By Dennis Crouch
Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court decided the subject matter eligibility case of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). The main point of Alice Corp. was to find that the eligibility-limiting holding of Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. ___ (2012) applies equally to the patenting of abstract ideas. (Mayo focused on laws of nature).
Alice Corp. offers a two-step process for determining patent eligibility of a claimed invention:
- Building Block: First, determine whether the claim recites or is directed to a patent-ineligible concept such as an abstract idea, law of nature, or product of nature. The court calls these “building blocks of human ingenuity” that should not themselves be patentable.
- Something More: Second, determine whether the claim recites sufficient additional inventive features such that the claim does not solely capture the abstract idea.
Although Alice Corp decision stemmed from a district court challenge to an issued patent, the law of subject matter eligibility applies (roughly) equally to pending patent applications. In particular, the USPTO is charged with the task of ensuring that patents are only issued for eligible inventions. Thus, following Alice Corp the USPTO issued a set of guidance instructions to its examiners that follow the two step process. Although the two step approach appears straightforward. There is no standard definition for “abstract” and so it is difficult to identify abstract ideas from non-abstract ideas. Further, we do not know the threshold of “something more” that would allow patentability.
As I have written before, every patent claim serves as an abstraction from any physical implementation of an invention – and so any line-drawing rules on this front will necessarily be either arbitrary or murky. Still, the USPTO is charged with moving forward and examining these cases and, in the absence of concrete guidance in the law, the USPTO must create its own policy. At this stage, USPTO policy on examining for 101 can be largely impacted by White House views on patentability. And the current White House viewpoint seems to be that information-software focused inventions are likely unpatentable under 101 unless tied to inventive technology.
Based on information from several sources, it appears that the USPTO is now taking a more aggressive stance on subject matter eligibility and is particularly re-examining all claims for eligibility grounds prior to issuance. This is most apparent in technology centers managing data-processing inventions classes (Classes 700-707).
A set of form-paragraphs are being used that may present a prima facie case but that do not really provide much analysis:
Claims XXXX are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims are directed to a judicial exception (i. e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), specifically, the abstract idea of [INSERT INVENTION HERE]. After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, it has been determined that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Further, while the claims recite [hardware or software elements, such as processors or modules], these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claim along with the abstract idea. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claim is rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
. . . Indeed, the claims fail to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. Although the claims do recite the use of a computer, nothing more than a generic computer, performing generic, well-understood and routine computer functions, would be required to implement the aforementioned abstract idea.
Therefore, because there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
It appears that applications whose inventive features are found in software or information processing will now have a difficult time being patented.
“A set of form-paragraphs are being used…that do not really provide much analysis…”
We have a new front runner for understatement of the century!!!!!
Everyone should appreciate that the Alice move at the PTO is from shadow Director Lee.
So, we have a person hired by Google and by many illegally so that is making a bold move to reject 10’s of thousands of patent applications.
The legality of this move by the shadow Director should bother any person that cares about democracy.
Reality is that if the shadow Director Lee is going to make bold moves she should go before Congress and be approved.
Maybe she is afraid of the question, “Ms. Lee did you meet with business people in the Oval Office? Ms. Lee were there any implied agreements about post PTO employment?”
Clown boy (AKA) MM says there ain’t no structure in them there CD-ROMs. Now ‘splain that structure to me. I can’t see it. It ain’t made of iron is it?
Sure clown boy says the machine does do some wonderful things that I enjoy with that CD-ROM, but that ain’t no structure. Everybody knows that there are angels in there working that there machine.
Clown boy (MM) then drifts off into a self satisfied nap.
No functional relationship with the machine says clown boy. Only a stacked Federal Circuit would not report a person who said this to the state board and withdrawal their admission to the Fed. Cir. Of course, now we have to deal with people that are science challenged. Who speak of real worlds and imaginary worlds (those are the ones in the computer where things just happen. Not sure how, but it ain’t no invention says Gingsburg a person who should have stepped down last century.)
The PTO is celebrating (on Twitter) the annaversary of U.S. Patent No 1,311,237.
