by Dennis Crouch
In an earlier post, I mentioned recently issued U.S. Patent No. 8,196,213. During prosecution, the examiner rejected the pending claims as improperly claiming unpatentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. In particular, the PTO submitted that the claimed “computer readable storage medium” could encompass transitory signals, which are themselves unpatentable. In response, the applicant (Microsoft) amended the claims by adding an express limitation excluding “signals” from the claim scope. The amended claim begins: “1. A computer readable storage medium excluding signals . . . ” This change satisfied the PTO and the patent quickly issued. The original patent application document did not discuss signals or directly define computer readable media other than having the functional qualities of being able to “store data that is accessible by a computer.” However, the application did list several examples of computer readable media, including “magnetic cassettes, flash memory cards, digital video disks, Bernoulli cartridges, random access memories (RAMs), read only memories (ROMs) and the like.”
In a one-question survey, I asked Patently-O readers “does this patent claim violate the written description requirement?” As discussed below, most readers (~75%) agreed that amendment did not invalidate the claim.
Of the 850 responses, almost half (46%) suggested that the claim is valid because the amendment does not go beyond what was originally described in the specification. In its 2012 memo to examiners, the USPTO argued as much:
A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. . . . Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure.
See 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb 23, 2012). I have some amount of difficulty understanding the explanation given by the PTO — that no new matter problem is created by the amendment “because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.” While the USPTO’s interpretation of the law is important during the prosecution process, no deference is given to this type of analysis when a court later considers a patent’s validity.
Another 22% also suggested that the claim is valid because “negative limitations such as this need not be disclosed in the original application.” And 4% argued that the limitation should be ignored because it is found in the claim preamble.
Only one option in the survey led directly to an invalidity conclusion. 26% of responses suggested that the claim limitation excluding signals from the scope was improper because that limitation was not disclosed in the original application and that the claim is therefore invalid under the written description requirement.
In my mind, this entire discussion is ridiculous. The invention in this case (as in several hundred thousand other cases) is a bit of software. Yet, because of these odd rules setup by the U.S. Supreme Court (and their interpretation by the PTO) applicants feel they cannot be straightforward enough to simply obtain a patent on the software.
*****
In the above discussion, I jump quickly between “new matter” and “written description” doctrines. During patent prosecution, the two doctrines are relatively inseparable. The PTO tends to issue new matter rejections under 35 U.S.C. 132. Once a patent issues, the facts that would have created a new matter rejection at the PTO lead courts to invalidate claims for failing the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112.
“Business Methods, it is clear that the people who argue that business methods are eligible for patenting other people have an agenda. The Supreme Court did not hold this. Rather they held that business methods are not categorically excluded. There is a difference.”
No Ned, there is no difference.
The claims are eligible to be classified in one of the four enumerated categories.
Business methods have always been eligible to be classified in one of the four enumerated categories.
When you and your fellow Sophist argued that business methods should be held patent ineligible in Bilski, the Supreme Court expressly refused to do so and in effect upheld their eligibility.
These are the plain facts without any games, agendas, semantic word play, or sophistry.
Business Methods are Patent Eligible Subject Matter.
Always have been.
And hopefully always will be.
As I recall, the same question has been put to you for the better part of a month now without you supplying a straight forward and honest answer.
Why is that, Ned Heller?
Circle the illogical once again with Diehr being overturned by Prometheus where no such thing occurred (based on the actual and carefully chosen words of the Supreme Court).
Ned, you are chasing your tale running in circles.
This road has been already traveled and avails you not.
Anon has explicitly and clearly pointed out the multiple and proper legal meanings of the term.
You have only confused those contexts in all of your comments, Ned Heller. It is you that is not using the term in its proper legal significance. It is you that is the problem.
It is quite clear who is playing the Sophist and it is not Anon.
No it has multiple conventional meanings, depending on context. When used by the Supreme Court, it has one meaning.
Mr. Word, why do you protest so much? What is your agenda. Why do you refuse, absolutely refuse to use the phrase authored by the Supreme Court in Bilski?
If a business method is not subject to one of the exclusions, and is new and is useful, it passes 101.
A business method does not pass 101 simply because it is a method. Not all methods, machines, manufactures or compositions are eligible as a matter of law. All must be new and useful, and all must not be subject to the exclusions.
That is what I agree to.
And that would be you Ned the Sophist as has been explained numerous times , the word has multiple legal meanings depending on context between singular claim and category.
It is you that is using the term contrary to the proper legal sense by conflating the context of singular claim and category.
How much more clearly can this be stated? The only way you can not understand this is by choosing not to understand.
There is no problem using the term if one notes the context with which one is using that term.
And yet, you have repeatedly, and no doubt purposefully, misused and conflated the context in talking about singular claims and categories of subject matter.
How is that so many point this out to you, and yet you continue with the same purposeful conflation, AND at the same time accuse everyone else of conflating and causing confusion?
There is clearly only one single person misusing the term. Only one single person attempting to play word games. There is no need to find a different term. There is only need for you to stop conflating the context of the term between singular claim and category of subject matter.
This is not up for debate.
“No claim, no class, no category is categorically eligible for patenting. But that is what you suggest when you say that “business methods are eligible for patenting.”
Ned, that is simply not true.
If I invent a conventional machine I can get a patent on the claims of my invention under at least the machine category.
Like wise, If I invent a business method I can get a patent on the claims of my invention under at least the method/process category.
Now of course I understand that all claims have to pass other test and analysis to actually become patented.
But if the claims fit into one of the four enumerated categories the claims are “eligible” for patenting.
Do you deny this?
Mr. Serious, you know you are arguing Rich's point from Application of Benson?
1. Machines are eligible. Genus
2. Programmed computers are machines. Species.
3. Programmed computers are eligible. Logically follows.
See the logic?
The problem is that 101 require for patentablity not only "machines" but, also, "new" and "useful."
What Rich tried to do in Benson, and later expressly in Bergy, is remove from 101 "new." He expressly stated in Bergy that by splitting 101 from 102 in the '52 Act that congress intended that 101 be a threshold issue and that questions of novelty had no place in 101.
Diehr endorsed that view.
But that view is wrong and has now been overturned by Prometheus.
Mr. Sophist, when someone intentionally uses a term that has a specific legal meaning in a sense contrary to that specific legal meaning, then the person who uses that term in that contrary sense is the person who is trying to cause confusion.
anon want to use the term in its ordinary meaning where the meaning has legal significance. That is the problem.
Mr. Word Games, aka, Mr. A Hole, no it is I who have carefully explained the Supreme Court holding to you. You carefully explained to me what "eligible" means from a dictionary point of view, ignoring that the SC has used the term very selectively to mean one thing and one thing only: that a claim is patentable under 101. They do not mean that a claim or category of claims are eligible for patenting generally, or even eligible for patenting under 101. They mean, the claim is statutory under 101: eligible.
