Kappos and his $100 Million (10%) Budget Cut

Last week, I reported that the new appropriations for the remaining five-months of FY2011 would force the USPTO to cut approximately $100,000,000.00 from its budget. That figure represents more than a 10% cut in what the office was expecting to spend during this period. Today, USPTO Director David Kappos confirmed my statements in a message to USPTO Employees. He writes:

In view of the funding cuts reflected in the final budget and affecting the U.S. government as a whole, we will be unable to expend the additional $85-100 million in fees that we will be collecting during this fiscal year—funds that we had anticipated being able to use to fund operations this year.

… Further, I am mindful of the fact that we may very well be operating at the FY 2011 level for the foreseeable future. As a result, we have had to make some difficult decisions in order to ensure the responsible stewardship of the agency.

Based on the budget cuts, Director Kappos has announced the following changes for the patent examination corps:

  • No overtime;
  • Hiring freeze;
  • Training limited to “mandatory training”;
  • PCT search funding is cut severely;
  • Detroit satellite office is indefinitely postponed;
  • IT infrastructure investments eliminated except for “mission-critical” issues;
  • Track One expedited patent examination program indefinitely postponed; and
  • Mandatory reductions in expenses including travel, conferences, and other contracts.

The $85-100 million in fees that the USPTO will collect but not be allowed to spend will be passed to the general federal government coffers to be spent on other non-patent projects. These cuts will obviously have a negative impact on patent quality, patent pendency, and examiner morale.

131 thoughts on “Kappos and his $100 Million (10%) Budget Cut

  1. 131

    perhaps one day

    Been there, done that.

    Seriously Ned – it be in black and white.

    Babbs – I think it be you that need ta suck it up, ta chew on it – you simply dont understand the hardware/firmware/software continuum. it be you that dont understand that “algorithm” means more than one thing.

  2. 130

    Babble Boy, perhaps one day the Feds will tackle whether a new program in an old computer is really a new process or a new machine.

    We do have the statute, Section 100, that states that the new use of a known machine is a process.

    Stand up, PTO, and put your foot down. Enter the Section 100/101 rejection that we may learn.

  3. 129

    They know it good and well BB. They know they have no rational underpinning for their beliefs other than it is how they were raised by other misguided attorneytards.

  4. 128

    ping, MEAN, et al., you’re just not tracking the point.

    An algorithm does not have structure, no matter how sure a bunch of nerds are that you have to have a computer to implement the algorithm, the algorithm is a series of steps. Period. End of that story. Suck it up.

    Now, yes, one can argue that the algorithm implies a computer. But that is a different argument. I would agree with it, and I do agree with it. But in order for the computer to be an inherent part [structure] of a claim to just an algorithm, there needs to be explicit input from CAFC that extends the inherency doctrine beyond prior art and to claims.

    Think it through, you guys. It is a complex position, and you have to understand the history of inherency to see it. But you’ve got it in you to see the problem. I know you do. Chew on it.

  5. 126

    TINLA, would or should it have made any difference here if the claim had been construed under Section 116, p. 6?

    The fact that the Feds did so implied that had the claim been construed under Section 112, p. 6, it would have been invalid for lack of disclosure regardless of the fact that the algorithms were well known.

    I raise this point to illustrate the absurdity that is the current Federal Circuit jurisprudence on this topic.

  6. 125

    MM, America disagrees with you, especially the Courts of Law.

    Aristocrat:

    The court held that the “corresponding structure” for a computer-implemented means plus function claim is the algorithm which the computer is programmed to carry out. By describing a computer programmed with a specific algorithm, the patent describes a special purpose machine for performing the function, and thus the inventor has met his obligation under the Patent Act. (Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. v. International Game Technology, 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008))

    Finisar:

    “simply reciting ‘software’ without providing some detail about the means to accomplish the function is not enough” to meet the inventor’s obligation when choosing to write a patent claim in means plus function form. The court did describe some of the ways in which a patent might adequately describe an algorithm to support a means plus function claim element. For example, an inventor might set out in the patent a mathematical formula that, when executed by the computer or microprocessor, performs the function. Alternatively, the inventor might include a flow chart showing the various steps of the algorithm. Or, the inventor might provide a written description of the algorithm to be performed by the computer or microprocessor. Any of these more detailed descriptions of an algorithm can be sufficient to support a means plus function claim element (Finisar Corp. v. The DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008))

    Touchcom:

    Source code or pseudocode can sufficiently describe the algorithm so long as the necessary files to perform the claimed function are provided (Touchcom, Inc. v. Dresser, Inc., 427 F.Supp.2d 730, 735 (E.D. Tex. 2005).

    Elekta:

    Software described in the specification must be clearly linked with the claimed function. (Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F. 3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003))

    Amtel:

    An inventor cannot rely on information from a document that was incorporated by reference as disclosing the corresponding structure necessary to support a means plus function claim. The corresponding structure must appear in the patent itself. But it may be the case that the title alone of the incorporated reference can provide the requisite structure. (Amtel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1999))

  7. 124

    BB, the requirement of 112 para 6 for structure does not apply if the limitiation is not MPF, and that is what the Court decided.

    “Rembrandt’s expert testified that the terms “fractional rate encoding means” and “trellis rate encoding” were used in publications and published patents in the early 1990s, and were self-descriptive to one of ordinary skill in the art. … The invention claimed by the ’236 patent is the novel combination of fractional rate encoding with trellis-coded modulation, two known techniques that were widely thought to be “mutually-exclusive” at the time of invention. … The phrases “fractional rate encoding” and “trellis rate encoding” defined algorithms known to skilled artisans in the early 1990s.”

    So it did not matter whether the algorithm alone is structure. The knowledge of the well-known algorithms corresponding to the recited “means” phrases was enough to satisfy the court that the use of “means” was not intentded to invoke 112 para 6. That is all.

    Of course, there is much case law establishing that disclosure of a computer programmed with an algorithm satisfies the structure requirement for 112 para 6. See below:

    The court held that the “corresponding structure” for a computer-implemented means plus function claim is the algorithm which the computer is programmed to carry out. 6 By describing a computer programmed with a specific algorithm, the patent describes a special purpose machine for performing the function, and thus the inventor has met his obligation under the Patent Act. (Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd. v. International Game Technology, 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008))
    “simply reciting ‘software’ without providing some detail about the means to accomplish the function is not enough” to meet the inventor’s obligation when choosing to write a patent claim in means plus function form. The court did describe some of the ways in which a patent might adequately describe an algorithm to support a means plus function claim element. For example, an inventor might set out in the patent a mathematical formula that, when executed by the computer or microprocessor, performs the function. Alternatively, the inventor might include a flow chart showing the various steps of the algorithm. Or, the inventor might provide a written description of the algorithm to be performed by the computer or microprocessor. Any of these more detailed descriptions of an algorithm can be sufficient to support a means plus function claim element (Finisar Corp. v. The DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008))
    Source code or pseudocode can sufficiently describe the algorithm so long as the necessary files to perform the claimed function are provided (Touchcom, Inc. v. Dresser, Inc., 427 F.Supp.2d 730, 735 (E.D. Tex. 2005).
    Medical Instrumentation and Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F. 3d 1205, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (software described in the specification must be clearly linked with the claimed function).
    An inventor cannot, however, rely on information from a document that was incorporated by reference as disclosing the corresponding structure necessary to support a means plus function claim.17 The corresponding structure must appear in the patent itself. Amtel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (while the corresponding structure must appear in the specification, the title of a paper incorporated by reference may provide the requisite structure).

