By Jason Rantanen
Accenture Global Services, GMBH v. Guidewire Software, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2013) Download Accenture v. Guidewire
Panel: Rader (dissenting), Lourie (author), Reyna
It is difficult to think of an issue that has more deeply divided the Federal Circuit over the past few years than subject matter eligibility. Accenture is the latest barrage and counter-barrage in this seemingly endless war. Unlike Ultramercial v. Hulu, though, in which Judge Rader wrote the majority opinion and Judge Lourie concurred in the result, the forces arguing against subject matter eligibility of computer programs won today's battle.
At issue in the case were claims 1-7 and 8-22 of Patent No. 7,013,284. Claim 1 read:
A system for generating tasks to be performed in an insurance organization, the system comprising:
an insurance transaction database for storing information related to an insurance transaction, the insurance transaction database comprising a claim folder containing the information related to the insurance transaction decomposed into a plurality of levels from the group comprising a policy level, a claim level, a participant level and a line level, wherein the plurality of levels reflects a policy, the information related to the insurance transaction, claimants and an insured person in a structured
format;a task library database for storing rules for determining tasks to be completed upon an occurrence of an event;
a client component in communication with the insurance transaction database configured for providing information relating to the insurance transaction, said client component enabling access by an assigned claim handler to a plurality of tasks that achieve an insurance related goal upon completion; and
a server component in communication with the client component, the transaction database and the task library database, the server component including an event processor, a task engine and a task assistant;
wherein the event processor is triggered by application events associated with a change in the information, and sends an event trigger to the task engine; wherein in response to the event trigger, the task engine identifies rules in the task library database associated with the event and applies the information to the identified rules to determine the tasks to be completed, and populates on a task assistant the determined tasks to be completed, wherein the task assistant transmits the determined tasks to the client component.
The district court (Judge Robinson, one of the ) held claims 1-7 (system claims) and claims 8-22 (method claims) invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accenture appealed only claims 1-7.
System Claims Ineligible Subject Matter: In an opinion authored by Judge Lourie, the majority agreed with the district court that the claims were patent ineligible subject matter. The majority provided two bases for its conclusion. First, "because the system claims offer no meaningful limitations beyond the method claims that have been held patent-ineligible" and second, "because, when considered on their own, under Mayo and our plurality opinion in CLS Bank, they fail to pass muster." Slip Op. at 10.
The majority first compared the system claims to the method claims that were conclusively invalid because Accenture failed to appeal them. Relying on the plurality opinion in CLS Bank v. Alice, the majority concluded that the proper approach is to "compare the substantive limitations of the method claim and the system claim to see if the system claim offers a “meaningful limitation” to the abstract method claim, which has already been adjudicated to be patent-ineligible." Id. Because the court found no additional "meaningful limitation" in the system claims, they were as patent ineligible as the method claims.
The majority also concluded that the method claims were invalid under Section 101 even standing on their own. Applying a preemption analysis to the abstract idea at the heart of the system claims, the majority concluded that the additional imitations did not "narrow, confine, or otherwise tie down the claim so that, in practical terms, it does not cover the full abstract idea itself." Slip Op. at 15. Furthermore, "simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limtiations to that concept, does not transform a patent ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one." Id.
Judge Rader's Dissent: Unsurprisingly, Judge Rader disagreed with the majority. Central to his disagreement was the belief that the plurality framework relied upon by the majority in this case lacks precedential value. "[N]o part of CLS Bank, including the plurality opinion, carries the weight of precedent. The court's focus should be on Supreme Court precedent and precedent from this court." Slip Op. at 20. He also disagreed with the basic idea of the comparing the system claims to the invalid method claims, characterizing it as estoppel that will have the effect of "requiring litigants to appeal the invalidity of every claim or else risk the potential for estoppel or waiver of other claims." Id. And Judge Rader would have concluded that, even on the merits, the claimed systems present patent-eligible subject matter. "The claims offer “significantly more” than the purported abstract idea, …, and meaningfully limit the claims’ scope." Id. at 4, quoting Mayo v. Prometheus, 132 S.Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012).
