Following IPO’s recent proposal to effectively eliminate 35 U.S.C. 101, a Patently-O reader (“MM”) proposed the following amendment to 35 U.S.C. 103 for the organization’s consideration:
35 U.S.C. 103: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Common sense shall not be used or references in any part of the analysis of the claim. Under no circumstances will any element in the claim be deemed to be non-limiting for any reason. Individual claim elements, whether or not disclosed by the prior art, shall never be discussed or analyzed separately from the other claim elements. The term ‘monopoly’ must never appear in the analysis.
(Added language underlined.) According to the anonymous Patently-O reader, this would make it the “Best. Patent. System. Ever.” Certainly, the provision would take care of KSR v. Teleflex that has been so frustrating for patentees and time consuming for the Court of Appeals. (Satire).
MM>> Not to put too fine a point on all this, but quite some ago organizations like the IPO and the AIPLA were taken over by hacks who can’t reason their way out of a paper bag, t0xic self-dealers who lost their ethical bearings, and narcissists who refuse to admit that their wrong about anything even when they are plainly some of the most reliably wrong people on the planet.
In reality we know that Google is very anti-patent and is the biggest contributor to Congress save Goldman Sachs. There are great forces at work now to burn the system down so that monopolies in Silicon Valley are safe from competition from start-ups. That is what we know objectively.
We also know that the left wing professors like Lemley don’t like patents ’cause of ideology. We know that he has exerted an undue influence in hiring decisions throughout the US due to the SCOTUS quoting him and his early influence on patent law before his exposure as an ideologue with no solutions, no ethics, and lots of ambition to be heard.
Let’s try to stick to what is really happening and the real forces at work. At try to stick to real science MM. We also know that people like you are paid to control blogs like this one by lobbying groups paid by Google.
And, just look at the campaign contributions to the legislators that want to burn the system down, or in their terms, “reform” the patent system. The biggest contributor or near the top is Google in every case.
Not to put too fine a point on all this, but quite some ago organizations like the IPO and the AIPLA were taken over by hacks who can’t reason their way out of a paper bag, t0xic self-dealers who lost their ethical bearings, and narcissists who refuse to admit that their wrong about anything even when they are plainly some of the most reliably wrong people on the planet.
This is substantial part of the culture of “patent attorneys.” It’s concentrated on the so-called “tech” side, to be sure, but there plenty in the chem/bio space, too.
Making matters worse is the silly king-making and king-worshipping culture where every nose picking of Kappos, Chisum, or Wegner is treated like some gold nugget that everybody is supposed to take seriously because the gods have spoken.
The bottom line is that if the s0 ftie w0 ftie crowd wants all their s0 ft ie w0 ftie and “do it on a computer” junk to be eligible just because It’s All So Incredibly Important then they should just come out and say so. They should put that dream expressly in their absurd statute that will never be passed. Or they can come up with some kind of intermediate position (as the CAFC has been trying to do for them) and propose a workable coherent examination and enforcement regime that amounts to more than just a handout to the patent bar.
And why is someone allowed to denigrate people like this? “Not to put too fine a point on all this, but quite some ago organizations like the IPO and the AIPLA were taken over by hacks who can’t reason their way out of a paper bag, t0xic self-dealers who lost their ethical bearings, and narcissists who refuse to admit that their wrong about anything even when they are plainly some of the most reliably wrong people on the planet.”
Patently-O, why do you allow this to go on? Is MM DC’s alter ego? Batman and Bruce Wayne?
The ‘contributions’ of MM and anon can only be measured in terms of advertising revenue.
Ben,
Once again you err by attempting to equate me with Malcolm.
It is a seriously grevious error.
(not withstanding the fact that in the DISQUS days, you “upvoted” nearly everything that Malcolm posted, no matter how banal, wrong, or noxious the post was)
You don’t have credibility – and your attempt to equate me with Malcolm does not help you.
Thanks for proving my point, PB.
My apologies, folks! Get on your knees and begin genuflecting before the s00per deep insights of Manny Schecter , Ge ne Q unn and the IPO.
Of course denigrating the Supreme Court 24-7 and questioning the ment@l health of any Federal Judge who explains why s0ftware patents are g@rbage is perfectly okay. That’s totally different!
