By Dennis Crouch
Digitech v. Electronics v. Imaging (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Today, the Federal Circuit held oral arguments in this Section 101 case involving Digitech’s U.S. Patent No 6,128,415 that claims a “device profile” and a “method of generating a device profile.” The invention is basically the idea of tagging images with particular information about the camera and its color/spatial image qualities. Asserted claims:
1. A device profile for describing properties of a device in a digital image reproduction system to capture, transform or render an image, said device profile comprising:
first data for describing a device dependent transformation of color information content of the image to a device independent color space; and
second data for describing a device dependent transformation of spatial information content of the image in said device independent color space.
10. A method of generating a device profile that describes properties of a device in a digital image reproduction system for capturing, transforming or rendering an image, said method comprising:
generating first data for describing a device dependent transformation of color information content of the image to a device independent color space through use of measured chromatic stimuli and device response characteristic functions;
generating second data for describing a device dependent transformation of spatial information content of the image in said device independent color space through use of spatial stimuli and device response characteristic functions; and
combining said first and second data into the device profile.
The district court found that the “device profile” was merely a bit of data that did not fit within the literal requirements of the statute that an eligible invention must be “a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” The district court also concluded that the method claim encompassed an abstract idea.
Mark Lemley argued on behalf of the accused infringers and the court seemed agree with many of his arguments – especially with the notion that a claim to a data structure (claim 1) is not itself patentable. The method step involved more questioning and Judge Moore rightly challenged Lemley’s argument that “A method of generating an unpatentable idea is itself unpatentable.” Later, Lemley pulled-back from that statement somewhat and instead more particularly argued that mere generation and transformation of data should be unpatentable either as not-a-process or else unduly abstract.
Two potentially interesting questions for the case: (1) how to treat expert testimony stating that claims require technologically sophisticated computer and (2) whether the concrete and practical purposes of the invention needs to be recited in the claims.
This case may well be impacted by CLS Bank, but I would suspect the only impact will be on the language that the court uses to affirm. The politics of the outcome may be interesting. Although I would not be surprised with an affirmance without opinion, Judge Moore may want to hold this case until after CLS Bank in order to make the first post-SCOTUS comment on the issue. (Judges Moore, Reyna and Hughes were on the panel).
The patent was originally owned by Polaroid who assigned rights in 2010 to the British Virgin Islands entity known as Mitcham Global Investments – seemingly as part of the bankruptcy proceedings. Then, in 2012, rights were transferred to Digitech which is an Acacia company. The USPTO records also show a security interest held by a Saudi investment company.
Listen to oral arguments: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-argument-recordings/all/digitech.html
Malcolm,
Your post at 36 continues the fallacy argument that you so typically engage in, neglecting to account for the critical exceptions to the judicial doctrine of written matter.
Do you really think that you are f00ling anyone by your constant retread of this fallacy?
That’s a serious question.
You volunteered an admission about knowing the controlling law on the subject and then you persevere in all types of duplicity and chicanery concerning the concept. You deny repeatedly that you ever made the admission (while the archives were not accessible) and attempted to denigrate any post holding you accountable for what you – in fact – did admit to. Any attempt to have you integrate the concept into a reasonable discussion is dismissed out of have by you with name-calling and a refusal to address what is in fact controlling law.
I get that you don’t like the law. I get that the law is problematic to your desired end state. I even get that making an argument for your desired end state is made more difficult if you have to account for what the law actually is. But your adamant refusal to behave in any reasonable manner is bizarre and an affront to anyone that wants to actually discuss the topic.
What MM does now is he engages in an argument. Loses. Then re-posts the same thing again accusing others of not responding to his argument.
Absurd.
Truly, the CRP-run away from a valid point raised-CRP again tactic on steroids.
One of the w@nkers below just wrote this:
Holding data structures ineligible is like holding filing cabinets ineligible.
Here’s a question for the professional softie woftie patent attorneys out there who aren’t path0l0gical liars: what will happen to the following claim in court and why?
1. An improved filing cabinet, wherein said improvement is a piece of paper comprising information stored in the cabinet, wherein said information is [insert new, useful non-obvious information here].
Is that eligible for patenting? Is it patentable? If the answer to either question is no, please explain why and include the underlying policy behind any case law or “doctrine” that you rely on.
Let’s see how intelligent and honest these softie woftie types are. This is exactly the kind of conversation that you’ll never find over at Big Gene’s place. And we all know why.
