Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

Get a Job doing Patent Law                  

About Anthony McCain

Anthony McCain is a law student at Mizzou where he is focusing on intellectual property; He has a background in mechanical engineering. anthony.mccain@patentlyo.com

28 thoughts on “Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

  1. 7

    1. A computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium for processing network accounting information comprising:

    computer code for receiving from a first source a first network accounting record;

    computer code for correlating the first network accounting record with accounting information available from a second source; and

    computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network accounting record is correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.

    If this is a new method for “improving the functionality of a computer” as Judge Newman appears to believe, why on earth would the applicant have limited the claim to “accounting information”?

  2. 5

    In an evidently intense and dedicated effort to proving that there is nothing the CAFC can’t scrw up completely when it tries hard enough, Newman and Plager managed to find this unbelievably junky Beauregard claim eligible under 101:

    1. A computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium for processing network accounting information comprising:

    computer code for receiving from a first source a first network accounting record;

    computer code for correlating the first network accounting record with accounting information available from a second source; and

    computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network accounting record is correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.

    Let’s set aside the weightless limitation about “accounting record information” and see what’s left:

    1. A computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium comprising:

    computer code for receiving some data from a first source;

    computer code for correlating the first source data with information from a second source; and

    computer code for using the correlated data to enhance the first source data.

    Yup. Heckuva job, CAFC!

      1. 5.1.1

        Note also that this claim provides an additional opportunity to have a laugh at your mentor/hero’s expense. Remember a few weeks ago when he mocked Judge Mayer and insisted that “software code has never been patentable, period”?

        LOL

        Good times.

        1. 5.1.1.1

          Your attention to the person you call “my mentor” is far more 0bsess1ve than my attention could ever be.

          I do not want to know what you feel are “good times.”

          1. 5.1.1.1.1

            Hey, “pumpkin”, nobody forced you to hold your mentor/hero up as an example of what an awesomely “intellectually h0nest” blog discussion looks like. You did that all by yourself.

            And, boy, what a great example ….

            LOL

            1. 5.1.1.1.1.1

              You are definitely misconstruing my views on Quinn’s blog and what I may view as “awesome” and what I may not view as awesome.

              Any time that you want to try again / but with a modicum of inte11ectual honesty, please feel free to step up to the plate and say something truthful.

              1. 5.1.1.1.1.1.1

                Can you use patent claims to protect software code on a computer-readable storage medium?

                Yes or no.

                1. Absolutely.

                  Such is a manufacture and machine component.

                  Do you think that such is not a manufacture?

                  Do you think that such is not a machine component?

                  If so, then you are not using the word “software” correctly.

                2. Then why didn’t you correct your mentor/hero when he asserted otherwise?

                  I mean, other than the fact that you’re an unbelievable hypocrite who will do and say whatever serves your purpose at any moment, regardless of how absurd it is.

                3. 1) he is not my hero (nor mentor)

                  2) unlike your 0bsess10n, I do not bother with every word he says

                  3) I have corrected him on occasion

                  and

                  4) there are FAR more egregious corrections to be made (and no shortage coming from you)

  3. 4

    Regarding the Cargill position, does anyone know why some in-house firms do this?

    “Licensed in Minnesota, or if currently licensed in another state the ability to become licensed in Minnesota”

    It’s not as if they’re going to have their in-house guys make appearances on Cargill’s behalf in state court? (Or are they?)

    Otherwise, it would seem wanting them to become barred in MN is just a way to make it easier for them to jump ship to other local opportunities… maybe 3M and General Mills have the same requirements of their in-house peeps?

    1. 4.1

      In-house attorneys in Minnesota are required by law to be licensed in Minnesota, if they are going to be practicing outside of the narrow confines of federal jurisdiction under Sperry.

  4. 3

    As to the Schultz/Madigan Paper on “fixing” the Patent Offices of the world, and the Katznelson comment on the IPWatchdog site, I think they are barking. Up the wrong tree, that is.

    They lament long pendencies and suppose that getting to issue sooner is what is needed. Industry dislikes uncertainty, so let’s get rid of it.

    But uncertainty doesn’t stop at issue. The uncertainty lingers till the Appeal Court pronounces its verdict.

    And if early issue was the be-all-and-end-all, why don’t more Applicants at the EPO ask for PACE processing to expedited grant. It costs nothing, and no reason is needed. Start-ups and your outside counsel, are you listening to me here?

    I agree there is a problem in fast-moving EE sectors like telecoms, because the EPO finds it hard to recruit specialist engineers with all three EPO languages and the necessary legal and communication skills. But since in that industry sector cross-licensing and patent pools are endemic, where’s the harm?

    The system is already fixed, anyway, by the combination of an 18 month publication rule and a strict WD (new matter) requirement. As soon as you see the WO publication, you can do your FTO work and with confidence rely on the clearance opinion you get. All the way to the end of the patent term. And beyond in the case of pharma/bio.

    Another case of a pair of academics raising a case or controversy where, in reality, none exists?

    What really matters to industry is the degree of legal certainty there is, in any jurisdiction, as to what is obvious and what is not.

  5. 2

    Michael Paulsen, a conservative lawyer, wrote an op-ed in the National Review titled “The Case for Shrinking the Supreme Court.”

    In that op-ed, Paulsen argued that “the Supreme Court should be smaller so that it can do less harm,” and that the Senate should “adopt a standing rule” on “advice and consent” to allow “no more confirmations until the court dips below six” justices.

    He’s been making this argument for years! Right? Sure he has. He’s a very serious person.

    Neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump can be trusted with Supreme Court appointments — Clinton because of her ideological extremism

    LOL – what?

    Trump because he is simply an entirely untrustworthy, unreliable, dangerous demagogue inclined to rely on his own bad personal instincts and whims

    But we can totally trust Michael Paulsen. He’s super smart! Sure he is.

    1. 2.1

      His argument is CRP. A smaller court is a more dangerous court.

      Was it not FDR who threatened (effectively) the Court with the opposite path, one of dilution (of power) by enlargement?

  6. 1

    The idea of computers achieving legal personhood status is a long way away, he acknowledges, so instead the law needs to work out who benefits from an AI invention – the computer’s owner, the developer who runs the software, or the person commissioning the project.

    And the correct answer is …

    D. Patent attorneys

    And I didn’t even need a computer to figure it out for me.

      1. 1.1.1

        Sorry — no time for a substantive response. My computer just outputted four thousand two hundred and fifty eight distinct graphic user interface design patents and told me to file them today and send the bill to some Russian guy named Arkady Voldevnikov. Gotta run! Progress waits for no man.

      2. 1.1.2

        Apparently, he hates all patent attorneys…yet he is one. He must be a joy to work with, though I assume no one would hire him because of his animosity towards others.

        1. 1.1.2.1

          The animosity must eat at his soul (or what’s left of it after ten years of his outpouring blight on these pages).

Comments are closed.