Man, you patent maximalists are a p@thetic pack of ign 0rant hypocrites.
“Man, you patent maximalists are a p@thetic pack of ign 0rant hypocrites.”
Stultifying Accuse Others meme doubled down with One Bucketness,,,
Patent Bob, I largely agree with MM. While there may be reasonable people in organizations like the IPO of the AIPLA, they are cowered by the powerful.
Think of the IPO and AIPLA like Gene Quinn’s site. Start supporting the Supreme Court, or discussing 101 in any way favorable to the Supreme Court, and you get your head taken off. The only people that can stand up to such folks are people have no ambitions inside those organizations, or who do not need jobs in big firms.
Thank God for patent fora run by professors who do not need to kowtow to this power block and can allow free debate on patent law issues.
As I have often said, when I was in the leadership ranks of both organizations I was shocked by the level of antipathy towards the Supreme Court. It was quite clear to me that the Federal Circuit was created primarily so that the lobbying organizations in Washington could unduly influence that Circuit Court to move patent law in the direction that would favor the people who controlled the lobby organizations. It was planned.
When I first got out of law school I went to a firm involved in antitrust litigation against AT&T. As part of that litigation, I saw board resolutions and other materials from AT&T where they actively sought regulation by the government in order that they could use that regulation to suppress competition by encouraging rules that favored their monopoly and disfavored any new entrant.
This is all about crony capitalism. The big companies, big firms, and the big lobby groups all work hand-in-glove for each other to make money using government power.
What changed in the last few years are the reaction of Wall Street and the West Coast tech firms to so-called trolls who assert patents on business methods authorized by State Street Bank. Thank God there has been some pushback from these adversely affected groups. But, the problem has become that this pushback sometimes go so far and tries to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Fascinating… and as a newer attorney, discouraging
Why does J’s avatar randomly alternate between four-limbed grit-teeth octagon and six-limbed snorkle-nose squigly hair?
Sometimes its a phone post, and sometimes a computer.
“allowing free debate”
Ned, if you were inte11ectually honest, you would not characterize this site as such, given that you and Malcolm in particular are more interested in monologues than any type of actual debate (free or otherwise).
To actually debate, you would have to address (and I do mean address in an inte11ectually honest manner) the counter points presented to your monologues.
As it is, that is not only severely lacking, the “swagger” of the person you align with (now) is far worse than Mr. Quinn as far as lack of any sense of reason or reasonableness.
As for “antipathy” to the Supreme Court, well, let’s just say that your extreme deference in the opposite direction is even more problematic (and let me again ask you to provide your State attorney oath, and I will show you exactly why – funny though, how you disappear on that point…)
Anon, I do not necessarily have extreme deference to every Supreme Court decision. I disagree with eBay to the extent that that the majority opinion did not say the things said by Roberts in his concurrence. I also disagree with the majority opinion in Bilski. The right answer for the claims in that case was penned by Stevens in his concurrence.
And guess who wrote the concurring opinion in eBay and the majority in Bilski, both opinions which have proven to be disasters? None other than Justice Kennedy. The sooner he retires, the better.
The sooner [Justice Kennedy] retires, the better.
Amen!
“Anon, I do not necessarily have extreme deference to every Supreme Court decision”
The cases in which you do show an unreasonable attitude – we both know why you never take me up on providing your State attorney oath.
The cases in which you do not are explained because you pretend that anything that does not fit your agenda has any merit. That’s just a symptom of your classic “6-is-a-genius-because-he-agrees-with-me” malady.
(it’s the same malady that produced your “Just enjoy Malcolm’s swagger” line – except you probably did not enjoy that same swagger recently when it came to politics, now did you?
Ed the Ned you must be kidding. Lemley exerts enormous pressure on the professors to be anti-patent and Lemley has gotten many of these professors their jobs.
Moreover, the biggest influence by far in patent law right now is Google which the FT has said spends more money than any other corporation besides Goldman Sachs to influence law makers.
Ed the Ned you just have no qualms about misrepresenting the situation. Never ends with people like you.
>>It was quite clear to me that the Federal Circuit was created primarily so that the lobbying organizations in Washington could unduly influence that Circuit Court to move patent law in the direction that would favor the people who controlled the lobby organizations. It was planned.