Judge Rader also once again proclaims his view that the courts' approach to patent law's subject matter eligibility requirement is pure folly:
In conclusion, I note that prior to granting en banc review in CLS Bank, this court commented: “no one understands what makes an idea abstract.” CLS Bank Int’l v. Alice Corp., 685 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012), opinion vacated, 484 F. App’x 559 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (internal quotations marks omitted). After CLS Bank, nothing has changed. “Our opinions spend page after page revisiting our cases and those of the Supreme Court, and still we continue to disagree vigorously over what is or is not patentable subject matter.” MySpace, Inc. v. GraphOn Corp., 672 F.3d 1250, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see generally CLS Bank. Indeed, deciding what makes an idea “abstract” is “reminiscent of the oenologists trying to describe a new wine.” MySpace, 672 F.3d at 1259.
I take this opportunity to reiterate my view that “the remedy is the same: consult the statute!” CLS Bank, 717 F.3d at 1335 (additional reflections of Rader, C.J.). The statute offers broad categories of patent-eligible subject matter. The “ineligible” subject matter in these system claims is a further testament to the perversity of a standard without rules—the result of abandoning the statute.
Slip Op. at 23. That said, Judge Rader's thoughts about indeterminacy should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt: his opinions indicate, after all, that he has very strong views that one side of the subject matter eligibility battle is right and the other wrong.
One other thing of note about this case: Mark Lemley – who has written a great deal about patenting of computer-implemented inventions, including a recent post on PatentlyO – was the lead attorney for the defendant.
This is where I sign halloween costumes on sale off!
98 New this year are sexy police officers, sexy swat-team
members and cougars. Secure the overlapping fabric in place with an elastic strap to the latex masks and realistic silicone masks available today,
that you can stand out from the rest? There is also the only time you can get on with your lives now.
Some feature embellishment throughout the entire dress.
The claims in Bilski were ineligible because claim one covered a scientific truth. And claim 4 covered a mathematic formula representative of a scientific truth. Can’t be more clear than that.
PART II
Not even Judge Lourie is exempted from making this fundamental legal
error. See Petitioners brief. Judge Lourie’s conclusion that they
were not patent-eligible. Id. at 121a.
“Chief Judge Rader, in contrast, had properly analyzed the computer
system claims, but erred as to the method and computer-readable medium
claims because he failed to recognize, as the record made clear and
CLS Bank had stipulated, that all of the claims require electronic
implementation on a computer.”
Lourie is correct in stating that Rader erred but fails to provide the
proper reasoning for that error. The methods claims are eligible not
because they, “ require electronic implementation on a computer” but
because they are a specific application of a concept. And the concept
being applied is not a recitation of a judicially created exception, of a
“fundamental truth, original cause, or motive”, A.K.A. abstract idea.
The use of a computer is certainly helpful in reaching the conclusion
of eligibility, but not a requirement.
PART I
This from Alice petition: “A divided panel of the Federal Circuit
reversed. The panel majority (Judges Linn and O’Malley) held that the
asserted claims “cover the practical application of a business concept
in a specific way, which requires computer implemented steps.”
And therein lies the heart of the problem. There are certain Judges at
every level that have a philosophical belief that “ practical
application of a business concept,” even in “a specific way” is not
patent eligible subject matter. Therefore in their mind, using
software and computers to assist in the application is merely
insignificant extra solution activity designed to circumvent patent
laws and push thru otherwise patent- ineligible ideas. The flaw in
that thinking is there is no statutory support for business methods,
with or without computers, being ineligible subject matter. In
addition, the Supreme Court of the United States explicitly refused to
interpret the statute to include a business method exception. ( See
Bilski )
However, some Judges still view applied process and method steps as
being ineligible. See Chief Judge Rader from the petitioners brief:
“Chief Judge Rader concluded that the method and computer-readable
medium claims are not directed to eligible subject matter. He opined
that the method claims “describe[] the general and theoretical concept
of using a neutral intermediary in exchange trans- actions to reduce
risk that one party will not honor the deal,” and concluded that each
of the steps in the claimed method was “an inherent part” of such an
escrow arrangement.”