Using that meaning, the term "business methods are eligible" means they are eligible under 101. That is what it means. And, this means they are statutory under 101. It does not mean they are possibly eligible, or candidates for eligibility, or anything of that ilk. The meaning is specific.
However, even since Bergy, the courts have noted the confusion caused by the use of the term. It is best that we all find and use a different term to avoid confusion.
Ned, if business methods falls under a certain class or category, why would business methods not be included in that class or category?
Serious,
And for clarity please note I am not referring to any specific claim. I am only referring to the category or class.
Clear sophistry and obfuscation:
“If “eligible” means a claim passes 101, then the phrase “business methods are eligible” has a clear meaning.”
Once again, in one sentence you have used the elgibility dicussion of the singular (claim) with the category (plural: methodS).
This is NOT a case of using “eligible” in a non legal sense, as Anon has rightfully (and fully in context) pointed out to you nigh a month ago exactly the proper context the discussion should be held under and IT IS YOU that perpetually attempts deliberate confusion by messing up the singular and category notions.
You are clueless as to even your most blatent sophistry.
“conflate what you do with my position.”
I’m pretty sure that there is no conflation in Anon’s stated explanation.
In fact, it is clear that the only conflation is Ned Heller’s conflating context between singualr and category.
And yet, he never seems to want to address that difference…
Mr. A Hole, no I am not.
If "eligible" means a claim passes 101, then the phrase "business methods are eligible" has a clear meaning. What you are doing is using "eligible" in a non legal sense and thus are confusing things. Even Rich noted in Bergy the confusion cause by the use of the term "eligible."
My I respectfully suggest, Mr. Hole, that you stop being an A, and start using the term the way is used by the Supreme Court — "not categorically excluded from eligibilty."
“then please explain, slowly that all of us can understatnd, why the SC did not say that “business methods” were eligible subject matter for patenting and not what it did say, that they were not categorically excluded.”
The words of the Supreme Court were already carefully and slowly explained.
You chose to play the Umbrage game and ignore the poster that posted the answer.
Why should someone try to tell you again?
“What I am also saying, however, is that no class of subject matter is categorically included.”
Again with the padantic word tricks.
No one is saying anything is categorically included. This has been pointed out like a bajizillion times. No one, not even the Court uses that terminology. Why are you?
Once again Ned is obfuscating the discussion betwen the context of singular claims and category discussions.
For shame, you sophist.
More, If, as you say then, "elibible" applies to 101 in the sense that "business methods are eligible" means that the question of their eligibility under 101 is to be determined, then please explain, slowly that all of us can understatnd, why the SC did not say that "business methods" were eligible subject matter for patenting and not what it did say, that they were not categorically excluded.
Make it slow and clear.
We wait.
Now, then, you might also explain to us that when a court finds that subect matter passes 101, they hold that such subject matter is "eligible?" What do they mean?
“May I politely suggest that we are not communicating.”
That happens Ned when you refuse to provide simple answers to simple questions and instead insist on your prevarications and agenda hunting tactics.
To communicate, try to give simple answers to the actual questions being asked of you. Stop avoiding giving actual answers to the actual questions by continuing to peddle your false positions of Ned-desired “law.”
Worth saving from the vanishing third page:
Drinking and laughing at 6, with NAL, AI, JAOI, and Ping! said in reply to A Dark Light…
6 simple points for simple 6:
“1) I am not AI.”
LOL! Quick let’s get Ned in on this. He is scare sheetless of AI too! Only thing that scares him more is anon’s questions. Ha Ha Ha!
“3) You realize of course that the portion of Flook allowing dissection was overruled in Diehr, and that Diehr still holds even though Prometheus contradicts it, right?”
Uh Oh! 6 brain just froze! The Anti Patent crowd runs from reconciling Promotheus with Diehr, like MM ran from the POD debate with NAL! Get those skirts out ladies!
“4) You still cannot win for losing, as my post at 10:39 PM holds true.”
LOL! 6 just got B slapped!!
“5) Repeating your worthless position does not add any worth to the position.”
LMAO! 6 got double B slapped!!!!
“6) You remain a clueless tard, unable to even recognize when you have been B-slapped in a conversation. It’s amusing in an odd slapstick manner.”
Spittin beer out my nose! 6 totally owned!
This is better than a three stooges marathon!
lolololol!
Reply Jun 14, 2012 at 06:09 PM
Poor Ned, right from the get-go off in the weeds again.
“The eligibility aspect of the statement pertains to section 102/103/112. It does not pertain to section 101. Assuming this is correct”
NO, NO, NO, a billion times NO. Eligibility is a 101 question. Patentability is a 102/103/112 question.
These are terms of art. Use them correctly or do not partake in a discussion on the matter.
“except perhaps for new and useful machines, processes, manufacturers and compositions of matter.”
Again, off into the weeds and completely missing the simple logic laid before you. You make things unnecessarily complicated by saying this and then proceeding to the exceptions. Why the tom-foolery in even putting this thought out there? It is comepletely unnecessary. The “nominal” and “substantive” aspects is likewise completely unnecesary and unduly complicates things.
As to the singling out, it is way beyond clear that it is you that singles things out. Why are you still even trying to pretend otherwise?
"Eliminate a whole category."
This is where you and your fellow soldiers of trolldem conflate what you do with my position. I contend that the Supreme Court held that subject matter such as "business methods" were not categorically excluded. I am not saying that any category is excluded. What I am also saying, however, is that no class of subject matter is categorically included.
But that is exactly what you do when you state that certain subject matter such as business methods are categorically eligible for patenting. They are not. No claim, no class, no category is categorically eligible for patenting. But that is what you suggest when you say that "business methods are eligible for patenting."
Business Methods, it is clear that the people who argue that business methods are eligible for patenting other people have an agenda. The Supreme Court did not hold this. Rather they held that business methods are not categorically excluded. There is a difference.
As I explained to anon, the courts seem to use the word "eligible" in the sense that if a claim is eligible for patenting, the claim is statutory under section 101, but still may not be patentable under sections 102/103/112. Eligibility is intended to move the legal question from 101 to 102/103/112. Thus when somebody says that a class of subject matter is eligible for patenting, they intend to move the subject of the conversation from 101 to 102/103/112. In other words, they intend to do exactly what the Supreme Court did not intend to do.
Anon,
May I politely suggest that we are not communicating.
1. Is apparent to me that no claim or class claims is categorically eligible for patenting.
2. The Supreme Court however has found that in least two cases that certain subject matter are not categorically excluded, these include programmed computers and business methods.