  8. 123

    Mikey,

    Yet again you want me to do somethin to help you.

    The only thing I actually see you inventing is whining and making excuses.

    Your three grandfathers would definitely have disowned you if they couls see you carrying on like this, beggin for money. Dammmit already, invent a way ta get your stuff done that dont need money.

  9. 122

    I already told ya blockhead get acompetition going with the patent office with immediate awarding so they cant cheat me and ill show ya but you just keep blowing hot air. You definately got hallitosis to. what I call inventing is the most important things in the world. What you inventing is turkey talk.

  10. 121

    They wouldent have had to cut the budget at all if the patent reform act had inventor friendly provisions designed by inventors the recession would be over also. They shouldent let lobbying politicians near reform.

  11. 120

    excuses and excuses.

    Ya seem good at inventin those (well, at least ta what you call inventin).

  12. 119

    We would have been out of recession now with investment in my company. I dont know if they will have another chance now not likley to be another mass inventor like myself for several thousand years my health is not good and the planet may not last that long.

  13. 118

    RMJ,

    OOOOOhhhh, the boogeyman O “bad patents.”

    Ya forgots that we actually have more than one system ta take care O “bad patents” AND teh system dont give unlimited time to make perfect examination (so your point O “bad” patents simply be an inherent part of any system based in the real world.

    Ya can join the rest O the posse who live in fantasy land if ya wanna.

  14. 116

    For the ‘869 patent, “FIG. 1 is a block diagram of a mobile data communications system that includes a PSTN modem embodying the principles of the invention.”

    For the ‘994 patent:

    “FIG. 6 presents one embodiment of a transmitter section for a combined digital and analog system;

    FIG. 9 illustrates the arrangements that permit more than one analog signal source to be transmitted simultaneously;

    FIG. 10 details the major elements in a receiver in accordance with the principles of this invention;

    FIG. 11 presents a block diagram of a receiver that includes adaptive equalization;

    FIG. 12 presents the block diagram of an entire modem;

    FIG. 13 presents a slightly different embodiment of the FIG. 12 modem;

    FIG. 14 depicts one structure for scrambling analog samples;

    FIG. 17 shows a block diagram for a fractional rate encoder, and

    FIG. 18 shows a block diagram for a decoder matching the encoder of FIG. 17.”

    Babble Boy is a babbling id_iot – there is plenty of structure in the specifications to support means plus function claiming.

    Once again, he is simply dropping his shorts to speak his mind.

  15. 115

    It would be interesting to see the spec in this case and just how the two algorithms were discussed. I thing they may have been mentioned as well known algorithms, without more detail.

    If they were such, I suggest that any Fed. Cir. Rule that would hold that there was insufficient description is or was wrong.

  16. 114

    I kil led him by bla ckmailing him with his ID. Technically I was just making him stop his l unatic rav ings, but I guess he figured it safer to just not post. And he said he was busy. If I were you I’d believe him, he does have a company to run.

  17. 112

    Uh . . . if we could get back to the 112, p6 structure requirement issue at hand for a moment.

    It being Easter weekend and all, I would like to, uh . . . resurrect a comment Dennis made on Jul27.09 about the CAFC case Blackboard v. Desire2Learn case (Bryson). I quote Dennis:

    “Important for patent drafter, means-plus-function claims require disclosure in the specification even if the means are already well known in the art.”

    Then he cited Bryson’s Blackboard opinion:
    “The fact that an ordinarily skilled artisan might be able to design a program to create an access control list based on the system users’ predetermined roles goes to enablement. The question before us is whether the specification contains a sufficiently precise description of the “corresponding structure” to satisfy section 112, paragraph 6, not whether a person of skill in the art could devise some means to carry out the recited function.”

    Amen.

    Gajarsa’s Rembrant opinion contradicts Blackboard. According to Gajarsa, ping, NWPA, as long as your “means” clause looks like something that “can mean” an algorithm, then that is good enough for citing structure because everybody knows that algorithms have to be implemented by machines. But determining what everybody knows is not the analysis.

    The real issue here is inherency in claims. Or rather, the lack thereof. The inherency doctrine has been an arrow in the CAFC’s quiver for shooting down claims since at least the 1950’s. But the CAFC restricts inherency to prior art. A feature that is inherent in PA can be used to meet a claimed element in order to make a 102 anticipation charge stick, but try arguing that some element or limitation is inherent in a claim in order to avoid anticipation or Section 112.

    The CAFC has never acknowledged a “Type II” inherency wherein features that are not claimed and not disclosed in the spec are understood to be in the claim nevertheless because they MUST be there.

    Alappat and Rembrant are based on claim inherency, without calling it such; i.e., an element or limitation that is not claimed and is not disclosed but is inherent in the claim – the computer.

    That is what ILoveMPF means by “maps to” – the computer is inherent in trellis encoding means.

    So I would argue that what CAFC needs to do en banc is come clean and say that the Rembrant computer is ‘INHERENT structure’ in the MPF claims and open the door to a new inherency doctrine – Type II – that recognizes that elements and limitations not claimed and not disclosed can nevertheless be inherently present in a claim.

    In the absence of such an inherency doctrine for claims, Gajarsa, ping, NWPA, ILoveMPF are all wrong and Dennis, 6, Bryson, Ned, and I are right. If claim inherency is not permitted, then there is no valid, logical, or honest way to get the computer to be a part of Rembrant’s MPF claim, and there is no valid, logical, or honest way to import structure into an algorithm.

  18. 111

    Hahahahaha – 6 is wrong, and plainly so!

    Diehr cabins both Flook and Benson – this is a mandatory majority holding from Bilski

    In attempting to subvert this and apply the law in the wrong order, 6 betrays his wrongfulness.

    Diehr is the crowning decision – take your Stevens minority view and hit the hills!

    Malcolm also relishes in his own ashes. He was quiet last year when Diehr crushed his petty views and now seeks to rewrite history – but it will not happen – Diehr is the one in the trilogy that reigns Supreme – that is the rule as laid down by the highest Court in the land

    ! ! ! – BILSKI 14 – ! ! !

  19. 110

    6, is it your position that the claim in Alappat is virtually the same as the claim in Flook (a calculation that has a field of use limitation in the preamble) and for this reason the result should be the same?

  20. 109

    Oh, it’s tied to innovation alright. More bad patents, more irrational lawsuits targeting people who really innovate. Ya. That’s a tax, it’s just collected by the patent holders and their lawyers, not the government.