Assuming Rader’s description of the method claims is accurate,
wouldn’t that make the claims not patentable under 102 ( Inherently
anticipated) and 103 (obvious in view of some specific prior art )?
Why pre-ordain applied method/process claims as ineligible when the
statute, and even the Supreme Court, clearly say that such claims are
eligible?
Try:
link to laipla.net
Anyone have a link to the Alice brief for cert?
See above.
Ned,
The thread here has become too long, and I already told you that I was not going to hold your hand and explain (yet again) how to read and understand the Diehr case.
You obviously still struggle with that.
Interestingly, I note that your comment of
“anon, a process that produces a higher yield is not the same process that produces a lower yield“
does not yet appear on this thread (but appears on your linked name.
I will respond here though.
We were talking about the same result – not the same process. You need to move the goal post back. I certainly hope that you recognize that you can have different processes yield the same result, right?
Think man. Think!
anon, a process that produces a higher yield is not the same process that produces a lower yield.
Sent from Windows Mail
Anon, consider Diehr for example. it discussed old and new elements. Why?
Sent from Windows Mail
“one needs first to conduct a novelty analysis”
NO.
You are conflating again Ned.
Stop the dust-kicking.
And please do not be disingenuous by accusing me of not accepting something that I have been pushing for.
Ned,
You are not paying attention to what I have been saying.
Yield is a business method metric. The actual process of curing rubber happens only once – let me repeat: the actual process happens only once.
The actual physical result – measuring on a per item basis (singular) – happens only once.
The accumulation of physical results (plural) – again – is a business method metric.
Plural versus singular. The singular result (that of A perfect cure was old in the art.
I have explained this to you before.
Listen, if a claim is wholly abstract, one need not even consider what is new or old. But if the claim is not wholly abstract, but contains otherwise eligible subject matter, like a computer, one needs first to conduct a novelty analysis and then assess whether what is new is obvious. But, if what is new is ineligible, what then?
We look to Diehr. If it is applied, the claim as a whole is eligible.
But consider that the novelty like in otherwise eligible subject matter. What that then?
Mayo suggest the claim still is eligible.
Anon, we are talking yield, a well known concept in manufacturing . Yield was improved. The new process steps improved yield. This IS a new physical result, regardless of your not accepting it.
“that passes the MOT”
CRIMINY, Ned – stop your blasted agenda.
Repeat after me:
Bilski: MoT not required
Prometheus: MoT not sufficient
Please stop trying to resurrect your views that just cannot match what the Supremes have told you.
“what is going on in their 101 analysis in many cases is really a 103 analysis”
How many times must I tell you that 101 is not a time-dependent analysis like 103? How many times must I tell you that difference policy drivers are there in 101 than in 103? How many times must I remind you that patent eligiblity and patentability are two different concepts?
STOP TRYING TO CONFLATE.
Ned,
What has been all over the map is you and your penchant for confusing the jurisprudence of 101. How many different ways will you try to resurrect canards?
In how many 101 cases will you need me to hold your hand?
In how many cases would you simply be better off listening to me?
Instead, we crank up the merry-go-round every time you trot out your canards.
And we are nowhere close as to how 101 is to be applied – “In some respects you and I agree” – do not even attempt to piggyback on my 101 correctness (what the h311 is this ‘is otherwise’ CRP you are trying to slide in? – stop trying to kick up dust)
Ned,
You need to read Diehr again, and listen to someone who has expereince in the curing field.