3. I believe that the Supreme Court and the lower courts are using the term "eligible" in the sense that a claim that is "eligible" qualifies as patentable subject matter. The eligibility aspect of the statement pertains to section 102/103/112. It does not pertain to section 101. Assuming this is correct and I think you do agree that this is correct, stating that a claim is eligible means that a claim passes 101.
4. From the above we can state that certain subject matter is not categorically excluded. However we can also conclude that no subject matter is categorically included except perhaps for new and useful machines, processes, manufacturers and compositions of matter. However, even these are subject to the exceptions and that if a claim is nominally to a process, it is still may fail section 101 if, despite its outward form, it claims a law of nature, for example. What the courts seem to suggest aspect is that claims may have a nominal aspect and a substantive aspect. Determining which is the case actually requires a novelty analysis, what in the claim is new.
5. Regards a wall the above, you seem to suggest that I'm singling out certain subject matter for special attention. I think rather it is not me that is doing this. Rather, anyone who suggests that certain subject matter, for example business methods, are categorically eligible for patenting are intending to mislead.
Regardless of Ned’s nearly continuous obfuscation efforts and pedantic wordplay (and steadfast refusal to honestly answer questions put to him), there really is a straight forward application of law, and a proper ensuing discussion of patent eligibility.
The four enumerated categories dictate the categories of eligibility at teh most macro level of abstraction.
Any sub-category of the four enumerated categories, being a category that is part of the enumerated category, falls under the same discussion of eligibility – as a category.
There are no exceptions. Medical methods are not an exception. Business methods are not an exception.
This is clear and straight forward.
ALL individual claims, for ANY single and particular application that falls under ANY enumerated category – and thus under any sub-category – must still be evaluated for eligibility in its own right.
There are no exceptions. Individual claims that can be categorized as Medical methods are not an exception. Individual claims that can be categorized as Business methods are not an exception.
This is clear and straight forward.
ANY – and I do mean ANY attempts to twist this understanding to eliminate whole categories of matter as ineligible based on a category designation is the work of a Sophist and a perverter of law who is obviously out with a targeted agenda. There is no legal justifiable reason to pursue philosphical paths based on sub-categories of matter.
This too is clear and straight forward.
“However, if it turns out that the only thing new is the particular musical score, then the claim takes on a whole new aspect.”
But should that whole new aspect be one of patent eligibility or patentability?
There is a clear difference between the two and only a sophist would try to eliminate a whole category due an eligibility standard when a machine is clearly one of the four enumerated categories and the instant example should be eliminated on patentability standards.
Ned,
Is it not you that uses fallacious arguments making you in effect the Sophist here? I have not seen anyone, not even Les argues music should be patentable subject matter. So let’s burn the straw and get back on topic.
You Ned Heller, have a fundamental belief that a Process by itself should not be patentable subject matter thus your agenda against business methods, software, medical methods and the like.
You want to make an argument that business methods and software are just series of instructions which should be artificially labeled abstract ideas and declared non statutory.
And although you have tried every dirty trick in the book to make that case you have failed because….
There is nothing in the constitution, the statute, or the case law that says a process by itself is not patentable subject matter.
And there is no Court case that requires any machines, transformations or technology in the claims at all.
You lost that battle in Bilski.
Lost it again in Prometheus.
And lost it in Congress with the new AIA.
Business methods and software are statutory and there is nothing you can do about it.
Ned would have you believe that he is on the side of the innovator. But how can that be when he is against innovation rewards for entire categories of subject matter?
Beware fo the mirror man, throwing his poisoned reflections of non-reality about.
Ned will never answer these questions.
Ned is a coward.
Ned is Yeller!
ANSWERS FROM NED!
Why do you single out as a topic business methods?
Why the inconsistency in the disparate treatment of categories of methods?
Why the agenda against business methods in particular?
Your response (as I cannot yet call it an answer) has slid into the third page and is not yet recoverable.
But here is my response to your response:
You state “if you need 200 words…” in a misleading turn of phrase, as I explicitly began my piece with “Ned, let’s put this on the table in its entirety.”
I did this for several reasons, not the least of which is your tendency to misconstrue context. And misconstrue you continue to do.
My several paragraphs on the critical difference between singular and group is completely ignored. Somehow you want to make the distinction between the top level category only and all else. That is simply legal error and is unfounded and unsupported by any legal theory or notion except for your agenda.
Further, “I believe I have responded to that post, just not like you wanted” is indeed correct. And you still have not. I did not call for a mere “response” – I called for answers.
You have not yet given me answers.
First point: consistency. When I say consistency, I do not mean the consistency of your attack on the distinct and particular category of business methods. You are only consistent in your inconsistency. I clearly indicated that the consistency that I am calling your attention to is consistency BETWEEN categories. This is plainly evident with my mention of medical methods – another point you have simply ignored. It was only in half-jest my mention of having a summer intern catalogue your responses and tally how lopsided against a psrticular category of methods patents – and in fact how inconsistent you are when it comes to discussions of categories. I really don’t need any such research. I no longer wait for you stipulation. It is a fact that you are inconsistent.
This brings me to the question you STILL have not answered: Why? Note in particular that I am not asking “whether?” which is the question you insist on answering – and answering falsely. There is no question as to whether. The question is “why?”
Why do you single out as a topic business methods?
Why the inconsistency in the disparate treatment of categories of methods?
Why the agenda against business methods in particular?
Merely saying feebly in your response that you do not do so is as unavailing as it is untrue.
Your statement of “I speak out endlessly about any statement that a particular class of subject matter other than the four listed classes ARE patent eligible subject matter without any qualification whatsoever.” is false on several levels. It is false as a statement onto its own, as even the four classes must still be vetted for patent eligibility – your use of “categorically” continues to be false and misleading. It is false as you speak out endlessly only on one particular class and have never spoken out on any other particular class.
AS I look at the sum total of comments on this subject, there is also a major difference between us Ned and one that leads to my superior position in this debate and in my general knowledge of law.
I look at people’s inputs and absorb them. You choose to ignore anything that you don’t like. You try to stick to your position even when such is shown to be weak and misguided. Take for example the discussion on set theory and the Supreme Court choice of language. A clear and rational expression of how the different abstract layers have been and should be viewed and you choose to ignore in its entirety with no logical reason given. You choose to mock that person and tell them to tell that to the Court – as if the Court would reproach that theory. In the court’s chosen language, the facts concerning the Supreme Court and their lessor level of patent law expertise only serves as a “obligatory fulmination” when perfectly valid rationale is supplied for reasons to choose better language.
Your vehemence is sorely misplaced.
“Obligatory fulmination” indeed, especially as can be seen that it is you that is ignoring the meaning of the words, and purposefully taking the discussion of eligibility out of the proper context of singular instance to category discussion as well as you continue to play word games with the improper use of the word categorically versus as a category.