  21. 108

    Oh and I’ll leave you with one more tidbit Ned before I leave you to your studies.

    It is precisely these kinds of cases where the real culprit in the form of an abstract idea that happens to include some math being done is difficult to ferret out because of the overwhelming desire to go with the simplistic allegation of simply a mathematical algorithm being preempt.

    The situation is analogous to a situation where you have two brothers (separated from birth and never met each other) that look a lot alike who are both present at a murder scene. One of the brothers is guilty and one of the brothers is innocent. Only the innocent one is caught and taken in for questioning. The person in charge of IDing the perp they witnessed at the scene picks that brother out of a lineup of other innocent guys. They go to trial, and eventually that brother is let off because of DNA evidence. The actual guilty brother goes free and is never questioned because nobody knows about him. Everyone is still suspicious of the one brother because they’re pretty sure something went wrong (indeed they see a dead body which seems to be murdered).

    In our case we have two judicial exceptions an abstract idea (this abstract idea happens to include as a portion of itself a mathematical idea in addition to other things) and a mathematical algorithm. Everyone is suspicious that something happened because they read a claim that appears on first glance to not pass 101. They’re pretty sure that the perp looks something a lot like the mathematical algorithm and he was easily brought into the station for analysis. The person in charge of doing the analysis thinks it is a pretty close match and argues that the mathematical algorithm is the issue. In fact, when push comes to shove, the mathematical algorithm probably is not wholly preempt in our claim. However, the abstract idea is still out there, waiting to be questioned. And o, btw, he lives at the north pole and isn’t all that easy to find.

  22. 107

    Well at least you have step 1 right. However in the actual inquiry step 2 is exactly the opposite of what you’re saying it is, except after you take the opposite you also need to add some qualifiers ala Flook. Doing the second step arse backwards as you are espousing, and which the Fed did in Alappat only gets the correct answer SOMETIMES rather than all of the time. Indeed, Alappat is PROBABLY a great example of when it f’s up the analysis.

    “The PTO in Alappat contended that the applicant’s claim claim was nothing more than mathematics. ”

    Yeah and in so far as that goes I’m pretty sure that’s where they go wrong in their argument. They attempted the abstract idea analysis on this claim, and correctly found that there is math involved. But the math per se isn’t what is being preempt by the claim, what is actually being preempt is an abstract idea which involves that math in it. That is, they talk about pure “mathematics” per se rather than just an abstract idea that happens to also have some math involved in it. Which is what actually probably should have been written down and used in their argument. Nobody has as of yet bothered to write it down in full, and so it is difficult to know what it is. Like I said, the analysis for this particular claim is very difficult or I’d do it for you myself right now. I get paid big money to spend hours thinking about these things for realz.

    It is pretty easy to write a claim that makes the abstract idea analysis so difficult that 99/100 patent folks couldn’t do it correctly within a reasonable amount of time. This appears to be such a case. For instance, in this case, everyone and their brother went down the mathematical algorithm rabbit hole when the real culprit they were after was an abstract idea which included the mathematical algorithm. However, like I noted above, Alappat himself was apparently chomping at the bit to just spill his guts it seemed, a person like myself would trick him into walking to his own doom in prosecution and call it a day.

    “The Feds held otherwise.”

    That’s pretty much what I’ve been saying Ned. They specifically turned their backs on BFD by essentially holding that so long as there was some structure in the claim then it was golden. That’s the arse opposite of the proper analysis under the second prong. Why does it matter you might be wondering. Because doing that step in such a manner leads to errors.

    “The claims were directed to a machine (means plus function).”

    Yes, they were.

    “The next question is whether the claimed machine is limited to a specific use. Alappat acknowledged the claim was equivalent to a GP digital computer programmed to perform the math. But such IS still patentable under Benson (and Bilski) if the result of the calculations is further limited to a specific, physical use. This they held to be the case in Alappat as quoted above.”

    No, the next question is whether or not an abstract idea is preempt, and you need to keep in mind the principles noted in Flook when you do this last step. Attempting to find out if the claim is limited to “a specific use” is a worthless analysis because that “specific use” might be the ONLY use for the abstract idea at issue and in other cases it might be ALL of the uses. And when either of those happens your claim dies. The only way for a claim to survive the 2nd prong when done properly is for it to be claiming ONLY SOME uses of an abstract idea which has more to spare that you are not claiming.

    Sorry Ned, if you don’t understand by now I’m not going to keep tutoring you. Gl in your studies on your own, but just keep in the back of your mind that your second step is backwards, and perhaps one day you will stumble blindly into what the proper last step is. After you’re read Benson like 10 more times WITHOUT SKIPPING ANY TEXT AND READING IN CONTEXT. You might want to hit Flook and Diehr in the same manner.

    “But such IS still patentable under Benson (and Bilski) if the result of the calculations is further limited to a specific, physical use. ”

    No Ned, that is the fallacy that has been floating around. The thing is, it is enticing to think this way because it leads to the correct answer so often. But on occasion it will lead you astray, precisely because you’re doing the last step arse backwards.

    And to be clear, what they held in Alappat is completely irrelevant regarding 101, the actual analysis is laid out for us by previous cases and when you use it properly the fed circ will submit. You just can’t go up ins alleging all willy nilly that there is an abstract idea being preempt without properly identifying it. Case in point, that MS case that we heard the Federal Circuit oral arguments of the other day.

    “This they held to be the case in Alappat as quoted above.”

    And again, that is specifically why they were PROBABLY wrong. And I say probably, just like I did originally, because nobody has to date bothered to write down a relevant abstract idea (which probably included the math that the pto was so worried about). Of course, there may not be one, and if not, then that makes their conclusion right but with them having taken the wrong way to get there. Specifically they took a way prone to errors.

  23. 106

    6, I think you are approaching an understanding of the basic principles involved in both Benson and Alappat. There are two questions: 1) whether the claim falls in one of the four classes; and even if it does, is it 2) limited to a specific use.

    The PTO in Alappat contended that the applicant’s claim claim was nothing more than mathematics. The Feds held otherwise. The claims were directed to a machine (means plus function).

    Step 1 satisfied.

    I am not sure you agree with this.

    The next question is whether the claimed machine is limited to a specific use. Alappat acknowledged the claim was equivalent to a GP digital computer programmed to perform the math. But such IS still patentable under Benson (and Bilski) if the result of the calculations is further limited to a specific, physical use. This they held to be the case in Alappat as quoted above.

    Step 2 satisfied.

    QED.

  24. 105

    Ned I’m not going to justify your nonsensical babbling with a response but I will tell you what my problem is.

    “What is your problem?”

    That Alappat would have happily admitted that he was attempting to claim the entire abstract idea?