Go back to the earlier argument where you lost this same argument. There is no need to re-post to pretend that you won. Stop swinging around like this and throwing your APE duty on all of us..
Now try. That’s a good APE.
Below in the examiner’s statement of allowable subject matter. Notice he did not consider that he was allowing a patent on disembodied data, but only as part of a digital image reproduction system, and that limitation is in the claims.
“2. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: while describing a device dependent transformation of color information content of the image to a device independent color space is well known in a color management system as evidenced by the primary reference to Stokes, none of the prior art, however, teach or suggest a device profile for describing properties of a device in a digital image reproduction system to capture, transform or
render an image comprising: a data for describing a device dependent transformation of spatial information content of the image in a device independent color space. It is for this reason and in combination with all the other limitations in the claims, that independent claims 1, 9, 16 and 24
are allowable over the prior art of record. Since claims 2-8, 10-15, 17-23 and 25-33 further restrict these claims they are allowable also.”
This claim, in such context, looks a lot like Alappat where the output of the body of the claim was data, but the preamble limited the claim to a rasterizer, and a rasterizer was described in the spec to be part of a graphics unit for a display.
Just to not, the application was filed in 1996 and issued in 2000. The examiner did not enter a 101 rejection.
…so the legal point I presented w a a a y back at the beginning (Post 1.1.2) is in play…
Thanks Ned.
Notice he did not consider that he was allowing a patent on disembodied data
That’s nice.
He allowed a claim on a “device profile.”
The “device profile” is simply descriptive data.
That’s ineligible junk. It was junk then, and it remains so today.
It doesn’t matter if the data is in a computer or in a book. You can’t protect it with a patent.
This is really basic, fundamental stuff.
Time for the softie wofties to grow up. Why is it so hard for them?
“simply descriptive data.”
Maybe.
But maybe not.
MM, I agree in principle that one cannot patent information. But one can patent the use of information in a machine that modifies its operation to produce a new and useful physical result.
I think the latter is occurring here if the preamble is sufficiently specific enough and is given weight as in Alappat.
But one can patent the use of information in a machine that modifies its operation to produce a new and useful physical result.
You’re describing a new process for producing a physical result, wherein the process includes someone or something taking into account some information. Are some such processes eligible for patenting? Yes.
But that’s not what’s going on here at all, Ned. What’s claimed here is “a device profile”, i.e., the information that is being used. It’s just data. Read claim 1. That’s all there is. Data, wherein the data can be used by some machine. Ineligible junk.
Now, claim 10 is a bona fide process claim. But it’s a claim for generating patent-ineligible data that recites just two steps: generate this data, then generate that data! Of course that’s not eligible. It’s just another attempt to use a patent to prevent people from using information in a particular context. The patent system turns into pure chum for bottom-feeders if you let people monopolize information in that way. That’s what we’re seeing right now. It needs to end.
Also, by the way, it wouldn’t matter if the last step of a “generating data” process like claim 10 was “print the data onto a book page” or “store the data on a computer.” That’s just a field limitation. It changes nothing. It’s like trying to patent a mental process by limiting the process to a certain kind of person or a certain place. That sort of limitation doesn’t address the problem, it just confines the problem to a smaller area for that particular claim. But the fundamental problem remains and it will eat the patent system like cancer.
“Read claim 1. ”
Um, maybe you should read claim 1.
All of it.
Then do as is proper and look at the claim in the eyes of a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains.
You know, as is required under law.
Um, you do know what law is, right?
Mm for gods sake man what he wants was set forth blatantly in on of those articles. He reall really needs “to be heard and others to acknowledge him”. He also really really wants to control what you say. His way of trying to accomplish these things is to ask that you include in your side if the conversation things he wants to talk about rather than things you’d rather talk about. Thus indicating that you heard him, accept what he says, and will speak in the manner he desires. Its a bizarre mixture of needing to be heard and desire to control.
“He also really really wants to control what you say”
LOL – you still don’t understand any of this 6. You are projecting some type of ‘control’ fetish where there is none.
No wonder you gave up on the whole law school thing.
“It’s just another attempt to use a patent to prevent people from using information in a particular context”
LOL – no further comment necessary.
MM, this then draws into question the issue of what was patented. The examiner’s reasons for allowance should have some weight here, as he did construe the claim in context of the preamble.