Would claim 1
1. In an airship, the combination of a gas bag, a frame for holding the gasbag distended, a plurality of boat-shaped cars arranged tandem detachably secured to said frame, a propeller and engine carried by each car and serving to propel the airship as a dirigible or propel each car by itself when detached.
pass the Alice test, or do the vague references to gas bags, frames, cars, “detachably secured”, “propeller” and “engine” merely describe the abstract idea “air ship”?
What kind of engine? What kind of propeller? What size? What horse power? What kind of Gas? OMG this claim would read on the Goodyear Blimp! Whats the frame made of ; Balsa wood? Iron?
The 101 Alice test should suffer the same fate as the Hindenburg and be loaded with the likes of Lemley, Laurie, Posner, MM, 6, Ned, most of the Fed. Cir. Judges and SCOTUS, the shadow director Lee, Stevens, and CJ Smith and the board.
It would be a glorious day for justice.
Oh the humanity.
That is a sad night for a Virtue.
We weep for ya NWPA.
Alice hits reality.
link to en.wikipedia.org
link to youtube.com
The patentlyo commenters take it to another forum.
The 101 Alice test should suffer the same fate as the Hindenburg and be loaded with the likes of Lemley, Laurie, Posner, MM, 6, Ned, most of the Fed. Cir. Judges and SCOTUS, the shadow director Lee, Stevens, and CJ Smith and the board.
Beyond parody.
It’s a joke MM. A joke. Lighten up.
This post intentionally left blank so as not to drown out NWPA’s amazing posts.
[…] limitations at the USPTO, inspired by a case that Groklaw covered for a long time. Dennis Crouch writes: “Based on information from several sources, it appears that the USPTO is now taking a more […]
Something buried deep in the thread ge nerated a tiny ripple of discussion.
MM: “… information processing in the absence of a new and objective physical structure is quintessentially abstract”
Dan: When people disagree about that very premise – that information processing is abstract – simply insisting on it being so doesn’t convince anyone.
A fair point, Dan. Here’s the definition of “abstract” from the dictionary: “existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.”
Information itself doesn’t have a physical or concrete existence, at least not one that is recognized by patent law. That’s one of the reasons that information itself is ineligible for patenting. Is there a compelling countervailing argument that information itself is not “quintessentially abstract” and should be eligible for patenting? I’ve not seen it made but I’m all ears if someone can articulate the argument.
Now, let’s consider a process of creating “new” data from old data. In the simplest form, this is achieved by simply re-naming the data. Take the series of numbers 010100101 for instance. That data by itself could have any number of uses. Now I claim “a process of determining a signifier for a data file, wherein said data file is a movie data file, wherein said movie is a movie that has recently lost its copyright status, wherein said movie data file includes data regarding colors, and wherein said signifier is a series of numbers, wherein said numbers are 010100101.” Note all those “limitations”! I can easily include many more. But all that is happening here is that what is being claimed is (ge nerally speaking) the process of “assigning a name to something.” That process — devoid of any new physical structure — would seem to be an example of information processing that is “quintessentially abstract.”
What if, without reciting any new objective physical structure, I claim a process of “converting” the information into some other information (e.g., converting an cookie recipe written in English into one written in German). Does that conversion from one form of information into another result in the information having a “physical or concrete existence”? I don’t see how that’s possible. I also don’t see how it’s sufficiently distinct from the example in the previous paragraph to justify carving out an exception to the ineligibility of information, regardless of the name we give to that information and regardless of the utility of that information.
Remember that thus far the “trick” for getting information-processing processes declared eligible has simply been to pretend that “everything changes” if a Powerful Computer Brain is recited instead of a human brain. That has been the case even where, in fact, nothing about the recited logical steps carried out by the Powerful Computer Brain differ from the steps carried out a by a human brain (e.g., receiving, storing, and “determining/processing” the information). Now we are operating in a legal world where reliance on that artifice has been knee-capped. Personally, I think it’s a better world. Opinions may differ on that subject, of course. But I think the argument that converting one abstraction (information) into another abstraction (different information) in the absence of new objective physical stucture is also an abstraction is a genuine argument and not “table-pounding.”