    “Alappat admits that each of the circuitry elements of the claimed “rasterizer” is old. He says they are merely “form.” Thus, they are only a convenient and basic way of electrically representing the mathematical operations to be performed, that is, converting vector data into matrix or raster data. In Alappat’s view, it is the new mathematic operation that is the “substance” of the claimed invention or discovery. Claim 15 as a whole thus claims old circuitry elements in an arrangement defined by a mathematical operation, which only performs the very mathematical operation that defines it.Rather than claiming the mathematics itself, <33 F.3d 1564> which of course Alappat cannot do, Alappat claims the mathematically defined structure. But as a whole, there is no “application” apart from the mathematical operation that is asserted to be the invention or discovery.25 What is going on here is a charade.”

    And indeed probably did:

    “4. Finally, a “general purpose computer” issue has been raised as an aside in this case. The parties agree that each of the “means” elements in claim 15 would find an “equivalent” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. Section 112, Para. 6, in a “general purpose digital computer.” Alappat goes so far as to plead emphatically for recognition of equivalency, saying, “Any employable circuit designer could readily design around claims . . . limited” to two ALUs, two barrel shifters, and one ROM. Brief for Alappat at 21.”

    Sounds to me like he was happy to tell us that he specifically crafted the claim to attempt to get the entirety of the uses of the abstract idea in his claim.

  25. 104

    Now you want to change the subject

    lolz right back atcha Sunshine – I aint changin any subject (goal post movin be your bag, and your project also be your bag – as our favorite Prez (for different reasons) used ta say – “Well, there you go again.

  26. 103

    Once again, in plain English: you were the one who brought up programming “without any structure.” Not me.

    Now you want to change the subject. I can imagine why.

    But you were one who brought it up.

    What do you want to talk about instead, pingagling? You want to talk about composition claims? Method claims? What?

  27. 102

    6, sure I read the case. I also attended the oral argument and went out to dinner with Alappat’s counsel and had a long discussion with him about the case.

    Above I told you the two issues and how they were resolved by the Feds. You doubt me on the specific utility aspect of my remarks, I think. This, however, is what the Feds held. You figure it out from there:

    “Rather, claim 15 is limited to the use of a particularly claimed combination of elements performing the particularly claimed combination of calculations to transform, i.e., rasterize, digitized waveforms (data) into anti-aliased, pixel illumination data to produce a smooth waveform.”

    The data was limited to a particular “physical” utility. What is your problem?

  28. 101

    “,i>You were the one who brought up programming “without any structure,” pingaling.

    Not me”

    lolz – did we pass Sunshine’s 13 minute attention span so quickly?

    MED CHECK !!

    Sunshine, since I be feeling so nice -let share a hint – you go from “algorithm-as-process” to “algorithm-as-structure” by….

    eleven letter word, begins with “progra” and ends with “mming”. And yeah, ya kinda need a structure, dontcha.

  29. 100

    You were the one who brought up programming “without any structure,” pingaling.

    Not me. But because you’re dxmb as a fxcking rock, you can’t keep your own bxllshit, straight.

  30. 99

    Like I’ve been saying

    hmmm, more O that handwaivy stuff.

    Ya know Sunshine, ya say lots. That aint no guarantee that what ya say make sense, be right or anything even remote to either. Ya act like a pompASS 2D man, that just cause ya said something, by golly, the world better fall in line.

    Kinda sad actually. – that’s OK, I be laughin at least.

  31. 96

    Did you even read the case? I’m guessing not.

    6 – reading the case wont help the likes of you.

    Ya need to understand the case.

    You dont.

    Not. Even. Close.

  32. 95

    How can ya forget that Sunshine has programmed?

    Must have been nice to do that without any structure involved…

    That would be nice, but I’ve only programmed computers. Maybe you were dreaming about me doing something magical? That would suprise nobody who reads this blog.

  33. 94

    this be talking about the gov (unless ya now admmittin that ya be with the gov…).

    Like I’ve been saying: you’re DAAFR, pingaling.

  34. 92

    Ned you are completely bonkers. I’m not even going to justify your comment with more than that. Did you even read the case? I’m guessing not.

  35. 90

    NWPA,

    How can ya forget that Sunshine has programmed?

    Must have been nice to do that without any structure involved…

    Like ya say – Magic!

  36. 89

    6, even if Alappat disclosed a CPU programmed to execute the recited calculations, the claim was to a machine — this regardless of whether one limited the claims per 112, p. 6, which was the real controversy in this case.

    The only real question under 101 was whether the claimed machine had specific utility, per Benson, or did it simply calculate numbers with no specific use either claimed or disclosed. Clearly the claimed machine did have specific utility — the claimed rasterizer perfomed an anti-aliasing function on displays.

    Today, Alappat would be a simple case.

  37. 88

    Yes, MM, what Ping said.

    I forgot you like to jab a bit don’t you? “I seem to recall … you thought you were.” Such cutting comments.

    A machine that just does things with no structure. Wow. Pretty cool.

    I guess you never took a circuits class or a computer architecture class. No Mano for you.

  38. 87

    You give Congress far more credit than they’re due, Ned. I could see them passing AIA, and then saying “oops, we didn’t realize it was going to require this much funding for the USPTO to carry it out.” They’ve done that number before. A body driven solely by political expendiency doesn’t worry about the “details.”

  39. 86

    not that I would miss it

    translation: 6 is not trainable.

    How abouts that them there law school stuff 6?

  40. 85

    EG, you know what’s going on as well as I do. Kappos and his fellow harmonization advocates know full well that such a radical change in the law as being proposed is going to require massive increases in PTO budgets for the foreseeable future, but they are keeping mum. They know that Congress would never pass the Patent Reform Bill knowing that it would cripple the systems absent massive increases in PTO budgets during this time of financial chaos, massive unemployment and overwhelming budget deficits.

  41. 84

    Lolz at the one who joins the windmill crusade. You and 6 have some fun on your jaunt. Watch out for them blade strikes.

  42. 83

    “6, what is your prediction? How many fewer Office Actions are going to be issued? How is the 10% drop going to affect you?”

    What is my prediction about that case? My prediction is either the loser at this panel notes the nonsense going on, successfully obtains en banc review and gets it all striaghtened out for us or they do not and go back to the DC and win on other grounds.

    The 10% drop doesn’t affect me except in so far as I cannot work OT and some training will not happen (not that I would miss it).

  43. 82

    I see. That would be folks like me, I guess.

    Ya guess wrong – this be talking about the gov (unless ya now admmittin that ya be with the gov…). Try to keep up Sunshine.

    Please go f yourself.

    Stay classy San Diego.

    What was that comment about your crying to the big D awhile back…? Funny a “Simian” aint even in the same class as the F-bomb droppings you be doin all over the place.

    (Yet note that I aint cryin like a sissy to the Big D – Must be one of those all-grown-up things)

  44. 81

    but the attack aint on “poor people” – it be on the folks giving out money to the poor people.

    I see. That would be folks like me, I guess. Please go f yourself.

    And it’s great to see you jumping up to defend your mouth-breathing script-reciting buddy, bja. You two make a great couple.

  45. 79

    Cmon Federal Circuit how long ya gonna keep playin du_mb?

    Fixed the typo.

    Algorithms are not structures. Never were, never will be.

  46. 78

    nice goal post movin equipment there Sunshine – but the attack aint on “poor people” – it be on the folks giving out money to the poor people.