Google is the one influencing the Fed. Cir.
His loathing of the CAFC and his abject worship of the Supreme Court lack a consistent and objective viewpoint.
Instead, everything is filtered as to whether or not the End result aligns with his Curse-ades and Windmill Chases.
Anon, the problem with the Federal Circuit is that it had Judge Rich on the court for a long time; and he was a malign influence. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit is a bar-captured court because of its location in Washington — in the maw of the big business dominated patent lobbying organizations in its area of exclusive jurisdiction. Clearly, the (big business) people behind its creation knew this was going to happen, and did it anyway. Obviously, if they knew it was going to happen and they did it anyway, could we not conclude that they fully intended that it what happened?
In contrast, the United States Supreme Court is a court of general jurisdiction. It has the best and brightest as its members. They see the big picture and get the policy issues correct more often than not. That court has been the best patent court in the world for very long time. It has my respect, and it should have respective everybody in this nation, and in the world.
To the extent that we see in the patent bar general hostility to the Supreme Court and a general favorability to the Federal Circuit, what we see is the influence of the patent lobbying organizations. What they are doing is trying to feather their own nests using their money and influence. This is corruption and crony capitalism at its finest.
It is a vicious circle, a circle that has to be broken.
Your curse-ade against Judge Rich is just a reflection of your own desired Ends – nothing more.
Further, you lose ALL credibility with a statement like:
“ That court has been the best patent court in the world for very long time.“
>Think of the IPO and AIPLA like Gene Quinn’s site. Start supporting the Supreme Court, or discussing 101 in any way favorable to the Supreme Court, and you get your head taken off.
Ed the Ned you misrepresent science. You misrepresent patent law.
You are given a fair forum for discussion at ipwatchdog. “Your head taken off” ??? How is that Ed the Ned? Your posts aren’t deleted. You are permitted to post as often as you like.
The reality is that you don’t do as well in a forum where MM isn’t blasting the blog with a 30-100 posts a day so no one else can even begin to have a discussion on this blog.
By “head taken off” he means that counter points presented – and his constant running away from these counterpoints – carry a rather uncomfortable spotlight for Ned.
He does try to be “more pleasant” there (and less anti-software patent), but his duplicity shines through nonetheless.
He does not want a “forum” in the sense of a dialogue.
All that he wants is a soapbox on which he can climb and give his monologue.
David Boundy, still desperatley trying to pretend we were all born yesterday:
The IPO proposal does not “effectively eliminate 35 U.S.C. 101”—it effectively backs out the reasoning of the Bilski–Mayo–Myriad–Alice quartet, and reinstates Diehr
As has been explained to you, to Sachs and to everyone else hundreds of times: you can not “back out of the reasoning” of Mayo and have a working subject eligibility matter filter.
If a claim requires something outside the human mind, it’s not “abstract.”
And this exactly the kind of ridiculous statement that shows everyone how far out in the weeds you and the IPO and the rest of the patent maximalist dreamers. This thing you call “the claim” is a bunch of words that describes something. The issue is not whether “the claim” is abstract; the issue is whether “the claim” protects ineligible subject matter such that people (other than the patentee) can not freely access that ineligible subject matter without fear of infringement liability.
A method of (1) eating an ice cream cone and (2) thinking a non-obvious thought about the likelihood that a newborn baby is going to die of cancer is “outside the the human mind.” It sails right through the IPO’s ridiculous “test”. And it’s not obvious so it sails through 103. Now David Boundy is going to tell everyone a silly story about how some other section of the statute is going to take care of this sort of claim which turns someone who is eating an ice cream into an infringer when they also think about an ineligible correlation. But why not just write a decent statute that recognizes the issue? Why on earth would anyone want to rely on David Boundy’s or Robert Sach’s word when it comes to subject matter eligibility??