I heard nothing in the oral argument about claim construction, which is odd. If the lower court had construe the claim to exclude the preamble, there a better cost to appeal that issue by the patent owner because such a construction would render the claim invalid. If however, that was patent owner’s preferred instruction, then he asked just argued himself out of a valid patent.
Lemley seem to agree that the system claim patents in the patent would not present a 101 problem. But for some reason they did not assert those claims. This does raise an issue in my mind as to whether there is a problem. Perhaps the patent the assuming somebody that does not use the patent data structure in a digital imaging system.
for some reason they did not assert those claims.
Gee, I wonder why.
“You’re describing a new process for producing a physical result, wherein the process includes someone or something taking into account some information. Are some such processes eligible for patenting? Yes.”
LOL – please tell everyone more of this Malcolm.
Then fold in Bilski that holds that MoT is not required.
Go for it.
A request for Malcolm to discuss an apparent admission against interest will, of course, go unanswered.
So, you have gone and made new posts rather than address the issue of the special purpose circuit, which completely defeats you. Data —wait for it—the second word is —-is —- STRUCTURE.
A data structure is certainly just like any other structure. I guess ignorance leads the Louries of the world to say if you can’t see it, it can’t be real.
Is the structure of this sentence “structure” in the same sense? If not, why not?
You know Martin, it isn’t our responsibility to answer question you can pose. The fact is that I put out an argument. It is rock solid. Let’s see you respond to it.
I could answer your question. But, you should respond to what I wrote. And, I’ll give you a hint. The structure I recited is part of a a machine.
Marty,
It is not if it lacks the functional relationship that drives the legal exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter.
You can add this to the list of things that you really should have discussed with your attorney. As you continue to exhibit a critical lack of understanding and of being informed, your attorney should be alarmed at the potential ethical violation of acting without your informed consent.
Sure he did Ned:
“none of the prior art, however, teach or suggest a device profile for”
A “device profile” is, as the claims make clear, data.
6, but consider Alappat. The body of the claim only produced data. See Archer’s dissent. The link to the machine, the rasterizer, was in the preamble.
Look ned, an old case has dick to do with claim construction in this case. And even if we grant that the claim is “tied to a generic device” that will change ziltch. But go ahead, be surprised when this is 101ed.
6, I expect it will be 101’ed. I think they will hold that data is not a manufacture because it is not physical. Do you agree with that?
Ned, Are you leaving out the preamble and are you still reading the claim in the eye of a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains?
Further, you never answered the point I offered as to encryption and cryptography. You had last stated (in error) that two machines were required for the cryptography art field.
This highlights (along with Bilski’s holding that MoT is not required) the rather loose foundation of “physical.”
The question as to “physical” is impacted by the (rather bogus) Nuitjen case, and I do wonder how long that decision will be recognized as valid, as even in discussions post hac, it is not the physicality section (as you comment above) but the “timing”-ignore-star-light section that has been maintained.
As I stated near the beginning of the thread, there are two critical legal items to be determined. That preamble seems more and more necessary to breath life into the claim, and I do not see how it can not be included in any analysis.
anon, whether the preamble is included are not is a matter of claim construction. The result here could vary depending on that construction.
I don’t know whether the lower court has construed the claims are not. But I was certainly argue to the Federal Circuit if I were the patent owner that the claim is properly construed includes preamble, and then rely on Alappat.
We can talk about cryptography at some other point in time, but cryptography involving encoded messages between two people not involving any physical apparatus simply is not eligible for patenting in my view because such is neither a machine, a manufacture, a composition of matter or process involving one of these.
Your distinction on cryptography outside of machines is clearly allowed.
The Bilski case, while not dealing specifically with that topic, clearly holds that MoT is not required.
You may wish otherwise, but I see no legal basis to support your wish.
(edit required):
Change “Your distinction on cryptography outside of machines is clearly allowed.”
To:
Your distinction on cryptography outside of machines is clearly not allowed. – Simply put, no machine is required.
anon, your reference to Bilski does in fact support your point, my apologies. But this does illustrate why the Bilski case is such an abomination – the basis for exclusion is not based on whether the subject matter being claimed is something involving a machine, a manufacturer, or composition of matter, which really is the MOT. They instead said that the MOT is not a limitation on patentable subject matter. Thus they kick patent law into a new sphere of the incomprehensible. No one now knows what is excluded from patentability except laws of nature, products of nature, and math, or in the case of Bilski, well-known subject matter.
I will remind you Ned, that the MoT is not required holding was a 9-0 holding.