  47. 77

    bja Cut business services whenever need be, but at all costs, keep the handouts flowing

    Yes, it’s so wrong. If only all those people collecting unemployment and relying on food stamps would just be left homeless to starve for a year or two, maybe they would realize that their true purpose as American citizens is to clean out a real businessman’s toilet for fifty cents an hour. GOB BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!!

  48. 76

    using structural terms

    Y A W N

    been there, done that (ad nauseum).

    Really, this just be beating a dead horse.

    btw – the term ya looking for is “programmed to”

    Structureal terms be according to the art. Cmon sunshine how long ya gonna keep playin du_mb?

  49. 74

    lol, you’re really blaming Republicans?

    Your job is getting cut so that they don’t have to cut handouts.

    Ooooo, bja is so cute when he attacks poor people. Pretty soon he’s going to “go Galt” all over himself. We’ll all be very impressed.

  50. 73

    under the proper abstract idea analysis

    More lolz – that be your ever-so-unimpressive put an abstract thingie in to see if ya got an abstract thingie test?

    Tho I am reminded of the Great Hall challenge I once laid out for you. Ya know the one that you failed miserably (and kept getting sidetracked by your wetdreams of dom Nal)?

    Good chuckles for the weekend.

  51. 72

    I’m sure you’ve read the abomination opinions Allapat and WMS gaming. The only way to change this nonsense which keeps building on itself to create ever larger absurdities is to get a case en banc or to the USSC.

    Lol

    Lol lol lol lol lol lol

    Ah, no wait:

    Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol.

    Seriously 6 – ya wanna talk about tilting at windmills? At least Sunshine does so on his donk ey sitting in the saddle – you be hanging from the stirrups on your quest.

    Supreme chuckles.

  52. 71

    NWPA this is a matter of the functional vs. structural boundary. Does the term convey structure to one of ordinary skill. And, here the answer is yes.

    What’s the structure, NWPA? Please describe, using structural terms, of course.

    Thanks.

    Or are you not one skilled in the art? I seem to recall that you thought you were at some point.

  53. 70

    bad joke Obama extended them because the largest cuts were for lower income tax handouts (no more net negative tax payers).

    Where did you “learn” this, bja?

    Because it’s really fxcking stoopit.

  54. 69

    The thing that NWPA’s analysis doesn’t seem to want to acknowledge is that designating a structure in this way is inherently indefinite as one can pretty much always come up with new ways significantly different from the old ways that still perform the same function as recited in claims like those of the instant case, but one would be hard pressed to come up with a significantly different viable alternative to, say, the classic hinge. In short, just because there might be old ways that support some structural implementations, it doesn’t matter because you went all out and claimed all “equivalents thereof” i.e. the future implementations as well.

    Maybe a simple scope of enablement rejection is what is needed to properly end these types of shinanigans.

  55. 68

    Babel boy, I’m sure you’ve read the abomination opinions Allapat and WMS gaming. The only way to change this nonsense which keeps building on itself to create ever larger absurdities is to get a case en banc or to the USSC. In essence, the fed circ. has held that the description of an algorithm limits the structure which is the target of the 112 6th reference. Such nonsese obviously does an end run around the very understanding which Gajarsa relies upon to invalidate claim 3 where method steps cannot be used to limit a structure (i.e. apparatus or product or feature thereof). But the supar geniuses on a given the CAFC 3 judge panel will not, or cannot (at this point due to Allapat being en banc) correct their obvious mistake even when it slaps them in the face.

    Oddly enough, reviewing the Alappat claim today under the proper abstract idea analysis we can see that the original examiner probably would have won on his 101 merits. Indeed, it was a case before its time made in the dark ages of understanding 101.

    link to digital-law-online.info

    See Judge Archer and his dire warning.

    “and the majority’s holding that Alappat’s rasterizer represents the invention of a machine are illogical, inconsistent with precedent and with sound principles of patent law, and will have untold consequences.”

    And indeed, to this day they produce illogical, inconsistent with pre-allapat sound principles of patent lawl which were subverted by Rich. Even in cases like the instant case where the hypocrisy of their interpretation of lawl comes to slap them in the face they cannot now change it save en banc.

    In their defense, the abstract idea analysis on Allapat’s claim is nearly impossibly difficult to execute for the most genius minds amongst us, much less the humble folks serving on our federal bench. It is a wonder that even Archer managed to figure it out that it needed to be done. But it is less a wonder that Archer failed in performing and enunciating it sufficiently to convince his fellows as the difficulty level is HIGH. VERY HIGH. Indeed, he uses many confusing phrases which his fellows rightfully regarded as no less than nonsense and also had to take time out of his day to smack down many strawmen arguments prior to getting to the meat of his analysis.

    In any event, it has been argued by various attorneys around the web that Allapat might be overruled by Bilski having reaffirmed, in no uncertain terms, the BFD trilogy in just the manner espoused by Archer. The majority in Allapat did not conform to BFD, and left people who would have out in the rain with Archer. Thus with the reaffirmance, one can expect at least the 101 part of allapat might be well taken care of. However, that still leaves what was the “red herring” of the 112 6th para analysis noted by archer and we may well be saddled with that still today waiting on the USSC to save us from the pro-patent nonsense that was so abundant back in the 90’s and still shows signs of being present even today.

    “Alappat admits that each of the circuitry elements of the claimed “rasterizer” is old. He says they are merely “form.” Thus, they are only a convenient and basic way of electrically representing the mathematical operations to be performed, that is, converting vector data into matrix or raster data. In Alappat’s view, it is the new mathematic operation that is the “substance” of the claimed invention or discovery. Claim 15 as a whole thus claims old circuitry elements in an arrangement defined by a mathematical operation, which only performs the very mathematical operation that defines it.Rather than claiming the mathematics itself, <33 F.3d 1564> which of course Alappat cannot do, Alappat claims the mathematically defined structure. But as a whole, there is no “application” apart from the mathematical operation that is asserted to be the invention or discovery.25 What is going on here is a charade. Alappat asks the following:”

    ^ in any event, for fun there is Archer’s abstract idea analysis which was probably correct even though he didn’t take the time to rewrite specifically what the abstract idea at play was. But he goes on to state a few clumsy ways of putting it that are imprecise and likely lead his fellows to not join him. A pity too because 95% of what he said was spot on.

    Bottom line BB, we still haven’t gotten the CAFC to rectify its 112 6th error in Allapat and its progeny.

  56. 67

    I agree with you totally Ned. I can recall telling the AIPLA (I’ve been a member for around 30 years) several years ago (probably during the claim-continuation rules nightmare) that we need a “moratorium” on patent legislation to let the USPTO catch up and remedy the patent examination issues, especially the backlog situation. I was told that was “politically” untenable. I was also told that my comment about the difficulty in conversing with Examiners where English is their second language was considered “demeaning.” So much for trying to provide constructive criticism.