I’m open to any and all efforts to identify flaws in the argument (bearing in mind that the unenforceability of software patents is not a “flaw” from my perspective).
So, take any of these information processes and they can be made into a special purpose chip. The structure is in the silicon and impurities. I have designed such a chip long ago.
THIS IS SCIENTIFIC FACT.
And, “existing only in thought” is an interesting statement. It goes back to the pre-1930’s when people didn’t realize that thought only exists in our brains. A thought cannot exist without structure except in the fantasy world of angels and pins.
The structure is in the silicon and impurities.
Then recite that structure in the claim like people in the grown-up arts have been doing since forever.
[shrugs]
Another harassment post from you MM. The structure is recited in the claims for —-wait for it—ONE SKILLED IN THE ART.
NWPA The structure is recited in the claims for —-wait for it—ONE SKILLED IN THE ART.
If you’re asserting that “one skilled in the art” of creating new computer functions can correlate a new computer function (e.g., “storing information about the price fluctations in ge netically engineered non-patented green apples grown in states that end with a ‘Y’ “) with new objective physical structure (e.g., the new structure of “silicon and its impurities”), then perhaps you can prove your assertion to everybody here by telling us exactly what this new objective physical structure is, using objective structural terms.
Go ahead. Make everybody’s day. We’ve all been waiting for years for someone to demonstrate this ability.
harassment post
Grow up, man. If you want to comment here with the big boys then be prepared to defend your assertions. If you want to simply stamp your feet and make assertions that you can’t defend just because they sound pleasing to your own ears, there are plenty of other blogs out there where you can do that, 24-7. Let me know if you need links to them.
MM, your dum(b) act is very old.
MM: “The big boys.”
Yeah, right. You are a big boy? Please tell us all how computer programs are natural laws some more. (I know this was recently argued in the Op Ed section of the NYTs.)
Night, a chip having manufactured into it an algorithm is in fact a new machine.
This is why I suggest that if the programmed computer were limited to having the new program become part of the computer so that it effectively is like firmware in the chip, then we are talking new machine.
Night, I don’t know if you have modified your tune by pointing to the chip, but anon resists every attempt to limit the programmed computer claim to a new machine by tying the program to the computer such that it is part of the computer, like firmware.
Ned, I have not changed my tune as you put it.
I highlighted the chip example because it highlights how far from reality MM is and how is posts are just harassment.
Your argument is, frankly, silly. You want the infringement to depend on the form. Holding back the scientific argument about a configured computer. The invention should take center stage. The court should try to understand the invention and accommodate the invention as much as possible. I am sure there are more than one SCOTUSs that say that.
Besides, Ned, your 1 has no structure is nonsensical. How can anything exist without structure? Is it your contention that no 1 exists in a computer?
Moreover, Ned, from a macro perspective your arguments are clearly wrong. How could a machine perform say driving with no structural difference from a gen eral purpose computer (NOTE that MM’s harassment has made us all have to be aware of “gen”)?
It is not scientifically possible Ned. So, therefore there must be a structural difference.
Night, I came out of the computer industry drafting claims to improved computers and components. A lot of these inventions were algorithmic in nature, such as data compression and encryption, noise reduction, improved servo algorithms, etc., etc. etc.
At no time did I find it necessary to claim the algorithms in the abstract. Tied to the machine, the claims were entirely statutory as the machines were improved.
When someone insists on claiming algorithms in the abstract, not tied to a particular machine, I smell a rat. The rat I smell is an attempt to claim nonstatutory subject matter such as business methods, not improved machines.
At no time did I find it necessary to claim the algorithms in the abstract. Tied to the machine, the claims were entirely statutory as the machines were improved.
But Ned, MM’s proposition above is that tying it to a machine is not enough unless that machine is a “new and objective physical structure.” According to that proposition, your data compression and noise reduction claims are abstract and non-statutory, if you’re executing them on “old” hardware.