6,
Tell me about cryptography.
Normally I’d agree with you, Ned. But looking at the claim:
This is the rare case where the elements of the claim are purely non-functional data that “describes” something. The printed matter exception squarely applies here.
David, if there was no preamble, and if there was no reason for allowance, then of course, you would be entirely right.
The fact that data is the only output of the body of the claim is not determative, see. Alappat
The fact that data is the only output of the body of the claim is not determative, see. Alappat.
I agree with that, but I’m not looking at the output – I’m looking at the actual disclosed invention.
Boiling down this claim to the actual elements of the disclosed invention, we have:
That’s all it is: a profile comprising two pieces of descriptive data. The claimed invention is, very explicitly, a collection of non-functional data. That is not a valid statutory class.
“Boiling down ”
?.. reaching for a gist of he invention…?
David, have you given any weight to the preamble, or is it in your view not limiting?
David Stein: a profile comprising two pieces of descriptive data. The claimed invention is, very explicitly, a collection of non-functional data. That is not a valid statutory class.
I agree that if this is how the claim is construed, it is directed to nonstatutory subject matter because data is neither a machine, a manufacture, nor a composition of matter. Data can be created, in that sense it is a manufacture. But a manufacture has to be physical, and it has to be non-transitory.
Now we are going to see, David, the weeping and gnashing from the likes of anon who strongly disagree with the notion of non-transitory. But even if they do, I hope they do not disagree with the notion that a manufacture has to be something physical.
As noted in a sister comment, the discussions post-Nuitjen have focused less on the physical and more on the transitory. – My apologies as I cannot recall the case or the thread, and do not have the time now to look it up.
As past discussions have indicated this is problematic from a reality point of view.
Photons and the particle/wave nature plays havoc with “physical,” as
looking up into a clear night sky wrecks the notion of “transitory.”
The weeping and gnashing (re: transitory) has everything to do with the clear absence of reality in any judgment to the contrary. Common sense went out the window with that case.
As to “physical,” I think this breaks down (as I mentioned) and really is just a poor substitute for something else: pure thought or something that is totally in the mind. I think of anything existing in the physical (real) world outside of the mind is indeed fair game and I question the logic employed in attempting to rule such things out as not belonging to the patent realm (Useful Arts being met, of course).
For your enjoyment:
link to businessweek.com
Although not made by man, this item of “transitory” nature is 7,500 years old.
Far older than any single invention that meets the non-transitory test.
also see: link to facebook.com
“Time for the APE to run and make a new post.”
LOL
Your self-delusion has got the better of you again, Tr0llb0y.
Listen to the oral arguments. Lemley won, bigtime. The arguments he’s making are reasonable and compelling. They are the same arguments that I and others make here all the time when we explain to you why the junky computer-implemented junk that y0u love to fluff is … junk.
The patentee’s attorney went with your approach: self-serving b.s. and dust-kicking.
So how are you advising your imaginary clients, Tr0llb0y, when they come to you asking if they can patent a “data structure” or a “device profile”? Let everybody know. Then answer the question I asked you about the filing cabinet claim, an obvious straightforward question arising directly from your buddy NWPA’s assertion that so-called “data structures” and “filing cabinets” should be treated equivalently by our patent system.
Or you can just continue to kick up dust, insult people and lie. That’s what a childish whining crybaby would do, of course. And that’s what I predict you will do because … you’re a childish whining crybaby.
But go ahead. Surprise everybody.
Lemley is judicial activist. Clearly. Lemley should go to Congress and not the Courts. I admit Lemley is quite a force, but it one of chaos not for good. He harms the patent system with every word that he types or speaks.
Lemley is judicial activist.
More attempts to change the subject. Notice that the patent teabagger still hasn’t answered the straightforward question he was asked.
Maybe ask Gene Quinn to help you. He thinks he’s really smart and honest, doesn’t he? Ask him the questions I asked you and see how he responds.
This is basic, fundamental stuff, folks. Isn’t it fascinating that the patent teabaggers just can’t stand to talk about it? But they sure do love to complain when their self-serving b.s. goes up in flames.
They are liars. And the proof is right in front you, folks.
Notice how the teabaggers want to change the subject.
Anything but answer a very straightforward question directly raised by an assertion from their own mouths.
They’re liars, folks. Don’t let them make a fool out of you.
LOL – as if your massive CRPfest here was not geared to try to change the subject?