    The burden imposed by the oxymoronic America Invents Act in terms of new procedures (and additional rulemaking) would be daunting enough with an adequately funded USPTO. For Congress to once again effectively “defund” the USPTO of fees already received makes the America Invents Act irresponsible in the extreme. Yet another example of “unfunded” mandates from our “friends” in Congress.

  57. 66

    Or, this is a matter of the functional vs. structural boundary. Does the term convey structure to one of ordinary skill. And, here the answer is yes. So, not MPF.

    The only one who will laugh are the ones that believe that thinking is magical.

    J. Moore I am sure is displeased, since she is on a compaign to hold that a computer configured to perform a method conveys no structure.

    6, what is your prediction? How many fewer Office Actions are going to be issued? How is the 10% drop going to affect you?

  58. 64

    Baabble Boy, anyone reading this case is going to think that the holding is laughable, and indeed it is. While the algorithm implemented in code, and stored in hardware, is physical, the claimed “means for performing the recited algorithm” is by itself entirely functional. Only by the grossest stretch of one’s imagination can one torture the language into structure.

    But they did it anyway and I think the reason is this: their prior case law would hold the claim indefinite because the algorithm itself was not disclosed in the specification in so many words. I haven’t checked but I think this is it. Their prior case law would hold that even if the structure itself were well known that the failure to disclose it in the specification would violate section 112 paragraph 6.

    Now if this thinking is correct, and I haven’t checked it out entirely, then what this case seems to suggest is that the Federal Circuit’s prior case law on this topic is wrong. It is wrong in this way: that if well-known structure is referenced in the specification, that is sufficient. It does not have to be set out in so much detail, because everybody knows what the structure is, how the build it and how to use it.

    So the prior case law to the extent that it does exist that would hold means plus function claims indefinite for failure the set forth in the specification well-known structure must be wrong.

  59. 61

    Comedy.

    Obama extended them because the largest cuts were for lower income tax handouts (no more net negative tax payers).

    All the spin in the world doesn’t change the facts.

  60. 60

    I guess the government is just caught up in the season and is asking the PTO to make bricks without straw…

  61. 59

    I think what the court is saying is that these terms map to hardware:

    “Rembrandt’s expert testified that the terms ‘frac-tional rate encoding means’ and ‘trellis rate encoding [means]’ were used in publications and published patents in the early 1990s, and were self-descriptive to one of ordinary skill in the art.”

    Then he lists some references that look a lot like hardware (eg,US Pat 5,113,401). So, I don’t believe the court looked at this from the angle the terms only covered algorithms.

    What I find strange is the term “trellis encoding means for trellis encoding”. Why isn’t this simply construed as “means for trellis encoding”? If it was, then it would immaterial as to whether one skilled in the art would be able to determine the means for performing the function.

  62. 58

    lol, you’re really blaming Republicans?

    Your job is getting cut so that they don’t have to cut handouts.

    Think about that for a minute, and then maybe you’ll want to question who’s really cutting your income.

  63. 57

    You have to love those Democrat ideals:

    Cut business services whenever need be, but at all costs, keep the handouts flowing.

    This is nuts.

  64. 56

    “Let me have another look. It must be down there somewhere.” — The Dude.

    OK, let me spell it out for you, Dude.

    $100M is not going to the PTO, resulting in hiring freezes, no over-time, longer waits for FOAMs, and Sarah going back to work for Halliburton. Not good.

    $3B is going to Israel in “foreign aid” — a country that has a higher standard of living, higher health stats, and a huge growth rate compared to the US, who is the one sending the money. Bass-ackwards. No?

    The $3B going to Israel is $75M more than Israel got last year.

    Forget the question of why the US taxpayer should be sending “foreign aid” to a country that is richer and is doing a lot better than the US is. Just focus on the connection between the extra $75M going to Israel and the $100M taken away from the USPTO. See it now?

    I like your style, man.

    I like your style, too, Dude. I just got one question.

    Yeah? What’s that, man?

    Do ya’ have ta’ use so many cuss words?

    What the fk you talkin’ about, man?

  65. 55

    Babbleboy,

    Note the memo to the examing corps of 2008 from the Deputy Commisioner of Patent Examination Policy:

    “For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the corresponding structure is required to be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor. The corresponding structure for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm as well as the general purpose computer or microprocessor.” (citing WMS Gaming v. International Game Technology (CAFC 1999))

  66. 54

    Babble: Ping is right that I was a bit sloppy.

    The structure is the portion of the modem that is configured for “fractional rate encoding” and “trellis encoding”.

    If someone said a “hinge means on a door” would you say that was functional or structural? The fact is that if a machine is configured to perform “fractinoal rate encoding” than that conveys structure if it is well-known in the art how to perform this, if it is not well-known in the art how to perform this then it does not convey structure. Why? Because the machine (modem) has to be structured to perform the method. If you know the method, you know the structure. If you do not know the method, then you do not know the structure.

    When a system is said to be configured to perform the method, that conveys a very definite structure to one of ordinary skill in the art of information processing.

    Frankly, you do seem to be in the camp that information processing is magically performed. And you do not seem to get that software is nothing but another way of specifying a machine. How exactly does a machine perform a method of “fractional rate encoding” without any structure?

    Sorry Babbel Boy, if that twists your brain a bit. But, according to your thinking no structural damage will occur in your brain from this.

    New at this? Not hardly.

  67. 53

    “An algorithm is an encoded method and, according to Gajarsa’s upholding the invalidity of Claim 3 in this very same opinion, method steps cannot be combined with apparatus elements.”

    Oh man, this is that same case from the DC back like a year or so ago. Awesome.

  68. 52

    A real good idea is put a satelite ofice in ft. myers where the master inventor can administer the 100 million fund to fund top patent related startups. Previously theyve had to much money spent on no good ideas and ideas only the master inventor can improve on. there working with picked over and incomplete with people who only want a chunk of change to squander and no real concern of long term investment odds improvement.

  69. 51

    Not amused, I am sorry for your specific situation. That said, you are a service provider and liable to the whims of your client. As a contractor for either C…IP or L…IP, you are doubly liable to whims. L…IP laid off half their workforce in 2009, expect at least the same this year.

    If it makes you feel any better, the vast majority of patent attorneys, patent agents, patent searchers, patent analysts, etc. are subject to these exact same whims.

  70. 50

    … and there goes the politicians yet again … stealing our more of our money.

    This is so wrong.

  71. 49

    Babbs,

    I think you are focusing on one version of the word “algorithm” and missing the larger point that NWPA is trying (rather unsuccessfully) to make.

    “Algorithm” indeed can be a process, or method. But it can also be a thing, or a structure. The word can mean both the process and the implemented steps of that process.

    This is reminiscent of the classic hardware/firmware/software continuum.

    You are correct in pointing out that NWPA is a bit off kilter when he says “An information processing method does have physical structure“, in part becuase it is a classic mixing of statutory classes (verbotten).

    But what (I think) NWPA is trying to say is that “algorithm” can mean an implemented algorithm, which then indeed would be a physical structure.