Ned, the questions you need to ANSWER – and not just respond to – are:
1) Why do you inconsistently – and improperly – apply a category level view of eligibility to one category – at an abstraction level below the four enumerated categories
2) Why do you have an agenda against this particular (sub-)category of subject matter?
Answers (and not mere responses) are still required.
We are appraoching the month mark since I first posted these straight forward questions to you. The fact that you have not given straight forward answers screams so loudly, that your meager “responses” cower and hide in the absence of truth from you.
“Breyer is going to be a chargin’ his laser and disintegrating that np bro. Gl with your tar dation.”
6, you, you are not a T-ard, you are a Tard-ette! Breyer made his rationale for dissection clear in Prometheus. And as wrong as it was, he is still bound by his own analysis. (See below).
“Fourth, to consider the three steps as an ordered combi nation adds nothing to the laws of nature that is not al ready present when the steps are considered separately. See Diehr, supra, at 188 (“[A] new combination of steps in a process may be patentable even though all the constitu ents of the combination were well known and in common use before the combination was made”). ”
I seriously doubt he will go beyond that reasoning and risk an all out confrontation with the conservative majority over Diehr. (Steven’s was the last liberal dog to try that and look how that turned out!) Point is a skilled draftsman can easily get around that analysis, which serves Breyer right for starting such a game in the first place. And even if Breyer does have the “power” to continue to move the goal post so to speak, you, 6, do NOT have any such power. You are bound by the analysis and the Courts holding. And Patent Attorneys will continue to kick your buttt all day long, at the PTO, BPAI, CAFC, and The Supreme Court!
So take that Beach!
Okay I finally found my post you were referring to and reread your explanation above.
Thank you. Very enlightening and informative.
I understand at a more in depth level now, even though I always knew just from simple logic that Ned’s reasoning was wrong.
“”business method” is one of the four enumerated categories, because the four enumerated categories are the top level sets. Between the top level sets and the individual application is an abstraction layer called categories.”
Yes, makes perfect sense. I doubt you will see any cogent response from Ned on your above point. He will give you the same excuse he gives anon and say the iphone ate his homework. Followed by the customary, you must be AI.
Another repeated post as the show more comments link continues to misfire:
Serious,
Your point 4 in response to Ned below is a (slight) mistatement. It is just not germane whether or not “business method” is one of the four enumerated categories, because the four enumerated categories are the top level sets.
Between the top level sets and the individual application is an abstraction layer called categories. Don’t be like Ned and be easily confused by the label “categories” in comparison to the top set level of “enumerated categories.” “Categories” are merely subsets within (completely within) the top level sets.
When one discusses eligibility of anything other than an individual application, one is discussing eligibility as pertains to a group or category. As Anon points out, this discussion of “eligibility” must not be confused with a discussion of eligibility at the individual application level.
Yes, business methods are a subset of the statutory category of process.
Yes, as a category, business methods are eligible.
As Anon states, this does not mean that any one individual and particular claimed business method is patent eligible. This is decidedly NOT due to Bilski. This is simply the meaning of patent law and applies universally to all any one individual and particular claimed method of any kind.
“What I do which is different”
Ned,
What you do is engage in pedantic word play.
What is the difference between your new phrase (and it is new, and I doubt even Anon has had a chance to comment on your new set of invisble clothes) of “statutory” and the previous position of “categorically eligible?”
Your last sentence belies your entire argument, as that is exactly the distinction that Anon has been trying to drive home with you: the distinction between an individual particular case and any discussion of group or category eligibility.
If only you would “get it.” I doubt that you ever will. Even your comment of “take your set theory to the Supreme Court” indicates that the basic logic eludes you.
You simply have no clue that you are babbling incomprehensibly. You cannot change to begin to make sense because you don’t even realize that you don’t make sense.
No Ned,
You are conflating the singular and group category ideas as Anon continuously beats you up over.
Bilski was a singular case. Bilski does not and cannot stand for all business method patents. Bilski as a singular case was ruled ineligible not because it was a business method, but rather because it was an abstract idea. It did not make it even to being a method patent under the law.
You really are horrible at understanding case law, aren’t you?
No Ned,
You are once again misunderstanding Prometheus.
Re-read pages 20 and 21 very carefully.
You have to realize that Prometheus was indeed decided. And since the Court refused to entertain 12/103/112, the only basis even available for the decision was 101, which mandates that 101 was used as a threshold issue decider.
“When somebody states that a particle claim or category of subject matter ARE patent eligible, I take issue with the statement as it suggests that a particular claim or category have the same statutory sanction as the four listed classes.”
I simply wish to point out more dishonesty on your part.
1. A particular claim is not a category or class.
2. A category or class is essentially the same thing. See the Websters definition below:
“class |klas|
noun
1 a set or category of things having some property or attribute in common and differentiated from others by kind, type, or quality : the accommodations were good for a hotel of this class | a new class of heart drug.”
3. Processes are part of the four enumerated categories or classes.
4. A business method is not one of the four enumerated categories or classes itself but is merely an application of an idea.
Therefore business methods are statutory.
PERIOD!
“When somebody states that a particle claim or category of subject matter ARE patent eligible, I take issue with the statement as it suggests that a particular claim or category have the same statutory sanction as the four listed classes.”
I simply wish to point out more dishonesty on your part.
1. A particular claim is not a category or class.
2. A category or class is essentially the same thing. See the Websters definition below:
“class |klas|
noun
1 a set or category of things having some property or attribute in common and differentiated from others by kind, type, or quality : the accommodations were good for a hotel of this class | a new class of heart drug.”
3. Processes are part of the four enumerated categories or classes.
4. A business method is not one of the four enumerated categories or classes itself but is merely an application of an idea.
Therefore business methods are statutory.
PERIOD!
“When somebody states that a particle claim or category of subject matter ARE patent eligible, I take issue with the statement as it suggests that a particular claim or category have the same statutory sanction as the four listed classes.”
I simply wish to point out more dishonesty on your part.
1. A particular claim is not a category or class.
2. A category or class is essentially the same thing. See the Websters definition below:
“class |klas|
noun
1 a set or category of things having some property or attribute in common and differentiated from others by kind, type, or quality : the accommodations were good for a hotel of this class | a new class of heart drug.”
3. Processes are part of the four enumerated categories or classes.
4. A business method is not one of the four enumerated categories or classes itself but is merely an application of an idea.
Therefore business methods are statutory.
PERIOD!
“”Business methods can be claimed as processes. But whether they are statutory depends on whether they attempt to claim nonstatutory subject matter, such as abstract ideas. After all, this was the very issue decided by Bilski.”