Imagine this, Malcolm – imagine that you actually join a legal conversation without your short script and in just a small amount of intellectual honesty.
You would not have to bulldoze the thread as you have done here. Mostly because you would not have much to say, being as the law and the facts do not support your curse-sade.
It’s fascinating that the patent teabaggers here won’t answer the simplest questions about their own beliefs. Instead, they respond with “when did you stop beating your wife” nonsense that they somehow believe is equivalent to these straightforward questions (easy to do, I suppose, if you’re a s0ci0path like Tr0llb0y).
How about it, computer-implementers? Will anyone step up to the plate or do we just have to listen to the little crybabies here stamp their feet and declare that information is eligible for patenting because “you can make it”. Here’s the question for y’all:
What will happen to the following claim in court and why?
1. An improved filing cabinet, wherein said improvement is a piece of paper comprising information stored in the cabinet, wherein said information is [insert new, useful non-obvious information here].
Is that eligible for patenting? Is it patentable? If the answer to either question is no, please explain why and include the underlying policy behind any case law or “doctrine” that you rely on.
Let’s see if you guys are actually as st00pit and deluded as you appear to be, or if there is actually a non-ignorant honest bone in your body. Step up, folks.
My goodness. Not another new post?!! I guess getting your hairy APE hide tanned is too much for you.
And MM the data structure is the structure of the filing cabinet not the data in the filing cabinet. Sheesh. You have no boundaries.
Notice that he’s still not answering the simple question asked of him in response to his own assertion.
Check it out, folks. These are your softie wofties “in action.” This is how they kick up dust and keep moving the goalpost. This is what they’ve been doing it for years.
But they’re not getting away with it anymore. Judges are apparently getting tired of being made to look like f00ls but liars who spew self-serving b.s.
the data structure is the structure of the filing cabinet
LOL. Except for one huuuuuuuuge difference. A kindergartner can describe the physical structure of the filing cabinet to everybody. But you can’t describe the structure of the “data structure” to anybody.
Just answer the question I asked you. Is it too hard for you, NWPA? You need mommy to hold your hand for you? You pretend that you know so much about patent law and yet … you can’t answer the simply question I asked.
Golly, it’s almost as if you’re just a liar, totally full of sh*t, and you suddenly see that you’re going to get caught and exposed. Could that be the case? Sure seems like it.
>>But you can’t describe the structure of the “data structure” to anybody.
That is ridiculous. MM, one of my clients makes cameras. They build special purpose chips that have data structures like this. The structure is the special purpose circuit. No one skilled in the art of EE/CS would have any problem with this. What do you want a circuit diagram? That is something any EE graduate could make.
Sheesh! The ignorance is unbelievable. (Although I doubt it is ignorance.)
And, by the way, just last year I wrote a patent application for the camera manufacturer that had a circuit something like the data structure in this case. It was actually a lot like it. It was for counting the number of electrons generated from light.
Just unbelievable the ignorance, or more accurately, the attempt to play off others’ ignorance. I am sure one of the bourbon swilling new judges at the Fed. Cir. that O’Bummer appointed would buy your nonsense. So cheer up sunshine.
Time for the APE to run and make a new post.
Notice that he’s still not answering the simple-straightforward question he was asked. He’s just kicking up dust and pretending that nobody notices.
Sorry, NWPA. You’re just a liar. You make lies up to please yourself but you can’t defend your self-serving lies. You just keep moving the goalpost.
The structure is the special purpose circuit.
What’s the structure of this “special purpose circuit”? Describe it for everyone in detail, such that the structural difference between your “circuit” and the prior art circuit is clear to everyone. Go ahead.
See how it works, folks? NWPA can’t answer these straightforward questions directly so he just makes up some self-serving b.s. that sounds like an answer but is nothing more than kicking the can down the road. Ultimately he’ll tell us that he doesn’t need to describe the structure because “scope of enablement.” That’s just shorthand for “I refuse to describe the structure because I can’t and even if I could I don’t want to.”
But he can’t bring himself to admit that. Instead he just strings together bullsh*t that pleases him. The patentee’s attorney attempted to do the same thing in oral argument. He got pounded by the judges and he got pounded by Lemley because nobody is falling for the b.s. anymore. Why should the Federal Circuit coddle these lying clowns? They don’t enjoy being made fools of. Nobody does.
MM, read what I wrote. The structure is the special purpose circuit. What part of that don’t you understand?
It is like talking to an animal. MM people with EE degrees are laughing at you right now. Climb back into your tree and wait to evolve.