What the Supreme’s discuss as a ‘new result’ was NOT the product of a single cure, but rather the likelihood of achieving a perfect cure.
Again – perfect cures were obtained prior to Diehr. The result (of a single cure) was simply NOT new.
I have been over this with you before, and this thread is already far too long. I will not hold your hand on this again.
anon, I think at times the SC has been all over the map on how novelty affects its 101 jurisprudence.
But because they do use novelty to filter out what is new from the old exactly as required by 103, what is going on in their 101 analysis in many cases is really a 103 analysis. In some respects you and I agree that there should be no separate 101 analysis if the claim is to one of the four classes, and the subject matter being claimed is otherwise eligible (e.g, a process as in Diehr that passes the MOT). When the novel subject matter is otherwise ineligible, the claim as a whole still might be if the ineligible is applied per Diehr.
Fish, it never hurts to read the statute and determine what is considered as a whole.
Regardless of your contention to the contrary, anon, the cured rubber after was different than the cured rubber before the change in the process. This was noted by the Court in Diehr.
LOL,
Sorry 6, but it is you that just doesn’t understand that what I am doing is enabling you to dig that hole of (lack of) crediblity that you stand in ever deeper.
But, please, respond yet again telling the world that you have no character.
It just does not get better than this.
“so what exactly do you call your own accusation at 11:53 (particularly “admitting the whole point is to attempt rank character assassination of an anonymous internet poster”?”
I call it a post on the interbuts. Specifically it was a post pointing out that you, in attempting to cast me as “intellectually dishonest” or whatever, were attempting simple character assassination. I noted further that there was no point in you doing so since 6, the character, has no character for you to assassinate.
But yeah, you’re attempting character assassination on something that can’t be killed in the first place. That’s what I’ve been saying, you’re wasting your time. And mine. And you’re still doing it. So here’s me, signing off this nonsensical thread that you can’t even understand.
LOL – pathetic attempt at spin, 6.
What is validated is my correctness – the opposite of delusion.
Put.
The.
Shovel.
Down.
LOL – or not.
“6 never had any character to begin with anon. You can’t kill what was never there”
LOL – so what exactly do you call your own accusation at 11:53 (particularly “admitting the whole point is to attempt rank character assassination of an anonymous internet poster“?
I call it a B$ move that I NAILED you on.
That, my friend, is a BEATDOWN
And here, admitting to it no less, does not do you any favors in the credibility department. Quite the opposite in fact, as you are knowingly admitting that anything you post is immediately suspect.
LOL, 6: the ultimate in Self-Defeat.
Thanks!
Wait wait, so because I hope they review the decision en banc I have “delusions of bureaucratic grandeur”?
MMMmmm, yeah pretty sure that doesn’t follow.
Still hoping they review it en banc so I can lulz some more.
So my comment validating your delusion in your own delusional mind makes me my own worst enemy when it comes to legal discussions?
Totally makes sense anon! Lolololol
“Because Prof. Crouch had a guest post that showed the Office granting business method patents throughout the history of the patent office, that’s why.”
So because a guest post said it then it must be true?
Iirc that guy’s “interpretation” of business methods was “how to form iron from pig iron ore”. Hardly a “business method” and more like an “industrial method”. When I discussed such things with him in the thread he simply sheepishly backed away from his nonsensical talk.
And so what if the PTO did issue them anon? The error rate at the PTO is commonly known to be at least 95%, and depending on the art, sometimes much higher. You seem to be ignoring, is that there are some people that think patents need not be directed to the useful arts at all. This is because the constitution grants congress the power to promote the useful arts, but then, these folks surmise, in so doing so congress may also draft a law that would cover other things outside of the useful arts in order to ensure the promotion of the actual useful arts. And they surmise that this is what happened. I happen to disagree.
“Because discussions of Bilksi showed quite clearly that Congress fully allows business methods as a category to be patent eligible – and that the majority of the Court agrees, that’s why.”