Methods and processes are the same thing. Just because you put the name business in front of method, or process does not change a method or process into something else. Methods and processes, are statutory, period. Therefore so are business methods, medical methods, software methods, potash making methods, rubber curing methods, and any other method or process humans can perform.
The intentional dishonesty of your post is to assume that a process or method is the same as an abstract idea. But this is patently false. An abstract idea is not a process or method An abstract idea is something entirely within the mind. When the idea is applied it becomes a method or process and therefore is statutory subject matter. PEROID! It does not matter whether it is a business method, medical method, software method, rubber curing method, or any other application of an idea.
Your burden then is to prove that an idea/concept can be performed in the mind and is therefore abstract, or if it can be applied and is a process.
Whether the application is for business, health care, computers, rubber, or any other process is irrelevant for determining statutory subject matter.
Now repeat after me please.
There is no extra conditions on business, software, computers, rubber, medical, or any other application of an idea.
They are ALL processes and methods.
They are ALL statutory.
PERIOD!!!!
Any questions?
O E, in the final analysis, you might be right. One does have to add that the claimed machine, process, …. must also be both
1. New, and
2. Useful
This is why Section 101 cannot be a threshold issue: One cannot know what a claim is actually claiming until one conducts a novelty analysis; and, until one discovers its novel subject matter, one cannot determine whether the claim is directed to a new and useful machine, process, etc., or whether it is instead directed to a law of nature, mental process or abstract idea.
Repeated post as original has slid into no-man’s land:
There is something seriously wrong with Ned Heller’s logic according to basic set theory.
Ned proposes that the larger set of any of the four basic categories is categorically patent eligible while a subset of any of the four basic categories is not categorically patent eligible.
Given that the larger sets of categories must include the entirity of the smaller sets of categories, Ned’s logic fails at the start.
Ned either a) does not understand what the words “categorical” or “categorically” mean, or b) has a rudimentary dysfunction with the basic logic of set theory, or c) is pulling this stuff out of his @ss in a rather poor attempt to answer Anon’s questions.
One final possibility is that all a), b) and c) apply.
Ned’s “answer” was so bogus it broke the show-more-comments hyperlink.
Way to go Liar Boy.
O. Esser, take your set theory to the Supreme Court. Even anon will agree that every claim is subject to analysis for whether a particular claim is attempting the claim nonstatutory subject matter. Even anon will agree that no claim or kind of claim is categorically eligible.
What I do which is different from anon is to assert that "machines, processes, manufactures and compositions of matter" are statutory. The question remains however in particular cases whether the particular claim is claiming one of these or is instead attempting the claim nonstatutory subject matter.
A serious question: "How is a business method any different than a process? " Answer: "Business methods can be claimed as processes. But whether they are statutory depends on whether they attempt to claim nonstatutory subject matter, such as abstract ideas."
After all, this was the very issue decided by Bilski.
Serious question: "Are business methods statutory subject matter." Answer: "They are not categorically excluded."
There is something seriously wrong with Ned Heller’s logic according to basic set theory.
Ned proposes that the larger set of any of the four basic categories is categorically patent eligible while a subset of any of the four basic categories is not categorically patent eligible.
Given that the larger sets of categories must include the entirity of the smaller sets of categories, Ned’s logic fails at the start.
Ned either a) does not understand what the words “categorical” or “categorically” mean, or b) has a rudimentary dysfunction with the basic logic of set theory, or c) is pulling this stuff out of his @ss in a rather poor attempt to answer Anon’s questions.
One final possibility is that all a), b) and c) apply.
Ned : “Machines, processes, manufactures and compositions ARE statutory subject matter, categorically eligible.”
Okay Ned how is a business method any different than a process?
Ned,
I didn’t understand your answer. Can’t you please be honest and just say yes, or no?
So once again…
business methods are statutory subject matter.
Do you deny this?
Ned’s “answer” was so bogus it broke the show-more-comments hyperlink.
Way to go Liar Boy.
A serious,
Machines, processes, manufactures and compositions ARE statutory subject matter, categorically eligible.
The question with regard to a particular claim or category of subject matter is whether they are patentable as one of these. However, they are not categorically excluded (except, of course, for laws of nature, etc.).
When somebody states that a particle claim or category of subject matter ARE patent eligible, I take issue with the statement as it suggests that a particular claim or category have the same statutory sanction as the four listed classes. It is the suggestion that they ARE categorically patent eligible that is the problem.
Ned, business methods are statutory subject matter.
Do you deny this?
seriously.
Better, I have copies from my e-mail, which I have now posted. There appears to be some problem with typepad, but I don't know what it is.
Anon,
1.
Do you really think that somehow your posts are disappearing from BOTH Patently-O and your typepad account?
Disappear? Many are not posted to Patently-O. I don’t know why.
2.
I have suffered through one lousy excuse after another, from not being able to
find the message (unbelievable, as I addressed that message directly to you so
that you would receive it – now THREE WEEKS AGO (and you responded directly to
that very message twice without answering the questions) to you being “too
busy.”
I
believe I have responded to that post, just not like you wanted. However, not all my replies are posted. So I will do it again, here.
3.
Now to make things ultimately simple for you, here is the post from thelink to patentlyo.com:
A lot of discussion of “categorical” follows, ending
in this:
One can no more make a blanket statement that business methods are patent
ineligible than one can make the statement about any other category of methods.
That is the sole reason why the example of medical methods stings so much.
Does Ned endlessly rail against medical methods? No.
Why? And more importantly, why
does Ned endlessly speak out against business methods?
Anon,
I speak out endlessly about any statement that a particular class of subject
matter other than the four listed classes ARE patent eligible subject matter
without any qualification whatsoever.
The SC has never held such a thing.
What the SC has held is that particular kinds of subject matter, e.g.,
business methods and programmed computers, are not categorically excluded. I believe the SC’s words were carefully
chosen. When someone uses a different choice of words,
I believe they do so with a purpose and intent contrary to the purpose and
intent of the Supreme Court.
The question, Ned, is consistency.
And, Mr. Anon, I am consistent.
4. You throw out a quote from State Street, impliedly stating that business
methods were errantly forced into the patent world. In doing so you confirm
that you have an agenda, since not only do you not explain your inconsistency; you
continue to seek to validate that inconsistency.
You neglect to point out that I was responding to a
post that suggested that State Street had not overturned a long accepted
exclusion.
5.One would have thought that the majority opinion in
Bilski would have been enough. That the rationale accepted by the highest court
behind Congress choice of enacting specific legislation would have been enough,
but no – much like Stevens, who would rewrite law and directly countermand
Congress from the bench, Ned continues his quest against an entire targeted
category of methods.
No, I
continue my quest to combat statements such as “Business Methods ARE patent
eligible” without any qualification when the SC did not hold that.
6.This, rather than some “colloquial usage,” has the debate
been about.