I think MM’s proposition is much too broad. Information-processing algorithms that are applied to a particular physical process are and should remain patentable subject matter, even if they are implemented using old tools. This view is completely consistent with all of the Supreme Court’s 101 case law.
Dan in your:
“Information-processing algorithms that are applied to a particular physical process are and should remain patentable”
…what do you mean by “physical”?
I ask only because some here would say that the process of running the algorithm on a computer is itself a “physical” process, enough to render the algorithm patentable.
But you don’t mean that, do you?
1. An improved disc drive, comprising:
means for reading data from and writing data to a rotating disc, wherein said means comprises a computer programmed to
then recite algorithm steps a-b.
There seems no doubt that we are talking about a particular machine and hardware in that machine that does the claimed functional steps. The machine is improved. The cases are uniform that such claims are eligible under 101.
MM has never addressed this situation, at least not with me. I think he refers to a gen erically recited computer doing nothing more than what it has always done, process data. The claimed subject matter does not limit the claim to a particular machine, nor does it require the so-called software to be tied to the computer like firmware.
Trust me, tying the new program to the computer does in fact make a new machine. Software, however, is not claimed that way. Never has been. The computer is not modified. It is simply used.
DanH I think MM’s proposition is much too broad. Information-processing algorithms that are applied to a particular physical process are and should remain patentable subject matter, even if they are implemented using old tools.
Great comment.
This certainly gets us closer to The Big Question which is: which information-processing algorithms should remain eligible (i.e., what else needs to be recited in the claim) and why. DanH has identified one of the reasonable and basic distinctions (among many others) that can be drawn between different types of process claims that expressly involve information processings steps/algorithms. Specifically, some information processing claims are tied to processes which transform matter, and some aren’t (note that I’m not including here any tangential transformations such as the consumption of battery power by the computing machine while performing the algorithm).
Should it suffice for eligibility purposes simply to tie the algorithm to any physically transformative process where the physical transformation is affected by application of the algorithm to that process? I think the answer depends on the algorithm and its relationship to the claim, and also the degree to which you believe that 103 can do any additional “weeding” that might be necessary (in other words, I think the short answer to my question is “no”).
For instance, what about a physically-transformative process claim (“PTPC”) that includes a “new” algorithm of the form “wherein if X>Y, then Z”, but if X<Y then no steps are taken and no physical transformation occurs? Is that claim eligible when it is literally infringed by (1) processing the information and (2) doing nothing in response to that processing? Assume that doing nothing to the object of the potential transformaton is in the prior art.
For instance, what about a physically-transformative process claim (“PTPC”) that includes a “new” algorithm of the form “wherein if X>Y, then Z”, but if X<Y then no steps are taken and no physical transformation occurs? Is that claim eligible when it is literally infringed by (1) processing the information and (2) doing nothing in response to that processing? Assume that doing nothing to the object of the potential transformaton is in the prior art.
It doesn’t matter to me whether you call that claim eligible or not – it’s not valid in any case. (And there are a LOT of them out there.) But you don’t need a claim that “covers” the non-operation of a device.
The best way to avoid this problem is to avoid writing claims that have an if-then structure. It’s usually (always?) not necessary.
Max, this is DanH, not Dan. (There’s a Dan floating around as well.)
I think you understand me – No, the “physical process” I mean is something outside the information processing element itself. There needs to be an input from the outside world, and, probably, a result that is applied to the outside world.
“I think MM’s proposition is much too broad. Information-processing algorithms that are applied to a particular physical process are and should remain patentable subject matter”
Perhaps. As a process.
Ned,
Your argument is just one of using the EPO eligibility standard.
Fact is that information algorithms — even the so-called business method ones–define real machines, take real energy, time, and space to perform the information processing.
The structure is as real as the structure in a bicycle.
That is scientific fact. My bet is that you are older and never took cognitive science or information science courses and never learned the theory behind information processing. Your opinions are ones of that there is some separation between thoughts and the physical world. We know now that is not true. That your thoughts are performed by your brain. All your thoughts have structure. Your arguments are based on there being a physical and spiritual world and it bothers you that the computer is performing those tasks that you think are spiritual.