The structure is the special purpose circuit.
Yes, that’s it. Keep repeating your self-serving garbage over and over. Maybe try screaming it. It’ll become more persuasive that way, especially if you simultaneously pretend that the person hasn’t responded to your self-serving garbage already.
See how the softie wofties work, folks? They’re dishonest acts.
Notice that he still hasn’t answered the straightforward question he was asked in direct response to his earlier assertion about the legal equivalence of data structures and filing cabinets.
one of my clients makes cameras. They build special purpose chips that have data structures like this.
That’s nice. Those “data structures” or “device profiles” aren’t eligible for patenting. Have you advised your client of this or are you just taking their money, prosecuting junk, and laughing all the way to the bank?
Try to focus on answering the question asked of you. Nobody cares about your crap clients.
Uh, the question is what is the structure. So I told you and you insult me and my client. Nice. Clever. Here’s a banana.
the question is what is the structure. So I told you
No, you didn’t tell anybody what the structure of the so-called “data structure” is. All you did was say that the “structure is a special purpose chip.” That’s just kicking the can down the road, as you’ve already been told.
The patentee didn’t claim a “special purpose chip.” It claimed a “device profile”.
Stop dissembling. You’ve been busted. Just answer the straightforward question you were asked. Or is it too hard for you? It’s not terribly hard for most honest professional patent attorneys, I can assure you of that. But you seem to be having great difficult with it for some reason.
MM, a special purpose circuit is structure. You haven’t said why you think it is not.
Sheesh, stop swinging from tree to tree and try to suck it up. You lose–again. You can deny it. But, the reality is that is structure. That is part of the scope of enablment by one skilled in the art (like me—not you the APE.) And hardware is equivalent to software as you have admitted. You are simply shouting and repeating yourself because you lost.
Goodness.
“Here’s a banana.”
LOL – let me know if that works.
a special purpose circuit is structure. You haven’t said why you think it is not.
A “device profile” is not “structure” because if it were “structure” you could describe this structure to everyone. But you can’t do that so instead you just lie about it and keep pounding the table with gibberish.
the reality is that is structure.
No, that’s not “reality.” That’s your fantasy. Keep clicking your ruby slippers together if you like but you’re just telling lies and everybody knows it. Have you listened to the oral arguments in this case? Your nonsense didn’t get off the ground before the judges spat on it.
That is part of the scope of enablment
Again: gibberish.
Also note that the liar still hasn’t answered the very straightforward and direct question he was asked in response to his assertion about the legal equivalence of “data structures” and “file cabinets.”
hardware is equivalent to software as you have admitted
Even more lies, on top of lies. What’s the matter with the softie wofties anyway? Are they all just a pack of liars or is it just NWPA and Tr0llb0y?
You keep using that word “lies.” I do not think it means what you think it means.
Says the path0l0gical liar. Too funny.
you do not think intellectual honesty is required on a blog because this is not a court.
Note that the path0l0gical liar still refuses to address the straightforward question that he was asked — a question that arose directly from a statement made by his own patent fluffin’ buddy, NWPA.
Note also that the path0l0gical liar will not provide the direct quote or the context of the discussion in which this alleged “admission” was made.
That’s how the softie woftie crowd rolls, folks. They’re just liars. And the more they lose, the more desperate and pathetic they’ll become.
It’s going to be long year for them. Let’s watch and enjoy the show.
LOL – what possible context can you fabricate Malcolm to make the use of intellectual dishonesty palatable?
You are using the “liar” term in a most definite out-of-control and indiscriminate manner.
Clearly you are so invested in your spin that you simply no longer care about anything except repeating your trite script without regard to law and without regard to fact.
I’ve given you a straight forward answer – in law – and all that you do when presented with the law is call names.
No legal position is advanced. No critical review of facts. You do not enter into those discussions because, as we have seen, when you so attempt you ‘oops’ and volunteer admissions against your interests. You are still reeling from the fact that you volunteered understanding the controlling law concerning the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter.
You just do not have the nads to approach these discussions in an intellectually honest way.
“They build special purpose chips that have data structures like this. The structure is the special purpose circuit. No one skilled in the art of EE/CS would have any problem with this. What do you want a circuit diagram? That is something any EE graduate could make.”
Then why not put it in the drawings?
“Then why not put it in the drawings?”
LOL – do you need me to spank you again on the whole “what is needed” in drawings thing again 6?