    The ironic thing is that you then step on your own toes by saying NWPA sounds like a “wanna’ be patent prosecutor who hasn’t started studying for the patent bar yet.” – cause it sounds like you are the same – picking at a relative nit and not seeing what NWPA is trying to say. Your inexperience in certain arts is rather evident.

  72. 48

    all fine and dandy unless -your- job evaporates

    Welcome to the desert of the real. That veneer of “government employee” wears just a little and perhaps the idea of “service” may sink in.

  73. 47

    You sound like a wanna’ be patent prosecutor who hasn’t started studying for the patent bar yet.

    This issue is not whether the method has to be implemented by structure. All methods have to be implemented by structure. The point is whether one can claim an algorithm [method] to fulfill the structure requirement of para. 6.

    Focus, dude. Try to track the issue.

    Angles on the head of a pin? Talk about “obtuse” . . .

  74. 46

    As a PTO contractor performing and supervising PCT ISRs and WOISAs, I must tell you that this may well mean the end of my livelihood. All that mirth above is all fine and dandy unless -your- job evaporates… I’d like to thanks the Republicans once again for creating jobs for a new tomorrow. Would you like some fries with that order ma’am?

  75. 45

    of course ide have to admit kapos wouldent have spent the money on something progressive like top patent launch program to produce jobs he is to retartive.

  76. 44

    The only good idea kapos or oboma could have is listening to me but they wont I think its bertism without the thief just stupidity.

  77. 43

    An information processing method does have physical structure.

    Just how do you think information is processed? The method has to be implemented in hardware. It takes space to represent the information and those loops and steps of the method require structure.

    Dunderhead. How many ways do you think there are to implement a loop in hardware? Many. Just as there are many ways to make a hinge.

    Same thing. Same problem. Same idea. No difference, unless you are a dunderhead that thinks that information processing is magic that is carried out by angles on the head of pin. What are you a Stevens/Douglas person that believes that thinking is carried out magically?

  78. 42

    Apparently, you are not capable of seeing the point.

    Structure, as required by para 6, both implies and requires a physical entity. An algorithm is not a physical entity. It is an encoded method that is required for a physical entity — a computer — to do something.

    Consequently, an algorithm cannot supply the statutory structure for a MPF claim. Worse, Gajarsa asserting that the algorithm [method] is a proper part of a MPF claim is mixing statutory classes in violation of his own opinion.

    Dunderhead? Are you a Garjarsa clerk or just thick?

  79. 40

    Just a Projection here.. But the LaDonald has said it a hundred times he is a Marketeer. It’s up here he says. But it can’t be up there. Why? Because he is Marketing what Sarah Palin realized had gone to far afield. So obviously LaDonald is not thinking with what is up There.. I don’t know where he is thinking from either.
    Selling himself well maybe? But that is secondhand Rose.
    Second hand Rose they call me second hand Rose.
    I never bought a single thing that’s new.
    Even the LaDonald he’s a man some adore,
    but their in lies the problem.
    It’s the one’s that he scores.
    Second hand blows, they call them second hand blows.
    LaDonald’s news is really getting old.
    Even Sarah Palin who I now adore,
    had the sense to stop it before all out War…..

  80. 39

    So, how big of a hit will this take on our business?

    10% fewer office actions issued? What you guys think?

  81. 38

    >>OK, so they’re algorithms known in the art. That >>doesn’t make them structure, and structure is >>what Paragraph 6 requires.

    Yes it does. Every bit as much as a mechanical invention. The machine that would have to be built to solve the problem has structure and that structure is determined by the different ways we know how to solve the problem. The corresponding software has the structure of the corresponding physical machine.

    Sheesh. Dunderhead.
    Although, I think you are right about our foreign aid to Israel. Outrageous. That money goes into the bin of a foreign lobby taking our tax money and the military loving it.

  82. 37

    All Obama had to do to see to it that the budget-busting Bush tax cuts on the rich came to an end was . . . nothing. Their expiration would have been automatic this year. But even that feat eluded him. And so here we are discussing PTO cuts that, in the context of our deficit, amount to chump change. When the real problem is that this boy Obama simply has no backbone or heart with which to stand up to our Plutocrats and Oligarchs.

  83. 35

    I don’t follow you there, BB, and I don’t think anyone else can. Proving that “Babble Boy” is an appropriate name.

  84. 34

    I agree, Ned. This algorithm analysis has got me really confused. Maybe I’ve really missed something along the way. When did an algorithm become structure?

    “On appeal, Rembrandt argues that the district court erred by granting summary judgment of invalidity of claims 1 and 2 of the ‘236 patent for failing to disclose an algorithm able to perform the recited functions. ”

    MPF requires a disclosure of structure for performing function. An algorithm is a set of steps that the computer [which is structure] carries out. An algorithm is not able to DO anything. It is 1’s and 0’s.

    An algorithm is an encoded method and, according to Gajarsa’s upholding the invalidity of Claim 3 in this very same opinion, method steps cannot be combined with apparatus elements.

    Has Gajarsa flipped out? He relies on the expert’s opinion: “The phrases “fractional rate encoding” and “trellis rate encoding” defined algorithms known to skilled artisans in the early 1990s. The parties do not dispute this.”

    OK, so they’re algorithms known in the art. That doesn’t make them structure, and structure is what Paragraph 6 requires.

    Besides, since when does PHOSITA or expert testimony determine what statutory class an element is in? That is a legal determination. And a method [i.e. algorithm] ain’t structure by any reading of the law.

  85. 33

    If obama hadent squandered a trillion the previous year then the republican congress wouldent have had to trim spending to avoid bankrupcy. Of course the last democrats president clinton squandered another trillion on the housing meltdown. by not investing in my I. P.plan last year then there was no funds generated to be taxed either.Like ive said before cutting the backlog wont matter because there is onoly 100 patents per year that actually generate jobs Identifying and accelerating examination on those is the only important thing and the 4000 deal wont cut it because indegents are produsing them and the office wants to give them to big business cutting off future inventions. What a mess!

  86. 32

    The district court erred in construing “fractional rate encoding means” and “trellis encoding means” as means-plus-function elements governed by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.

    A claim limitation that “contains the word ‘means’ and recites a function is presumed to be drafted in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6.” Net-MoneylN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2008). This presumption can be rebutted if the claim limitation itself recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function in its entirety. TI Grp. Auto. Sys.’s (N. Am.), Inc. v. VDO N. Am., L.L.C., 375 F.3d 1126, 1135 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that the term “pumping means” in a patent directed to fuel pump assembly technology was not a means-plus-function limitation as the limitation recited not only a pumping means, but its structure, location, and operation).

    In Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., we held that “perforation means” “cannot meet the requirements” of paragraph 6 of section 112 because the claim itself defined sufficient structure. 102 F.3d 524, 531 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

    When determining whether a claim term recites sufficient structure, we examine whether it has an understood meaning in the art. Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[T]he ‘one skilled in the art’ analysis should apply in determining whether sufficient structure has been disclosed to support a means-plus-function limitation.”).

