., a printed list of the instructions).
By (knowingly) interchanging source code listing with a computer program, you are deliberately mixing apples with oranges.
Nice analogy to the Grand Hall experiment.
Nobody knows or cares what you’re talking about, Tr0 llb0y.
Gene Quinn even admitted that hardly anything on the market is actually covered by a patent. But people view patents as being necessary for business success.
Funny.
No said in reply to MM…
Missed the part about qu
By the way, s*ckie, your lame s0ckpuppetry bugs so when the “answers” dry up, you know why.
Or maybe we need a little reminder about why Tr0 llb0y was busted and outed?
a new configuration means a new relative arrangement of parts of elements (i.e., a new structure).
Sure. But the “configurable machine” is still the same old “configurable machine.” You can’t patent the “newly configured old configurable machine” merely by reciting a new function achievable by the new configuration unless you describe the new configuration in structural terms. Basic stuff.
New configuration = new structure (as well as new function) = patentable.
It’s “patentable” only if you recite the structure. you cannot recite “Old configurable machine configured in a new way, wherein said configuration confers the ability to [insert new non-obvious awesome utility here]. This is the way it has always been for claimed articles of manufacture and composition of matter … until this magical hand-waving by a few judges and the PTO changed everything to please some people who “wanted to get rich off the Internet”.
ust don’t delude yourself into thinking that your arguments on the facts have any basis and/or will persuade people who do understand the technology.
Plenty of people who understand the technology and the law are persuaded by this (including me). For starters, the “technology” (to the extent that term is even applicable) is not very difficult, particularly at the level practiced of the worst offenders in this area.
I don’t have the hubris to debate you on factual issues regarding biotechnology.
Oh, the irony.
1. A new antibody, wherein said antibody recognizes [insert new , non-obvious antigen here].
Does that claim recite structure that distinguishes the new antibody from old antibodies? No. That claim is j*nk. And that’s exactly what the Supreme Court would tell anybody who challenged such a claim “all the way” up the chain.
No “hubris” required to make that call. Let me know if you have trouble understanding any of the “facts.”
Nice analogy to the Grand Hall experiment.
Still a critical FAIL point for the anti-software patent fundamentalists.
While a few comments on this posting have been appropriate, the mass of them have been irrelevant, thoughtless and inappropriate. Not something that we as a profession should be giving to Terry as a keepsake.
The ONLY appropriate comment in response to this news is to express our appreciation and thanks to Terry for her service at USPTO and our best wishes for the future.
I have complained by e-mail to Dennis on this subject and he is invited to comment.
I commend director Rea on a job well done. We need more people like her at the PTO.
Malcolm, what is controlling law as to the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine and why are they important to this legal discussion.
Truly a simple question, as you have already volunteer the admission against interests.