Likewise, Boundy has admitted that information (e.g., information about a correlation between X and Y) isn’t eligible for patenting (although it’s not clear that he understands what he’s talking about). Of course, if some non-obvious information is written in an old book manufacture or if it’s stored for future display (manually or automatically) on an old computer designed for storing and displaying information, then the information is “outside of the human mind.” A claim to this “new manufacture” sails right through the IPO’s absurd “revision.” Under the “revision”, anyone who writes something non-obvious down on a piece of paper or saves that information on their computer will be faced with infringement liability. And make no mistake: the PTO will be bursting at the seams with claims like these because they are the easiest “innovations” in the world to dream up. Anybody can do it, even a lawyer who lacks the technical skills needed to sharpen a kitchen knife.
But Boundy will tell us that somehow these problematic claims, too, will be “taken care of” somehow. Meanwhile, his patent maximalist c0hort Kevin Noonan will tell us that patents on information are simply awesome and we shouldn’t worry about them. He’ll tell us that it’s much better to live in fear of being sued for writing down information or thinking about information in some “new” context than it is to never have that information — as if those are the only two possibilities out there, and as if the First Amendment doesn’t exist!
The proposed 101 revision is a d.o.a. j 0ke is what it is. Any reasonable person can see this. Only a patent attorney dr u nk on the patent k00l aid could ever pretend otherwise.
It’s essentially the position that the Solicitor General argued in the Government’s amicus brief [in Mayo]
Which is why the SG lost 9-0. The PTO’s position was indefensible and their own prior actions (granting Prometheus patent which was both ineligible and obvious) completely contradicted their own premise (i.e., that 103 would take care of ineligible non-obvious claims when the PTO can’t even reliably reject obvious claims!).
We had a workable system. This was the rule set forth in the Kunin Subject Matter Guidelines and MPEP from the early 1990s. “At least one non-mental element” was the rule that the Board of Patent Appeals applied from the early 1990s until 2008. It may not have achieved the results that you personally prefer, but it was workable.
The rest of your concerns fall within the territory policed by obviousness. Perhaps not obviousness as MM personally misunderstands, but obviousness as actually applied.
Slight rewrite.
We had a workable subject matter filter. This was the rule set forth in the Kunin Subject Matter Guidelines and MPEP from the early 1990s. “At least one non-mental element” was the rule that the Board of Patent Appeals applied from the early 1990s until 2008. It may not have achieved the results that you personally prefer, but it was a workable subject matter filter.
The rest of your concerns fall within the territory policed by obviousness. Perhaps not obviousness as MM personally misunderstands, but obviousness as actually applied.
OK, let’s take your hypothetical, that “the PTO can’t even reliably reject obvious claim” (which, in a world of finite resources, where you have to balance Type I errors against Type II errors, I don’t agree with. But let’s take your hypothetical on its own two feet). In that case, we fix PTO examination for obviousness. You can’t fix a system with one broken component by breaking another.
In that case, we fix PTO examination for obviousness.
Watch David Boundy spin! Wheeeeeeeee!
You can’t fix a system with one broken component by breaking another.
Again, nothing about the Supreme’s holding in Prometheus v. Mayo or Alice is “broken.”
There’s some really loudmouthed whiny baby patent attorneys who don’t like the decisions because it affects their bottom line but lots of other patent attorneys (like yours truly) who have no problem with the decisions and fought for them. And I’ve got plenty of scientists and plenty of software writers backing me up. On top of that, there’s no evidence that Prometheus or Alice have resulted in the slowing of progress in any useful art. On the contrary, the decisions have led to increased competition and saved a lot of people (businesses and consumers) a lot of money that would otherwise have been spent on pointless patents and attorney fees.
The sooner we expunge information and logic patents from the system altogether, the better. If the logic patentistas think they need some kind of patent right to protect logic, then should feel free to start from scratch and build that system. All that’s been accomplished thus far by you and your c0horts is to corrode the existing system which was not remotely equipped to examine or enforce the kind of junk that you insist on shoving at it.
Logic patents again…
How is your copyright on logic coming along?
What a putz.
” On top of that, there’s no evidence that Prometheus or Alice have resulted in the slowing of progress in any useful art. On the contrary, the decisions have led to increased competition and saved a lot of people (businesses and consumers) a lot of money that would otherwise have been spent on pointless patents and attorney fees.”
Yes, and there are were 3 million illegal votes case in the last election.
David, you’re too well-respected in the community of patent practitioners to be wasting your time engaging Mooney.