The
“whole debate” has been about Ned’s improper usage and selective category targeting.
The usage of the legal term of eligibility simply is
different when discussing an entire category, precisely because a category is
not a specific instance. It is telling that the quote Ned pulls from State
Street is the court’s renunciation of a categorical approach of denying
eligibility to an entire
group of subject matter regardless of individual claimed subject matter, a
categorical approach that is clearly the focus of Ned’s agenda.
One can – and should – talk about the
eligibility of A claim, ANY claim, ALL claims – in their singular instances.
But that does not mean that one cannot also discuss eligibility on a larger scale,
on the scale of “as a category.” This is expressly, legally correct when discussing a doctrine,
such as the business method exception to patentability, that itself treats the entire
category as eligible or ineligible.
The duplicity, then, is that Ned points to his
opponents and rests his case on an alleged misuse of a legal term
when it is Ned and his agenda that is misusing the term, obfuscating the
singularity and the group aspects to suit his agenda. It is no accident that
Ned rails against Judge Rich, whom he sees as personally responsible for the
group (as a category) eligibility of business method patents.
But that is simply what the law actually is.
As a group, business methods are patent eligible. No
one has ever said or implied that any member of
ANY group gets a free ride
past the individual and specific analysis of eligibility. Ned’s dance between
the distinct and equally valid legal meaning of the term in two different
contexts – group first, then singular instance – is what the debate has been
about.
Thus, properly framed and in clear context, Ned,
explain your inconsistent treatment of the group, as a category and not in any
singular instance of particular claimed subject matter, of business methods.
Your agenda of reinstalling the discredited business method exception is
clearly aimed at the group level, the as a category level. Why do you single
out as a topic business methods? Why do you target the category of business
methods in your endless posts?
Anon, if you have to spend 200 words to qualify your
meaning of BMs ARE PE, to square your statement with the holding of the SC, why
do so? Why don’t you simply use the
phraseology of the SC? BMs are not
categorically excluded?
There follows an obligatory fulmination.
Let me conclude with this:
1.
Machines,
processes, manufactures and composition of matter are listed classes.
2.
The listed
classes ARE eligible subject matter.
3.
A particular
kind of subject matter not listed is NOT categorically eligible. As well, they are not categorically excluded.
4.
Because
particular kinds of subject matter other than the four classes are not
categorically eligible, it is misleading to suggest they are.
Ned, it’s over dude and it’s official. You have replaced your mentor MM as the blogs resident troll in every category. You post more that MM every did even at his peak. And now you have found your POD Waterloo, with your anti business agenda!
Maybe you can out run anon’s questions like MM tried to do with Noise Above the Law, but most assured your credibility is destroyed!
wait…Ned will say anon was AI all along! LOLOLOL!
6 simple points for simple 6:
“1) I am not AI.”
LOL! Quick let’s get Ned in on this. He is scare sheetless of AI too! Only thing that scares him more is anon’s questions. Ha Ha Ha!
“3) You realize of course that the portion of Flook allowing dissection was overruled in Diehr, and that Diehr still holds even though Prometheus contradicts it, right?”
Uh Oh! 6 brain just froze! The Anti Patent crowd runs from reconciling Promotheus with Diehr, like MM ran from the POD debate with NAL! Get those skirts out ladies!
“4) You still cannot win for losing, as my post at 10:39 PM holds true.”
LOL! 6 just got B slapped!!
“5) Repeating your worthless position does not add any worth to the position.”
LMAO! 6 got double B slapped!!!!
“6) You remain a clueless tard, unable to even recognize when you have been B-slapped in a conversation. It’s amusing in an odd slapstick manner.”
Spittin beer out my nose! 6 totally owned!
This is better than a three stooges marathon!
lolololol!
Ned,
Note what Anon says: the posts are not in Patently-O and they are not on your separate account. Even if it did not post on Patently-O, the post would be in your records.
In other words, the excuse of “the dog ate my homework” has been exposed as a LIE.
You never did answer Anon’s questions. This is clear from your stumbling on the “Predicting” thread.
Here’s my prediction: Ned will find yet another (lame) excuse to avoid answering the questions.
Survey says…
First question:
"Do you really think that somehow your posts are
disappearing from BOTH Patently-O and your typepad account?"
I don't know why some of my e-mail responses are not posted. I now, often, but not continuously, check to see that my responses are posted. But it is clear that not all of them are posted.
Dam right!
IANAE, the effect is the same — claim scope cannot extend to signals. However, if one adds the negative limitation to the claims, there are issues of WD support that might be raised, as Dennis OP suggests, if the specification does not make it clear that signals are not included in the disclosed embodiments, or the equivalents thereof.
There is also the issue of intervening rights if a claim limitation is added during reissue or reexamination. Why not avoid that issue. Forcing a claim amendment where not necessary to clarify claim scope is unwarranted given the potential adverse consequences to the patentee.
“If you have questions, tell me what they are or link to a post that has the question you want answered.”
FN Really Ned? We went through this TWO WEEKS AGO.
One of the great things about having a summer intern is the ability to task that person with “research” that otherwise would not be done.
Having done so for this particular matter, I offer Ned Heller a chance at redemption. His last chance.
Think carefully Ned before you pile on lies to cover for other lies.
You now state that you have responded to me this past Monday. Which thread and what time stamp marks this alleged response?
Respond carefully – as if your credibility depends completely on your answer.
Before you do provide that answer, and being aware of your prior excuse of Patently-O not posting your message, I want you to be aware of the fact that your typepad account contains a record of your messages. While my summer intern notes that that account has an odd datestamp feature, I have reviewed every single message of yours since you stated last Friday, June 8 at 7:23 PM on the thread “Avoiding Subject Matter Problems but Creating Written Description Problems” that you would take the time and read my questions and get back to me.
Further, I have had each and every message matched between your typepad account and the posts as show up on Patently-O.
Do you still want to stay with your line about having answered me?
Do you really think that somehow your posts are disappearing from BOTH Patently-O and your typepad account?
I have suffered through one lousy excuse after another, from not being able to find the message (unbelievable, as I addressed that message directly to you so that you would receive it – now THREE WEEKS AGO (and you responded directly to that very message twice without answering the questions) to you being “too busy.”
Of note in regards to your being “too busy” is the fact that of the four major threads since your acknowledgement of having my questions – you have posted nearly twice as much as the second most prolific poster (6) and nearly twice as much as the third and fourth most prolific posters COMBINED (Malcolm and IANAE).
Now to make things ultimately simple for you, here is the post from the link to patentlyo.com thread:
“anon said in reply to Ned Heller…
Ned, let’s put this on the table in its entirety.
“One cannot say that any kind of methods are eligible subject matter without determining whether they are in fact claiming abstract ideas or laws of nature or natural phenomena. Every claim is subject to the exceptions. Every.”