“Discussions” showed that? So now we’re up to a guest post on the interbuts and discussions, which I take it also were on the interbuts. Let me guess, the “discussions” were mostly you pontificating. Here’s the thing anon, and I know this is tough for you to understand since you really love apeing things you see on PO: just because you saw something on the interbuts doesn’t make it so irl.
“Do I need more 6?”
You obviously don’t need more than some postings by random individuals on the interbuts to convince yourself since you’re quite convinced. But you’ll need more than that to convince me, or any other reasonable person irl, that, as an institution, the PTO and/or the congress have taken it upon themselves to redefine the term “useful arts” and thus consider business methods to fall within that term. The only thing that I can think of that will indicate such is a formal declaration by either institution, and I won’t be holding my breath waiting for that. The thing that you don’t seem to quite grasp anon, is that the issue only really came onto congress’s radar in Bilski a few years ago. Government works slow. The Federal government works even slower than local governments. Give it a few years and we’ll surely see some developments. Akin to the SHIELD act.
“su1c1de your own ‘character’ quite aptly?”
6 never had any character to begin with anon. You can’t kill what was never there.
Contrast the two statements by Malcolm:
1) It’s interesting that the Supreme Court has chosen to confine analyses of this sort to questions of patent law only.
and
2) Pretty sure the Supreme Court engages in similar wordplay on a regular basis in just about every area
LOL – that’s some pretty nice English as a first language doublespeak there.
What are the chances we will see an arrow from the cheerleader?
Not quite patent law only. The Court also applies similar analysis to pornography.
Pretty sure the Supreme Court engages in similar wordplay on a regular basis in just about every area in which they are asked to intervene. Probably not the majority of cases or even close to it. But often enough.
Tourbillion,
Heed your own advice.
Thanks.
Anon, a little advice, buddy. When you get caught with your pants down, pull them back up. Don’t keep tripping over them trying to fight. Makes you look ridiculous.
My original post was satirical. Admittedly it was not Voltaire, but others got it. You didn’t. OK, we all miss the joke once in a while. Best to just move on.
We agree on 101, I think, and I agree with much of what you say, often hilarious stuff, and by the way you and “MM” should go golfing together some time. But you are too easily ruffled. Exhibit A: erecting an unimaginative straw man about a steady state universe, demanding I respond, and then repeatedly spraying spittle around when I don’t. But I believe you were mentioning “habits”?
What’s especially funny about your comment 6 is that it validates my view of your pathological obsession against software patents.
You are your own worst enemy when it comes to legal discussions.
Why?
LOL – because such have been presented countless times on this blog, that’s why.
Because Prof. Crouch had a guest post that showed the Office granting business method patents throughout the history of the patent office, that’s why.
Because discussions of Bilksi showed quite clearly that Congress fully allows business methods as a category to be patent eligible – and that the majority of the Court agrees, that’s why.
Do I need more 6?
Or does your own statement of
“This pseudonym has no character, by design. “6” doesn’t even pretend to be “intellectually honest” and regards the words themselves with scorn and disgust“
su1c1de your own ‘character’ quite aptly?
I am trying to think of a single instance in which Malcolm has ever discussed the critical portions of the Alappat decision – you know, the part about a new machine…
LOL – special needs? Hardly.
Why is it that you have not answered my question about the steady state universe? After all, that seems to be the point that you turned and started aiming at me. Were your feelings hurt? Or was I supposed to take your ‘troglodytes’ comment as an ironic example of you poking fun at yourself in not understanding that the universe continues to evolve?
(funny too, that my comments about Hanoi Jane initiate replies of ‘how old are you’ but your even older comments concerning old ironpants bring…
…nothing)
Maybe it’s because your comment has no discernable point to make in the context of the discussion.
Seems to be a habit with you.
Please “6”. Perhaps you have developed delusions of bureaucratic grandeur. Allow me to suggest that you spend a few minutes grovelling at my feet, shining my shoes, after which I will permit you to purchase my lunch and for free I will toss in a lesson how to fix your nasty slice off the tee.