David, you’re too well-respected in the community of patent practitioners to be wasting your time engaging Mooney.
He’s right, David. You better just stick to mindlessly agreeing with the people who have been reliably wrong about everything related to subject matter eligibility for the past 15 years. That’s a real winning strategy for you!
Plus Atari Man will shine your shoes for you.
Weee – watch Malcolm spin (that Accuse Others meme in action yet again)…
” In that case, we fix PTO examination for obviousness.”
The only way to do that is to up the resources thrown at the problem significantly and increase the PTO’s authority to simply sit on applications. Neither of those things are something you will abide.
The… way to do that is to… increase the PTO’s authority to simply sit on applications.
At the risk of seeming dense, how does allowing the PTO to sit on applications help to weed out the §103-problematic claims?
It does not.
The comment can be traced back to 6’s (rather delusional) power grab mindset – all the way back to the Claims and Continuations Rules fiasco (fiasco for 6 and the Office – Tafas anyone…? 😉 ).
“At the risk of seeming dense, how does allowing the PTO to sit on applications help to weed out the §103-problematic claims?”
If we’re not convinced that the application is 103 compliant but we have as yet not found anything proving, with evidence, the contrary, we just sit on it and it doesn’t issue. Currently there are people that like to scream “ILLEGAL” at this taking place. It could always be made lawl.
By your “logic” you might as well simply stop issuing patents without giving any reason.
“By your “logic” you might as well simply stop issuing patents without giving any reason.”
At the PTO’s discretion. And only for x extended amount of time in comparison to the time allotted to sit today.
I already said this isn’t a solution that boundy et al. (including you) are going to like.
You also mentioned that it would be considered illegal.
So why make such a zero chance suggestion?
As I indicated, you might as well simply stop issuing patents without giving any reason.
“You also mentioned that it would be considered illegal.”
It won’t be illegal if we change the lawl to allow for it.
It’s a good thing for 6 the he’s anonymous, because anyone in the private sector who said that a priori they’re not going to provide the service for which they were paid would be fired, lynched or both.
“not going to provide the service for which they were paid would be fired, lynched or both.”
I’m saying we have to change “the service” for which they were paid a duhr, to account for Boundy’s wish, not “not provide” “the service for which they were paid”.
How many angels are dancing on the head of that pin, 6?
I have no problem with upping resources significantly — we’ve raised per claim fees by a factor of 9 in the last decade. I think that 9 might be too much, but I have no problem with the overall concept.
It’s also important to deploy those resources more effectively. That’s where the Administrative Procedure Act, Paperwork Reduction Act. Executive Order 12866, and Bulletin on Agency Good Guidance Practices comes in. They’re as important to effective/efficient function for the PTO as they are for applicants.
Maybe we should promote some business method patents to obtain that “deploy those resources more effectively.”
😉
“I have no problem with upping resources significantly — we’ve raised per claim fees by a factor of 9 in the last decade. I think that 9 might be too much, but I have no problem with the overall concept.”
Well I’m somewhat surprised to hear that. But now you’re (and others) are going to have to be so on board with it so as to persuade the management to actually do it.
“It’s also important to deploy those resources more effectively. ”
Correct.
I would rather see the current books first, before we go all “raise the prices” and all…
David Boundy: The rest of your concerns fall within the territory policed by obviousness.
No, they don’t fall within that territory at all. Everyone can see that because the “information” in my hypotheticals is non-obvious. The fact that you just sit there and assert otherwise without any explanation shows everyone that you’re either clueless or a l i a r, David. Or a little of both.
the early 1990s.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Funny stuff, David. Keep the laughs coming! We don’t live in the 50s anymore. And the early 90s was 25+ years ago. Maybe a decent statute should take some of judiciary’s failed experiments into account? Or maybe you just remember that easy money pouring in and that’s all that matters. That would explain a lot (in addition to the cluelessness and the dishonesty).
Perhaps not obviousness as MM personally misunderstands, but obviousness as actually applied.
LOL
As has already been explained to you and everyone else, obviousness “as actually applied” doesn’t get the job done.
Trivia question: who was the Prometheus-era commenter who spent the most time reminding everyone why Prometheus’ claims were so incredibly obvious? Answer: me.