And, Ned your claims are just an improvement to hardware. We all know that is eligible because it has to be or the hardware wouldn’t be eligible.
MM’s: “tie to a physical process”: MM you deny the structure of chip. You deny the space of solutions that a POSITA sees with a set of claims. You effectively take a position from the medieval times and expect others to budge you.
Ned says: “the computer isn’t modified it is simply used.” Ned, the point of the computer is to run other computers. A gen eral purpose computer is a simulator. That was the point. Everyone that understands the theory behind computers knows that. There is no need to modify the simulator to be structural computer yourself. You are being simulated. Again, EVERYONE that is trained in computer science knows that.
So, again, we have your lot denying science. Denying structure. Denying information. Denying that conservation of information is the most important law of physics. And presenting just bizarre arguments that I really don’t feel like addressing over and over again.
A 1 has no structure. Right. Whatever that statement means.
I think the key to improve this blog is to rid it of the paid blogger. You have no desire for truth but to put out opinions from a policy paper.
Night, a computer is a computer is a computer.
Computers calculates.
A computer does not change depending on the data inputs and outputs.
Ned, a horse is a horse and a molecule is a molecule and some bits of steel and are the same as all bits of steel.
And Ned just to clear about your “I smell a rat” comment. I am sure my education in these matters is far superior to yours. I was trained in the Theory of Computation by some of the greats in the field at one of the best universities in the world.
Trust me: you are spouting nonsense. The sad part is that we no longer have a judiciary that is capable of discerning the difference between nonsense and science. That is why I strongly advocate the dissolution of the Federal Circuit. It is a stacked court. I suspect that the PTO after CJ Smith has had his way is also highly suspect.
The zeitgeist I am afraid is that there is no more reason. Money trumps all. “I am reality,” is the mantra of the moneyed.
But, just know there are those of us that are honest folks who truth and science means more to us than sxcking on it to get money from the rich. At least I can sleep at night with a clear conscious. I wonder if shadow director Lee can sleep at night. Lemley doesn’t look like he gets to sleep.
So, in short, f you all. I have truth and science on my side that is more comfort than being paid by the word to participate on this site.
Just think about what an ignorant sad lot you are. You live in the information age and yet without me not one of you filth behind the ears would even have heard of the Church-Turing Thesis.
An ignorant sad lot that claims chips have no structure, people practicing an art do not have sets of solutions for functional problems, that thinking occurs by something other than the brain, etc…..
I know, “I am reality.” Your lot should chant that together while holding each other. For my part, as I said, I have science on my side.
Night, you argue like an infant.
How can it be, Night, that the people who claim to be the smartest in the room cannot make an intelligent argument?
Ned: You argue like an infant.
Over your head, eh Ned? Ned you appear to be a very stubborn intellectually dishonest person to me.
I present you with scientific fact. You ignore it and present some bizarre argument that is so twisted and specific as to be meaningless. Your a 1 has no structure argument is about as meaningful as arguing over how many angles can fit on a pin head.
I hardly ignore your facts, Night. It is just that they are irrelevant.
You seem to think that just because information processing requires energy that that makes information processing something patentable.
I ask you to observe the statute. You simply ignore me.
I don’t ignore the statute. Read above. Each of the information processing methods defines a new machine.
All said while we’re supposedly the ones making “harassing” posts.
Night, methods do not define machines.
Ned: methods don’t define machines.
Yes they do in information processing. Yes they do.
You say I argue like an infant? Look, read the sentence I wrote. That is scientific FACT. You are ignorant of the science of information.
Do you disagree with the sentence? It can be proved that it is true that a method of information processing that is enabled can be converted to a special purpose chip. That is SCIENCE FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FACT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Do you disagree with the sentence? It can be proved that it is true that a method of information processing that is enabled can be converted to a special purpose chip. That is SCIENCE FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Ned it’s a science fact man. Not only that, but it also means that a “method” describes a machine (just not the one they’re claiming lol).