Allegory? Who said anything about allegory? (Gotta drop these hints for special needs “anon”)
“But you cannot be honest on that topic, can you? ”
Why on earth do you think I’m being “dishonest” about never having seen such a document (or heard an official statement for that matter) that stated what you asserted is the congress’s or the PTO’s position.
What was the phrase Malcolm?
Suddenly you got reeeaaaaaal quiet.
LOL
“ to produce a new physical result”
Ned, we’ve gone over this before. The cured rubber in Diehr was not a new physical result.
Further, different processes are fully and distinctly patent eligible as well as patentable if they happen to produce the same result.
You are seriously flailing around here.
Point of novelty? I thought claims were to be considered as a whole.
“PO ate the comment”
The modern day equivalent of the dog ate my homework.
Sad thing too, as 6 no doubt spent more time typing up his petty excuse than he claimed he spent on the mysterious novel computer part that is nowhere in sight (but his excuse is – sure as CRP).
And even better, 6, your honest answer to my question above would take even less time.
But you cannot be honest on that topic, can you? Not part of the character (you don’t have), is it?
LOL
Actually I did but PO ate the comment. It was a fairly simple actual novel computer part I dreamed up in about 5 seconds.
Not quite patent law only. The Court also applies similar analysis to pornography.
LOL – sorry Malcolm, I rather tuned out the oh boy dialogue givne that he is obviously unfamiliar with patent law, and I was having fun giving 6 a beatdown on his inability to be honest.
Did you have an actual point to make?
“Instead: acquiescence.”
LOL – should I start bandying that about when my points and counterpoints go unanswered by you and the rest of the little circle?
LOL.
“ just can’t stand to have these issues discussed”
LOL – you forgot a critical phrase: “without the intellectual dishonesty of the anti-patent crowd.”
It’s a rather important omission of yours that has been brought to your attention many many many times.
“purely mental”
LOL – asked and answered ad infinitum – Why are you beating that strawman yet again?
The old canard argument of ‘House’ peaking around the corner: the first inventor of a computer necessarily invented all future improvements of the machine.
Another canard alert: Obfuscation of patent eligibility and patentability.
(LOL, I will take the opportunity to remind everyone that even Malcolm voluntarly admitted that ‘configured to’ is structrual language)
I thought you would have understood from my Myriad discussions that 101 is not time-dependent as is 102/103.
There are simply different policy drivers in play.
The obvious [pun intended] canard Ned is that you are attempting to use the term in a 101 discussion.
You tell me.
(oops – I’m asking for answers again, am I?)
Not canard, anon, but a requirement of 103.
It’s just like you invent a new, non-obvious folding chair. You can claim a method of sitting in that chair, provided you recite all the limitations that describe the chair. And you can add another limitation that limits infringers of that method to people who “think about fried frog legs.” I don’t know why you’d bother doing that, but there’s no reason that you can’t do that. It’s the new non-obvious chair that matters.
Right, Tr0 llb0y? Suddenly you got reeeaaaaal quiet.
You’re welcome, by the way, for the answers to your questions. I trust that you learned something because you seemed really confused about how 101 works.
I assume if you disagreed with me about the claims I described and how they are analyzed under 101, you’d have said so. Or one of your li’l buddies would have said so (or tried to articulate a response, anyway).
Instead: acquiescence.
That’s good. Because this is basic stuff and there isn’t anything controversial about it. It’s just that the “pro software” types and patent apologists just can’t stand to have these issues discussed. Their script tells them to kick up dust whenever the issues are raised. That’s why most of them will never ever admit that they “believe” that purely mental processes should be eligible for patenting, although that’s the only way to intepret their view of the patent statutes.
That presupposes that a computer loaded with new software is not a new machine.