Why was that the case? Because it demonstrated how intell ectua lly bankrupt the PTO’s premise was (and likewise for the apologists who jumped on the PTO’s bandwagon). The PTO was asserting that it could use 103 to “take care of” non-obvious information claims when it had already proved itself incapable of using 103 to “take care of” incredibly obvious information claims, i.e., the very claims at issue in Prometheus.
You really need to step your game, David. Tie yourself to the IPO’s anchor if you like. But you’re going to sink to bottom right along with them.
Your feelings are noted.
who was the Prometheus-era commenter who spent the most time reminding everyone why Prometheus’ claims were so incredibly obvious? Answer: me.
If Prometheus’ claims were obvious, then (at least in that case), obviousness should have been allowed to do its job.
Thanks for conceding the point. There was no reason to mess up subject matter eligibility.
Thanks for conceding the point
I didn’t concede anything, David. I just taught you something about the case that you plainly didn’t know and probably still don’t understand.
obviousness should have been allowed to do its job.
No, that would have been an incredible waste of time and money. As obvious as Prometheus’ claims were, they were even more plainly ineligible.
I note that you still are stuck firmly in the swamp of disengenuous hackery, however, because not all claims of the sort that Prometheus was peddling will fall under 103. If Prometheus’ claims had recited a step of thinking a non-obvious thought about the claims (instead of an obvious one) they’d sail right through both the IPO’s absurd 101 revision and 103.
Again: if you can’t understand why that’s the case in 2017 (!), you lack the intelligence to have the discussion. If you can understand it but you can’t admit it, well, that’s the disengenuous hackitude I’m talking about. Own it. Be proud, David! Hack away. You’re not the only one. But we can all see you. And it’s all archived. That’s the best part.
“I just taught you something ”
Check again on what you “taught.”
You are doing the same old same old and pretending otherwise.
And speaking about lacking intelligence – the old Accuse Others meme in play…
David, do not you think the patent system has had enough gut wrenching statutory changes in the last several years to last a lifetime? We have IPRs. We have CBM’s. We have global public use. We have foreign patent applications being effective prior art in United States as of their filing dates! We do not have a grace period that is worth a damn.
Small changes to the patents statutes have large collateral effects that people do not anticipate. For example, the enactment of 103 back in ’52 still causes problems today. Then we have §112(f) – what a laugh! By codifying infringement into three categories in 271, we got the rule that direct infringement requires one infringer, that contributory infringers have to know they are infringing, and inducers similarly have to know what they are doing is causing patent infringement. All of this was an unattended consequences of the codification effort by Rich.
Monkeying with the most basic statute in our statutory mix, a statute that has not changed its wording in any substantial degree since 1793, is fraught with danger.
As I have said before, I think abstractness within the meaning given it by the early Supreme Court cases has to do with a failure under 112. If one claims an idea, or a law of nature, by itself without means or methods for carrying into practical use, then certainly there is a problem under 112, not so?
Now, you have previously stated that you thought there is something unpatentable about the claims in Bilski. We both know that the Supreme Court declared them to be abstract. But is that why you think the claims in Bilski are unpatentable? And if they are abstract, why? The Supreme Court provided no explanation.
We have to deal with Bilski first before we can begin to discuss Alice.
Ned,
Apparently (as is your typical alignment problem), you fail to grasp that the common denominator is not Judge Rich that you choose yet again to malign (remember / Congress did the enacting, as it is THEIR Constitutional authorized prerogative to do), and that it is – instead – the Supreme Court that is mucking things up.
You really need to stop worshipping the Court when the Court aligns with your Windmill Chases (coupled with ignoring what Congress did in the Act of 1952).
Malcolm whines: “As has been explained to you, to Sachs and to everyone else hundreds of times: you can not “back out of the reasoning” of Mayo and have a working subject eligibility matter filter.”
Your “hundreds of times explanation,” Malcolm has been nothing but you presenting your feelings accompanied with heaps of baseless ad hominem absolutely devoid of any semblance of an inte11ectually honest LEGAL argument.
You return NO dialogues on any counter points presented to your feelings.
That you blight this forum with “hundreds” of such things does in no way make up for the absence of that inte11ectually honest thinking that is required to have an actual dialogue.