NWPA The court should… accommodate the invention as much as possible.
What in the world is that supposed to mean?
How can anything exist without structure?
You are kicking up dust and running away from the issue. Nobody is asserting that computers “don’t have structure”. The assertion is that the structure is not present in the claim, and therefore what is being claimed is a “functionality.” “Functionalities” are not among the statutory categories. They are, arguably, abstractions. They are ideas about what would be desired as opposed to descriptions of the structures of the actual objects that achieve these “functionalities.”
there must be a structural difference.
First, nobody is arguing that a thing A, with known functionality, is structurally identically to thing B, with known functionality that differs from thing A (although that is certainly possible when the “fucntionality” in question is merely informative in nature).
The argument is that if the distinct structure responsible for that new functionality is not recited in the claim (or in the specification if 112P6 is relied on) then what is being claimed is not a new structure/composition/machine but rather a new “functionality.”
Repeatedly failing to acknowledge the issues being discussed and returning to strawman topics that your “opponents” (at least this one) are not making or have conceded dozens of times doesn’t get you anywhere. On top of that, you refuse to admit fundamental truths that may damage your ultimate goal. I’ll grant you that you’re in a weak position so maybe that’s all you got. But don’t blame other people for that.
The dum(b) act is old.
Hey Night, is nonstatutory a bizarre argument?
It is a bizarre argument when it includes people telling me that claims don’t define solution sets (when they DO), when I am told that special purpose chips have no structure, when I am told that 1’s have no structure, when I am told that a method is a natural law, etc.
Those are bizarre arguments. And I realize it doesn’t make any difference how much I debunk any one of them that you and your lot will just go back to square one on the next thread.
MM: distinct structure responsible for that new functionality is not recited in the claim
It is recited in the claims to one having skill in the art. Your argument is one to make the claims understandable to a layperson, which is not possible in any art.
The claims in information processing are no different than in mechanical arts. When I claim complicated hydraulic systems which I recently did, the claims appear about the same.
No difference. The only difference is that there are people like you generating bizzarro arguments that don’t hold water.
MM: distinct structure responsible for that new functionality is not recited in the claim
It is recited in the claims to one having skill in the art. Your argument is one to make the claims understandable to a layperson, which is not possible in any art.
The claims in information processing are no different than in mechanical arts. When I claim complicated hydraulic systems which I recently did, the claims appear about the same.
No difference. The only difference is that there are people like you gen erating bizzarro arguments that don’t hold water.
And to your grow up comment MM: We all have to add a space to “Gen e” because of YOUR childish comments regarding one of the most respected people in patent law.
“How could a machine perform say driving with no structural difference from a gen eral purpose computer”
I think they do that by “programming” is how.
6, that was another inane answer from you.
And Ned the condescension drips off your posts. You really don’t think you understand patent law better than I do, do you? You have more time to post on here and sort through some of the issues. But you are a judicial activist. You have an agenda. You are like Lemley in that fashion. Nothing you write can be trusted. No cite can be trusted with you because you have an agenda.
Sure, Night, I do have an agenda and I have told you what it is:
I am strongly against functional claiming.
I am strongly against indefinite claims.
I have come to be strongly against business method and “computer implemented” claims because the troll problem is largely associated with such claims.
I am against reexaminations, and post grant reviews of all types. I believe in standing and in the court system.
I am against the repeal of 102(f).
I think the first inventor who has not abandoned, suppressed or concealed should be the only one eligible to get a patent.
I am against universal prior art applying to US patents.
I favor prior user rights.
I believe in the right to an injunction unless it is against the public interest.
I believe that the system would be better if we banned all disclosure of prior art unless it is set forth in the background section of the patent and discussed.
Yes, I have AN agenda.
How’d you come up with that last one? And when? Seems kind of weird.
6, on the last one, the ROW does just fine without any “duty of disclosure.”
We now flood the PTO with mountains of irrelevant prior art to avoid a charge of inequitable conduct. The only way I can think of to stop this is to call a halt.
If someone makes a statement that is not true and at the time he or she knows it is not true, that is the real problem we face. This can be revealed in court.
