- Robert Schaffer & Joseph Robinson: Akamai v. Limelight
- Matthew Sag: Graphs On IP Litigation In US District Courts
- Sarah Green: Ping-Pong Table Puts Singapore’s Intellectual Property Regulation Under Spotlight
- Kevin E. Noonan: Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment
- Casey Green: Jawbone v. Fitbit
- Brian Emfinger: USPTO Announces Additional Guidelines For Determining Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Get a Job doing Patent Law
- Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
- Kinzie Manufacturing
- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP
- Design IP
- Lee Sullivan Shea & Smith LLP
Upcoming Events
Maybe listen to patent holders….
Oh wait, that’s only listen to patent holders that align with Ned’s curse-ades.
That “6-is-a-genius-when-he-agrees-with-me” malady in full bloom…
Your consistency in being inconsistent is a fine presentation of irony.
MM, I agree that PTO 101 guidelines, foot-dragging and petulant as they are, illustrates the PTO continues to be a major part of the problem, not part of the solution. At least in part, I think it because of that d*mned Advisory Board, composed exclusively of whining clients.
The O-man has to be put on alert and Ms. Lee called on the carpet. Perhaps Senator Schumer should attend the meeting as well. And, if the results of that meeting are not satisfactory, we should be looking for a new Director by the end of the day.
Also, get rid of the Advisory Board. It is designed to corrupt the process.
MM, clueless is not the proper word. Conflicted is.
Classic Malcolm FAIL:
link to xkcd.com
Maybe we can have a ec(h)osystem group “hug” for Malcolm…
Notably, the July 2015 Update goes even further by indicating that examiners should not conclude a claimed concept is abstract unless it is similar to at least one concept that courts have previously identified as an abstract idea.
Can someone tell me exactly where this is found in the July 2015 Update? Thanks!
Final sentence of third section (“Further Information on Identifying Abstract Ideas in Step 2A”) :
“This discussion is meant to guide examiners and ensure that a claimed concept is not identified as an abstract idea unless it is similar to at least one concept that the courts have identified as an abstract idea.”
thanks, bje!
EDIT:
The final sentence of the *first paragraph* of the third section.
the July 2015 Update goes even further by indicating that examiners should not conclude a claimed concept is abstract unless it is similar to at least one concept that courts have previously identified as an abstract idea.
ROTFLMAO
Billy’s mother’s credit card account number is, like, totally different from a user preference score!
The only attorneys on earth more clueless than the attorneys at the PTO are the the perpetually confused “clients” who helped them write these ridiculous “guidelines.”
Comments are closed.