No, it doesn’t “presuppose” anything. It’s an argument that the “newness” of an old composition of matter (or article of manufacture) can not be established, for patent law purposes, by the addition of ineligible subject matter nor by the recitation of “new” capabilities that are, in fact, merely old capabilities that specifically described for the first time in functional terms.
You do realize exactly what topic the comment is in reference to, right Leopold?
Does it really matter, anon?
“doing nothing more complex than deciding ab initio whether something is abstract or not, depending on whom you represent, and then doing nothing more difficult or productive than erecting an analysis that ineluctably will prove your position as a fait accompli.”
This is exactly the approach which the Federal Circuit judges and the Supreme Court justices use.
You do realize exactly what topic the comment is in reference to, right Leopold?
(hint: it is not favorable to your beloved, and it certainly does not cover your lack of answers from, what? over a week now since you begged for answers and I give you more than one source within an hour and a half, and then turned and asked you for two simple answers?)
Point of Novelty Canard Alert
What would possess somebody to attempt to conflate 101 with 102/103/112 after the 9-0 Dance a Jig, Baby Prometheus decision which flat out rejected that view?
‘Nuf said.
I hope so. But I doubt it.
Fish, you’ve isolated the problem. I would treat 101/112 as an offshoot of 103.
1. When the PON in the claim is unpatentable subject matter, the claim is eligible only if the unpatentable subject matter is integrated with the eligible to produce a new physical result.
2. If the PON in the claim is functional, it violates 112, p. 1 and p. 2 regardless of 112, p. 6. This would reserve MPF to old elements only.
But both work on the PON, which is an aspect of 103 analysis.
Go into any Section 101 issue with the impression that the claim is abstract and presto! the analysis shows the claim is abstract. Go into any Section 101 issue with the impression that the claim is NOT abstract and presto! the analysis shows the claim is NOT abstract. Not a single Supreme Court case on the topic deviates from this wise and immutable principle.
It’s interesting that the Supreme Court has chosen to confine analyses of this sort to questions of patent law only.
LOL – Malcolm thinks Chisum is a hack.
‘Nuf said.
Anon, I think that anthropomorphication may not be the right term. It may be a matter of not appreciating that the terms for computers are really terms of art. Computer science people use terms such as the computer decides, the computer talks to the other computer, etc. But, these terms are terms of art. And, the circuit court judge known as Lourie takes advantage of this usage to help him invalidate claims. It is shameful. He must know that these are terms of art.
“admitting the whole point is to attempt rank character assassination of an anonymous internet poster”
LOL – what drugs are you taking? How in the world do you get to ‘rank character assassinatin’ from my asking you to admit something that should be very easy for you to admit to?
Why are you so squeamish?
The rest of your post appears to be an abdication of any sense or sensibility. It is rather humorous that it appears that you are accusing me of what you yourself so gleefully do.
Do you sometimes pretend to have a brain?
You do know who Chisum is, right? (notwithstanding that at one time Malcolm referred to Chisum as a hack).
LOL. Good times. I seem to recall that he reached the height of hackitude during the run-up to Prometheus.
I hope they redo the entire thing en banc. Mmmmmmm, tasty tasty lulz. This time there will not be 5 and 5 but another reasonable mind will have joined and the good chief judge will find himself outnumbered en banc.
Alright anon, you’re level of re tar d is dropping off now that you’re straight up admitting the whole point is to attempt rank character assassination of an anonymous internet poster. Why you would spend hours attempting such is quite beyond me. This pseudonym has no character, by design. “6” doesn’t even pretend to be “intellectually honest” and regards the words themselves with scorn and disgust as the tools of ta rds attempting to get the other side to adopt their world-view.
But as I’ve noted before: I, personally, have not seen anything from the office, or the congress, no signed statement, or anything of the sort, that said that the relevant institution “acknowledged that business methods were within the useful arts”. I literally have not personally seen any such document. If you wish to present one, you may.