Hiding published prior art in this age of the internet is not possible.
Well, I agree we should get rid of the requirement to cite generally available prior art. Only if you have some specialized knowledge should you have to cite.
Well, I agree we should get rid of the requirement to cite gen erally available prior art. Only if you have some specialized knowledge should you have to cite.
That’s fine Ned. Go to the Congress and stop trying to get it done through judicial activism and trying to push bizarre arguments regarding information processing.
Sorry I just don’t feel like being told that stars are really little flashes of thoughts floating through the ether as angels spin to try and capture the thoughts. Really MM’s thoughts on the matter are worse.
Night, I assume by you statement that you believe that all subject matter related to information processing is statutory.
But you never say how. Simply identify the category.
Machines and methods.
MM: Powerful Computer Brain differ from the steps carried out a by a human brain
MM your statements are just so bizarre. This is patently untrue and one of the great li3s of your lot. A patent should not issue under 103 if all that has been done is automate a know method. Everyone agrees with that.
The great li3 is the hypo below about new music being used to get a patent to exclude all other from the new music. That should never happen under 103. If someone has a patent that includes new music, then the patent should be for something else (and possible the combination of the music), and the music should just be narrowing the scope of the claims.
You understand that MM? I bet you do. But you won’t admit it will you?
Night, why don’t you simply accept that the likes of music are nonstatutory?
Processing nonstatutory information remains nonstatutory.
Processing nonstatutory music remains nonstatutory.
Processing nonstatutory laws of nature remains nonstatutory.
Processing nonstatutory grace for the forgiveness of sins remains nonstatutory.
Processing nonstatutory probability remains nonstatutory.
Processing nonstatutory math remains nonstatutory.
Nonstatutory!!!!!!
Get it???????????????
You never, ever address the real issue: the statute.
1. A machine, the machine comprising:
a really good processor design that passes 102, 103, and 112.
2. The machine of claim 1, wherein the machine is configured to play music.
3. The machine of claim 2, wherein the music is Mozart.
You contend that claim 3 is non-statutory?
You see the little devil of a hypo that floats in your crowd. That 3 would preempt playing Mozart. But, it would not. It would only preempt playing Mozart on the super doper hardware of claim 1. So, claim 3 is narrower than claim 1. That is the flaw in hypo below, which J backed out of rather than getting to this point.
So a new and improved machine. Every information processing method defines a set of improved machines whether or not they happen to be by configuring a simulator (the general purpose computer) or are designed as special purpose chips does not matter.
So a new and improved machine. Every information processing method defines a set of improved machines whether or not they happen to be by configuring a simulator (the gen eral purpose computer) or are designed as special purpose chips does not matter.
Night, claim 2, ignoring the 112 problems, might be directed to hardware.
Claim 3 is directed in part to ineligible subject matter. I would rejected it under 101.
Ned, why would you reject it under 103?
And, more importantly I hope you see how this example illustrates that the fear mongering of including non-statutory subject matter are unwarranted. The patent has to be granted on something to get past 103 like claim 1. Claim 3 only narrows the scope just as any non-statutory subject matter should in a valid claim.
The fear mongering that adding non-statutory subject matter gets you a patent that covers all uses of the non-statutory subject matter pretend that 102 and 103 do not exist. They depend on a false assumption that the patent is granted based on the non-statutory subject matter.
Why 101 and not 103? Because the problem of the claim is statutory subject matter. The validity of claim three becomes an issue went everything in its parent claims is old. At that point in time the only subject matter distinguishing the claim from the prior art is not eligible.
Which, Ned is an obviousness issue.
Claim 3 is fine.
Besides Ned you aren’t addressing my point are you? My point is that the non-statutory stuff narrows the claim. So, the imaginary patent that is magically granted that precludes all uses of some non-statutory material does not exist.
The patent grant if 102 and 103 and 112 are properly used would preclude the type of patent that is constantly bandied about. A patent on non-statutory subject matter that precludes all other uses. Well, how’d the patent get granted?