This has been pointed out – with numerous tagged examples to Prof. Crouch several times now (in several of his “let’s have a better ecosystem” attempts).
When you want something different, but you keep on allowing the same blight over and over and over…
“anon”, a notorious narcissist bl 0g tr0ll: Your “hundreds of times explanation,” Malcolm has been nothing but you presenting your feelings
Absolutely false and everyone knows it.
When I write that a claim to
old step plus new thought
turns practitioners of the prior art step into infringers merely because they think the “new thought”, that’s not an expression of “my feelings”. That’s an expression of irrefutable logic. It’s the logic that led the Supremes to their holding in Mayo.
And I know that it makes you and Boundy and Underweiser and Sachs very sad when keep bringing this up. But you guys lack the integrity or intelligence to do it yourselves. You really are that low, or that dense.
But the issue never goes away. You better buy another box of kleenex.
[shrugs]
Lol -Kleenex? The Accuse Others meme once more.
Yes Malcolm, your feelings (as that is all that you have), are noted.
Also noted is the number of times that you refused to engage in any sense of inte11ectual honesty when I provided counter points to your “prior at + new” meme.
You either move the goalposts from claims not entirely within the mind to your “example” totally within the mind, or you purposefully clench tight your eyes to the concept of anthropomorphication and the plain fact that machines cannot serve as a proxy for human feelings and emotions (even such regarding “information”), because machines do not have feelings or emotions.
Machines are a statutory category.
Manufactures – of which software, written by the hand of man with the express (defined) purpose of being used in a machine – is, is also a statutory category.
The thought of software (which may be entirely in the mind) is not software.
Your “hundreds of times” B$ has been refuted those very same “hundreds of times,” and time, your same lack of inte11ectual honesty is on full display.
I provided counter points
There are no “counter points”.
It’s not a “meme.” Scrivening some “non-mental” prior art context around some ineligible mental step in order to protect the mental step in that context is something that claim drafters actually tried to do, and failed. It’s that scrivening that the IPO’s “revision” is attempting to promote.
Every reasonable and intelligent patent attorney understands this. Only the honest ones will admit it.
You’re not one of the honest ones, “anon.”
But we all knew that already.
[shrugs]
There have been plenty of counter points.
Your “arguments” are memes – bad ones at that.
Your number one meme of Accuse Others Of That Which Malcolm Does(/Is) is readily apparent from your own false accusations here.
Same old Malcolm.
Your “arguments” are meme
I really thought I’d seen all of the most vacuous and inane responses to Prometheus v. Mayo but the bar just got dropped a little lower. Very impressive!
LOL – classic Malcolm “put down the shovel, as the shovel is in Malcolm’s hands.”
The bar being lowered is merely representative of your so-called “arguments.”
“It’s not a “meme.””
It technically is a meme MM. You need to look up the definition of meme if you think otherwise.
It technically is a meme
Maybe you and your intellectual brosefus “anon” can tell everyone what types of legal arguments and basic reasoning are “technically” not memes and then we can decide whether anyone should care one way or another.
Actually, don’t bother. You can call everything a “meme” if you like. Just another bonding moment for you and “anon.” It’s kinda cute.
“You can call everything a “meme” if you like. ”
Mmmm, not really. But yes, a lot of things in the lawl are memes.
“anon” machines cannot serve as a proxy for human feelings and emotions
LOL Talk about a non-sequitur.
The machines don’t taste as good as your favorite cheeto flavor, either! Deep, deep stuff.
Machines are a statutory category.
Hey lookie! Johnny can read!
You use the word “non-sequitur,” but that word does not mean what you think it means.
The notion of anthropomorphication is very much on point to the “mental steps” doctrine that is on the table for discussion – especially as it involves that “Johnny can read” plain reading of what Congress wrote.
I noticed though that the cat got your tongue in relation to the manufacture aspect.
Funny that – that also is very germane, even though on that point, you have volunteered an admission against your interests in knowing and understanding the controlling law of the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine to which your feelings about software simply cannot square with the law as written by Congress concerning manufactures.
And yes, we have been here before. Many many many times. But each time, you seem to run away from the substantive point of law that does not match your feelings.