  87. 29

    I got plenty of free time now that I can’t do overtime. And cost of ingredients is obviously covered in the cupcake price.

  88. 27

    Sarah, as you starve to pay your bills, take comfort that the executives no longer spend all their time jetting about the world to visit foreign capitals. They might actually limit their abusive practices to, let’s say, 25% of their time.

    The arrogant abuse of privilege by Obama and his merry crew never ceases to amaze.

  89. 26

    My guess is . . . . ta da:

    REMBRANDT v.AOL, et al.
    2010-1002
    Decided: April 18, 2011

    Man, the day I beat Ned Heller to a case, is the day I apply for a seat on the CAFC bench.

  90. 25

    Help me recall a case.

    There was a recent case where the Feds neatly avoided the corresponding structure issue for a MPF clause in a claim by declaring that the “means for performing the recited algorithm” was well known and for that reason was not a MPF claim within the ambit of Section 112, p. because …..drum roll….. the claim itself recited the corresponding structure.

    I can’t recall the case, so please help. But it was within the last month or so.

  91. 24

    I’m a patent examiner at the PTO. I was working overtime just so that I could pay bills because its so expensive living in the DC area. It really sucks, I feel like I should of never left my engineering job to come here.

  92. 22

    The PTO said it was going to get 2.19 in fees this year and that’s how much it would need in its budget.

    Since, it makes no sense to have the PTO collect the money and spend it because then Congress couldn’t get their hands on the funds to do with it as they please, the money goes back into the general fund. Congress decided to take 100 million from the budget to satisfy some other budget need.

  93. 21

    Explain to me how you can blame Obama for the cuts that the REPUBLICAN CONTROLLED CONGRESS forced through?

    Hiring freeze and no overtime…6-8 year backlog here we come.

  94. 20

    Babble Boy But there have to be cuts somewhere.

    Sure. Cut the military budget by 20% (we’d still be the world’s biggest spenders by far) and raise taxes on millionaires and upwards. Problem solved. Bye bye deficit!

    The US is strapped, as Michele Bachman keeps reminding us.

    You do understand that Republican concern for the deficit is a joke? Republicans don’t care about the deficit. They pretend to care about it merely as an excuse to cut taxes for their rich, corporate constituents. Doing absolutely *nothing* except allowing the so-called Bush tax cuts to expire would do more to reduce the deficit than any Republican plan that has been proposed.

    As a simple matter of economic policy, the budget deficit is of little consequence right now. Let me know if I need to link everyone yet again to the chart showing the current unemployment situation in this country.

  95. 19

    Man talk about squandering and mismanagement First Oboma gives out a trillion dollers to cities that dont even know what to do with it by selling off our currancy backing gold instead of investing in selective top intellectual property startups to produce real jobs then when the crunch comes he cuts the return of the inventors money so no top ip program can start there either. Genuinly the most Jobs and prosperity retartive man in history.

  96. 18

    Washington is one vicious shell game. Current revenues being used to pay for search/examination of applications filed years ago. There are a lot of similarities with MediCare.

    If I ran my law practice that way, I’d lose my ticket and join Blagovich in the slammer.

    But there have to be cuts somewhere. The US is strapped, as Michele Bachman keeps reminding us.

    Nevertheless, there is always enough US taxpayers’ money to keep Israel going and growing — now growing last year a rate of 4.5%. While Kappos has to freeze hiring and overtime, Obama’s new budget deal sends over $3 billion US tax money to Israel — up $75 million from the 2010 budget. Just the increase is enough to keep Kappos ticking along.

    It is no wonder technology investment and patent filings are climbing through the roof in Israel. US taxpayers are footing the education, the research, the venture capital, and the patent examinations while their own patent office takes a $100 million hit. And Israel has a higher standard of living and a higher standard of health than the US. The Israelis should be sending aid to the US.

    Of course, the US politicians well know that they themselves will eventually get millions of the Americans’ dollars they send to Israel — the kickbacks come in the form of donations from AIPAC and other Israeli lobbying groups, companies, and individuals.

    One vicious shell game. And so it goes.

  97. 17

    And I really wanted to work there…, hiring freeze nooo :(
    This was my backup plan after law school, now I need a new backup plan grrr…

  98. 15

    a host of new post grant procedures

    How exactly are those gonna be paid for…?

    Is Congress beholdin to the President’s Executive Order? Where’s the HMS Boundy to review this obvious clash O intentions.

  99. 14

    sacre blue 6 – I thought you and your slashdot buddies that there wasnt any innovation in patents. So how can you have an “innovation” tax on something that aint tied to innovation?

  100. 13

    Lolz too on the fees for extra pages and extra claims – fees gathered but no actual adjustments for the eventual work to be done.

    The only “Guru”-ness needed is the shell moving, ala Monte style.

  101. 12

    Still a bombshell though. Especially cutting overtime for a workforce used to having it.

    corrected.

  102. 11

    Maybe we should hold a bake sale or something. I hear cupcakes are super trendy these days.

  103. 9

    EG, with a brand new law changing everything about prior art, and a host of new post grant procedures; the patent office was going to be overwhelmed and bogged down for years as it was. Can you imagine all the rule changes and training the new law would require!

    In the midst of budget cuts and freezes and record filings and backlogs, now is not the time to be enacting new patent laws. What the legislation should include is at least a doubling or tripling of the PTO budget in the near term until the kinks have been worked out.

  104. 8

    Since the beginning of FY 2011 (October 1, 2010), I thought the PTO was forced to operate on FY 2010 appropriations as required by the series of Continuing Resolutions.

    FY 2011 appropriations have now been passed with $100 million less than what the PTO expected to collect in fees this FY.

    Does this mean that FY 2011 appropriations are actually less than the FY 2010 appropriations? I just assumed that the FY 2010 appropriated amount was way less than the FY 2011 requested amount (i.e., greater than $100 million). Is this not the case? Or do I not understand this whole budget thing?

    Somebody please explain. Thank you.

  105. 7

    The one thing that should have been in “patent reform” (adequate funding for the USPTO) but isn’t. This makes the America Invents Act a total sham.

  106. 6

    David, they already have that system in place for everybody. Examination fees paid in 2007 for cases filed in 2007 is money spent in 2007. Even though those cases are not being reviewed till today.

    Today’s application fees (and maintenance fees) pay for examination of those four year old cases. This is why the PTO had a hissy fit when application numbers started dropping in 2009-2010. They needed that money to examine cases from 2006!

    Still a bombshell though. Especially cutting overtime for a workforce used to earning it.

  107. 3

    Keep up the good work Congress! Nickel and dime the only agency that actually generates money.

  108. 2

    Wow! This is equivalent to an atomic bomb in terms of the office’s budget. If only the office could make deferred examination available and still collect the examination fee
    that they’re used to receiving, then those that don’t want immediate examination could drop out of the cue and reasonable examination would still be available for the rest.

  109. 1

    IMO just put into place a tax on innovation! That’ll work this whole deficit thing out! Oh wait… missing a couple of zeros I think.

Comments are closed.