Here’s where Ned Heller is playing word games and obfuscating:
Ned is once again taking a specific singular instance and applying the Court’s rationale to a targeted, entire category.
Note that Ned’s quote is dealing with subject matter, not as a category, but as an identified example. In Ned’s quote, it is in the specific instances, and thus singularly, that claims are determined to violate the judicial exceptions or not.
Ned subtlely takes this quote out of that singular claim context and applies it at a doctrine level into a vendetta against an entire category of method claims in the first instance.
That is a clear legal error. And it is deceptive to even attempt to paint the situation otherwise.
Consider Ned’s misdirection:
“Thus, the term “eligible” has a specific meaning in patent law. It means that the claimed subject matter qualifies under Section 101 as patentable subject matter. The question still remain whether the claimed subject matter is patentable under 102/103/112.
Thus further, when one states without qualification that a claim is eligible for patenting or that claimed subject matter is eligible for patenting, his meaning in that subject matter is patentable subject matter under 101, subject to disqualification under 102/103/112 for want of novelty and the like. The term is a legal term with a specific legal meaning.”
While it is true that the term has a specific legal meaning, it is Ned, not his opponents that then misuses that term. When Ned’s opponents talk about business methods, they clearly are talking about them not in a singular claimed matter, but as a category, a larger entity. Ned’s opponents are clear in which context the legal term is used – and used correctly.
The ongoing discussion thus uses “eligibility” in a different sense than how Ned provides in his argument. The “trick” is that Ned, too, is using “eligibility” in this SAME larger group sense – and yet he is pretending NOT to. Ned is pretending that he is following the legal norms of the word in the sense of the singular instance. He is not.
Cloaked is an attack on subject matter as a broad category and the legal term as applied against a singular instance of claimed subject matter. Ned would have everyone believe that those advocating for business methods to be deemed patent eligible are doing so recklessly. But it is Ned that is reckless. Ned twists a specific legal meaning and takes it from a singular instance context to apply it to an entire (and entirely targeted) specific category context. Clearly, it is the misuse and deliberate obfuscation of context that Ned uses in his arguments. The target of his agenda is clear and undeniable. He targets an entire category. Nowhere has he ever posted with such vim against any other category. It is Ned that is playing games with context.
One can no more make a blanket statement that business methods are patent ineligible than one can make the statement about any other category of methods. That is the sole reason why the example of medical methods stings so much.
Does Ned endlessly rail against medical methods? No. Why? And more importantly, why does Ned endlessly speak out against business methods?
The question, Ned, is consistency.
You throw out a quote from State Street, impliedly stating that business methods were errantly forced into the patent world. In doing so you confirm that you have an agenda, since not only do you not explain your inconsistency; you continue to seek to validate that inconsistency.
One would have thought that the majority opinion in Bilski would have been enough. That the rationale accepted by the highest court behind Congress choice of enacting specific legislation would have been enough, but no – much like Stevens, who would rewrite law and directly countermand Congress from the bench, Ned continues his quest against an entire targeted category of methods.
This, rather than some “colloquial usage,” has the debate been about.
The “whole debate” has been about Ned’s improper usage and selective category targeting.
The usage of the legal term of eligibility simply is different when discussing an entire category, precisely because a category is not a specific instance. It is telling that the quote Ned pulls from State Street is the court’s renunciation of a categorical approach of denying eligibility to an entire group of subject matter regardless of individual claimed subject matter, a categorical approach that is clearly the focus of Ned’s agenda.
One can – and should – talk about the eligibility of A claim, ANY claim, ALL claims – in their singular instances. But that does not mean that one cannot also discuss eligibility on a larger scale, on the scale of “as a category.” This is expressly, legally correct when discussing a doctrine, such as the business method exception to patentability, that itself treats the entire category as eligible or ineligible.
The duplicity, then, is that Ned points to his opponents and rests his case on an alleged misuse of a legal term when it is Ned and his agenda that is misusing the term, obfuscating the singularity and the group aspects to suit his agenda. It is no accident that Ned rails against Judge Rich, whom he sees as personally responsible for the group (as a category) eligibility of business method patents.
But that is simply what the law actually is.
As a group, business methods are patent eligible. No one has ever said or implied that any member of ANY group gets a free ride past the individual and specific analysis of eligibility. Ned’s dance between the distinct and equally valid legal meaning of the term in two different contexts – group first, then singular instance – is what the debate has been about.
Thus, properly framed and in clear context, Ned, explain your inconsistent treatment of the group, as a category and not in any singular instance of particular claimed subject matter, of business methods. Your agenda of reinstalling the discredited business method exception is clearly aimed at the group level, the as a category level. Why do you single out as a topic business methods? Why do you target the category of business methods in your endless posts? I have commented previously about having a summer intern pound through the raw data of Ned’s posts by subject matter.
But we both know what the result of that exercise would be, don’t we?
Shall we stipulate your unhealthy bias?
Shall we stipulate the fact that you do have a singular (category) target?
Shall we stipulate that you have an agenda?
Why the inconsistency Ned? Why the agenda?
Reply May 24, 2012 at 07:49 AM
Ned Heller said in reply to anon…
Put it to rest, anon.”
I include the first part of your immediate response and now DEMAND that YOU put your games to rest. YOU stop this.
No more excuses.
No more lies.
Straight-up pure answers only. Your credibility is at stake. What you don’t say and when you don’t say it speaks more loudly than what you (most prolifically) do say.
Why cannot the Examiner enter a 101 rejection that the claimed CRM reads on signals, with a suggestion that the applicant or the applicant’s attorney submit a disclaimer to the effect that the signals and other transitory media are disavowed?
That’s different from an unsupported negative claim limitation how, exactly?
IANAE, good post. I will concede the point on scope.
Under the law as it stand, it appears that a broad CRM reference covers both physical media and signals even if only physical media is disclosed. To obviate a 101 rejection, we need a disavowal of claim scope by the patent applicant such that his claim does not extend to signals. Amending the claim to add a critical exclusion not actually disclosed in so many words runs the risk of a WD problem down the road.
So what can we do? We know that disavowal can be made by representation in prosecution history. Why cannot the Examiner enter a 101 rejection that the claimed CRM reads on signals, with a suggestion that the applicant or the applicant's attorney submit a disclaimer to the effect that the signals and other transitory media are disavowed?
Shakes, of course the discussion of what Alappat held is entirely on point. Did the court hold that programmed computer devoid of context are patent eligible per se, or did it hold something a lot more limited? Otherwise, the bootstrapping that occurs from the premise that a programmed computer is patent eligible is horrendous. B-claims are one glaring example.