“All I said… until the contrary is established”
And all I said was that you have omitted consideration of recent events that establishes the contrary.
I too am simply looking at the facts.
…not necessarily…?
When ever would confusing law be a good idea?
When applying the vacuous WHATEVER philosophy that certain posters adhere to?
When trying to obfuscate the difference between patent eligibility and patentability?
“confuses people with computers”
LOL – don’t be shy, you too can use the word:
Anthropomorphication.
I thought he was pretty good in “House.”
He was better in A Bit of Fry and Laurie, which clearly debunks your vacuous “House” argument.
All in all Laurie is a very bad actor. Very bad.
Huh. I thought he was pretty good in “House.”
Please Paul don’t be naive. Listen to Laurie in the oral arguments of CLS Bank. Lourie has it in for information processing. He apparently is pro patent for chemical inventions, but not for information processing. He has similar disposition as MM Palin.
But, please, give me a break. The test he used in this opinion could invalidate any patent. Additionally, it is deeply disturbing that Laurie remains willfully ignorant of information processing. He views are similar to Stevens where he confuses people with computers and the words used in a claim of an information processing claim with words used to describe people thinking.
All in all Laurie is a very bad actor. Very bad.
Frankly nothing, as I do not think that there was any invention there. But that is 103, not 101.
The claim in issue is linear and boring. There is no surprising new function as can be seen straightforwardly from the claim language. But confusing 101 and 103 is not necessarily a good idea.
All I said is that Judge Lourie as an ex-practitioner should be regarded as a friend of the patent system until the contrary is established, and appears to have made a substantial effort to reach the correct decision in this case.
And in my final paragraph I was simply looking at the facts.
One final thought on this thread:
This test of Lourie eviscerates 103 and 102. An issue patent claim has a number of limitations. According to Lourie’s test each of these can be eliminated one at a time by his personal evaluation. So, he is making 102 and 103 and 112 all matters of law. He is completely eviscerating the 1952 patent act with this opinion.
“the ratio stands about 1:5 you answering me vs. me answering you.”
LOL – still in that fantasy land of yours, eh 6?
Seriously, how difficult would it be for you to acknowledge what Congress, the courts and the Office already acknowledge?
Yet again, I will point out that this is less an answer for me (which you still seem afraid of) and more an indicator of your ability to be intellectually honest.
Or not.
That is the gist.
“And LB, thanks for thinking before “nuking” me.”
LOL – now that pegged out the irony meter…
I thought it was a great post, Tourbillon. It goes directly to my point that there is no limitation that could survive the Lourie test. And, note that the antis have not even tried to supply a limitation that would hold up against the Lourie test—because there are none. It is an arbitrary and capricious test.
Sorry about that anon, it appears my reply was eaten by the PO.
But here’s the gist.
1. Sorry I messed up interpreting your “he wasn’t on the same level” or whatever as you meaning he forgot. I cannot always interpret your gobbledygook perfectly.
2. You said quite clearly that the panel, including panel member Rader, were not paying attention. Then you went on to specify what you thought caught Rader’s attention.
3. Sorry, I don’t really feel like discussing things with you more at the moment. Your constant ta rdation doesn’t spur me on to wanting to answer you. I’m sorry, it just doesn’t. Perhaps if you adjust your attitude a bit in the future I will be more jazzed to help you out.
4. Yes, you did respond and I appreciate it. Now you’re catching up on answering things I ask vs things I answer to you where the ratio stands about 1:5 you answering me vs. me answering you. And you have the balls to say that I haven’t answered your seemingly endless stream of nonsense questions though I’ve written you the equivalent of a 500 page book on the subjects which mainly consists of me answering the same “questions” again again and again and you then insisting I didn’t answer. Sorry, that attitude and level of re tar d on your part doesn’t spur me on to wanting to post more often.
Oh and I almost forgot, hah, I guess Rader was wrong about the value of the Alice decision, since it was very persuasive even if not “controlling” to the instant panel.