Hey, Mr. A Hole,
Anon, last week, referenced a thread and several posts by time stamp that he wanted me to answer. I answered anon's post Monday, in detail, in several replies directed to his original post. To be sure, none of the posts he identified included the questions he wants answered. One did include his complaints that I have not answered these phantom questions. To which I again responded, "What questions?"
Anon, stop this. If you have questions, tell me what they are or link to a post that has the question you want answered.
Hey, F o o l, read the rest of the opinion. The examiner's position was upheld despite being inconsistent with the specification because he supported his views with extrinsic evidence.
Takeaway: Extrinsic evidence wins.
6 simple points for simple 6:
1) I am not AI.
2) The power differential is meaningless to the conversation: no one is debating that a power differential exists. The conversation does include aspects of whether that power is being used in a legal and justifiable manner.
3) You realize of course that the portion of Flook allowing dissection was overruled in Diehr, and that Diehr still holds even though Prometheus contradicts it, right?
4) You still cannot win for losing, as my post at 10:39 PM holds true.
5) Repeating your worthless position does not add any worth to the position.
6) You remain a clueless tard, unable to even recognize when you have been B-slapped in a conversation. It’s amusing in an odd slapstick manner.
If a claim is to CRM, the disclosure consists only of physical media, you seem to suggest that a court should construe such a claim as non statutory because one of ordinary skill would read the claim on signals.
The disclosure doesn’t “consist only of physical media”, it recites media generally, and gives a number of examples that happen to all be physical. It’s clear that the general recitation of media is meant to apply as broadly as possible, and would be understood as broadly as possible, since the nature of the medium is irrelevant to the operation of the invention, and that’s how we all draft all the time – our specs are never limited to listed examples of an explicitly recited class.
I reiterate at this point that I don’t believe a recitation of “storage media” could reasonably be read on a signal alone. However, it’s quite clear by now that “media” could.
The problem with reading signals out of the claims is that we’re only doing it because we have a specific objection to overcome. There’s nothing in the spec to exclude signals. Do you think the inventor actually contemplated that his invention wouldn’t work for signals, or that he specifically wanted to disavow patent protection over signals? Of course not. They just happen to be subject matter he is legally not allowed to claim.
Supposing the spec had written “SRAM” instead of “RAM”, and for some reason the applicant couldn’t claim DRAM. Would it be fair to amend the claims to recite “excluding volatile media”? All the examples in the spec would have been non-volatile, but the invention would have been just as applicable to DRAM, it would still have been the applicant’s clear intent to include as many media types as he could think of, and the recitation of “storage medium” clearly includes DRAM to a person of skill in the art.
What if someone uses a media type not listed, but otherwise infringes the claim to a “storage medium”? Does he have a defense that the claim term “storage medium” should be interpreted narrowly and limited to the examples in the spec? Should we start pulling common features of the listed media out of thin air, and use them to construe a general and well-understood claim term? I should hope not. General claim terms are general, both for validity and for infringement.
“We now know from hindsight that step (a) needed to include step (b) and the wherein clause as well. This way Breyer’s dissection trick can’t be used to support the rationale that the additional steps simply say “apply it”. If step (a) had been fully integrated with step (b) then Breyer would have found an application of the concept at each individual step as well as the claim as a whole.”
Breyer is going to be a chargin’ his laser and disintegrating that np bro. Gl with your tar dation.
“Either you were wrong to begin with (most likely), or we have a case where the Justices surpassed their constitutional authority and wrote law above what Congress provides, and is thus illegal (not likely, but arguable in a new light).”
Or… I wasn’t wrong and the justices are doing no more than enforcing the caselaw that has been on the books for a hundred years plus. Either way.
“The Court isn’t allowed to “pump up the power” because the constitution didn’t give them that power.”
He obviously did just that in the case already as plainly Prom was more integrated than Flook, the last USSC case where they busted out the disintegration ray, and who are you going to cry to?
Again, AI, you don’t seem to be down with the power differential bro. They have it, and you do not.
“What if the examiner finds bicycle art and you want to exclude bicycles?”
Then you move up the dep that has all the species into the ind. and strike “bicycles”. You are right of course that you couldn’t just leave the dep with the species down in the dep and then say “wherein the wheeled vehicle is not a bicycle and not a unicycle”
btw, the word “gar bage” will get you filtered.
“Do you really believe that this sentence would have any impact on an ordinary artisan’s understanding of what the applicant invented?”
No, frankly I think an ordinary artisan understands them to not have invented ja ck s quat. Ones and zeros on a CD do not an invention make. Especially if you didn’t even bother to tell us the sequence. I think, or actually I know with 100% certainty, that anyone outside of the legal nonsense surrounding these claims knows good and well that there was no invention there. It took legal t omfoo lery by top legal minds to try to sho ehorn these claims into acceptability in the first place. Transitory and non-transitory ones are going in the garb age or will be translated into method claims ultimately. See Cybersource.
“Is there any ordinary artisan who would read the spec and not understand that in at least some implementations software could be stored in a computer readable medium that isn’t a signal?”
As I’ve already told you on numerous occasions now, he has WD for one (or a few) embodiment encompassed within the claim you propose he then be granted WD for.
In any event, I will leave you the final word, I sign off from this portion of the thread.
“Are you honestly taking the position that the applicant needed to explicitly disclose in the spec that in at least one implementation computer executable instructions configured to perform methods disclosed therein are stored in a computer readable medium that isn’t a signal?”
If that is what he wants to come in and claim as his invention later on, he da m well better consider it. It’s called providing written description so that we know you possessed it at time of filing.
“And you think an ordinary artisan wouldn’t understand the applicant to have possessed a computer readable medium which isn’t a signal?”
See that’s the rub bro, as you note we get into semantics about the word “a” before “computer readable medium which isn’t a signal”. Yes, he had one (or a few) of them. Thus he did have “a” “computer readable medium which isn’t a signal”. However he is then going to draft a claim that uses “a” in an way to mean “any”. Did he have them all as is going to be encompassed by a claim which uses the word “a”? No. He did not.
It’s a semantics difference that makes a ton of substantive difference.
“I fail to understand why it is that you think an ordinary artisan wouldn’t understand him to have possessed a computer readable medium that isn’t a transitory signal. ”
Once again, I do think he possessed “a” CRM that isn’t a transitory signal. I do not think he possessed all CRM’s that aren’t a transitory signal. And his claim is going to read on them all bro not just the one that he described and has WD for.
That’s a mighty big dustcloud you’ve kicked up there Ned.
Of course you realize that it doesn’t prove anything, and that you have not answered any questions or addressed any points in the discussion.
Perhaps you might actually want to join the discussion, but be warned, joining the discussion means actually addressing the points that DESTROY your agenda, an agenda that is but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; an agenda told by an i_diot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.