by Dennis Crouch
CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2013) (en banc)
In a much awaited en banc decision, the Federal Circuit has affirmed the patent ineligibility of Alice Corp’s claims to a computerized method, a computer-readable medium containing computer instructions, and a computer system that implements those instructions. The ten-member en banc panel released seven different decisions. While none of the opinions garnered majority support, seven of the ten judges agreed that the method and computer-readable medium claims lack subject matter eligibility. And, eight of the ten concluded that the claims should rise and fall together regardless of their claim type.
All of the judges recognized that the test for patent eligibility under section 101 should be “a consistent, cohesive, and accessible approach” that provides “guidance and predictability for patent applicants and examiners, litigants, and the courts.” However, the judges hotly disagree as to the pathway that will lead to that result.
The leading five-member opinion written by Judge Lourie provides three guideposts for its analysis:
- First and foremost is an abiding concern that patents should not be allowed to preempt the fundamental tools of discovery—those must remain “free to all . . . and reserved exclusively to none.” . . . [T]he animating concern is that claims should not be coextensive with a natural law, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; a patent-eligible claim must include one or more substantive limitations that, in the words of the Supreme Court, add “significantly more” to the basic principle, with the result that the claim covers significantly less. Thus, broad claims do not necessarily raise § 101 preemption concerns, and seemingly narrower claims are not necessarily exempt. What matters is whether a claim threatens to subsume the full scope of a fundamental concept, and when those concerns arise, we must look for meaningful limitations that prevent the claim as a whole from covering the concept’s every practical application.
- Next, the cases repeatedly caution against overly formalistic approaches to subject-matter eligibility that invite manipulation by patent applicants. . . . Thus, claim drafting strategies that attempt to circumvent the basic exceptions to § 101 using, for example, highly stylized language, hollow field-of-use limitations, or the recitation of token post-solution activity should not be credited.
- Finally, the cases urge a flexible, claim-by-claim approach to subject-matter eligibility that avoids rigid line drawing.
Abstract Ideas are Disembodied Concepts: Alice Corp’s claims are drawn to methods of reducing settlement risk by effecting trades through a third party intermediary (a supervisory institution) empowered to verify that both parties can fulfill their obligations before allowing the exchange to be completed. This essence, the method is a form of third-party escrow that helps overcome the risk of fraud and non-payment. In thinking about that method, the court determined that it is an abstract idea because it is a “disembodied” concept that is a basic building block of human ingenuity and untethered from any real-world application. Lourie writes:
CLS describes that concept as “fundamental and ancient,” but the latter is not determinative of the question of abstractness. Even venerable concepts, such as risk hedging in commodity transactions, see Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231, were once unfamiliar, just like the concepts inventors are unlocking at the leading edges of technology today. But whether long in use or just recognized, abstract ideas remain abstract. The concept of reducing settlement risk by facilitating a trade through third-party intermediation is an abstract idea because it is a “disembodied” concept, In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526, 1544 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc), a basic building block of human ingenuity, untethered from any real-world application. Standing alone, that abstract idea is not patent-eligible subject matter.
After identifying the portion of the claim directed to an abstract idea, Judge Lourie then looked to see whether “the balance of the claim adds ‘significantly more.’” Answering that question in the negative, the court found the claims lack eligibility.
Writing in Dissent, Chief Judge Rader disagreed with the court’s decision. He writes:
I enjoy good writing and a good mystery, but I doubt that innovation is promoted when subjective and empty words like “contribution” or “inventiveness” are offered up by the courts to determine investment, resource allocation, and business decisions. Again, it is almost . . . well, “obvious” . . . to note that when all else fails, it makes sense to consult the simplicity, clarity, and directness of the statute.
As I start my next quarter century of judicial experience, I am sure that one day I will reflect on this moment as well. I can only hope it is a brighter reflection than I encounter today.
Thanks NWPA. The Supreme Court should uphold the method, CRM and system claims as eligible, according to the statute. However it’s own precedent does not even go as far as saying machine claims are abstract, so I think we will at least get those claims back. This was just one battle and the war goes on. Onward and upward!!
Read it. Excellent post! This why I believe the decision will be overturned. The Supreme Court does not like the CAFC making up it’s own laws, only the Supremes can do that. Just Saying also make an excellent post as well showing the legal errors of Lourie. It’s also funny to see the anti’s losing badly on this blog in the wake of a favorable decision to their cause.
Corrected:
But what if Alice doesn’t elect to take it to the SCOTUS?
Seems like most assume they will do so, but what’s the result(s) if they don’t?
But what if CLS Bank doesn’t elect to take it to the SCOTUS?
Seems like most assume they will do so, but what’s the result(s) if they don’t?
writing the typical computer-implemented claim is not difficult at all.
and your point is? Claims are meant to distinguish the invention from the prior art — not to enable the invention. This is basic patent law.
you really need to disabuse yourself of the notion that a typical educated person “doesn’t understand software.”
That is funny. I’ve been exposed to computers since the late 70s and software patents for many, many years. The scope and breadth of software is so expansive that no one can really have a good grasp on everything that is going on. I’m sure you (and the vast majority of people) have little idea of the extensive amount of technology that is employed for you to send an email from one person to another. I’m sure you probably don’t understand how the patently-o website works. You may have been sending messages in the early 80s (as was I), but the technology being employed today is a different as the Boeing 787 is from the biplanes of the 1910s.
without being accused of one of two failures: (1) you don’t understand software or (2) you don’t understand the law
If you don’t understand the facts, you cannot apply the law. Your comments are evidence that you don’t understand the facts.
regardless of the fact that computer-implemented claims recite the same steps that could be used to describe a mental process
When broadly written, the steps can seem the same. However, in actuality, how the steps are performed entirely different. Flying in an airplane and flying in a balloon is both flying. However, they are not the same. Sending an email and not the same as sending a piece of snail mail. While a written message gets conveyed from one person to another, how it is accomplished is extremely different. Until you recognize that difference, ALL your comments are tinged by willful ignorance.
The rest of your comments are belly-aching so nothing worth much responding to.
With seven opinions, this one screams for the Supreme Court to take it up and tell us EXACTLY what the standard should be for determining if a patent claims an “idea only” or a thing that implements an idea.
6,
you are a step ahead of Ned and Malcolm on this point.
While not a huge feat, it does mean that you are a step closer to the right direction.
“endless w-nking and kvetching”
The irony: this comes from the sites biggest crybaby and w-nker.
I have been. All you need to do is listen.
But you have shown no ability or desire to do so.
Your loss.
Concerned with the eligibility of a machine.
Really.
Let that soak in people – word for word.
Then go back and look at what the hypocrite posted above with James.
What were the words?
Oh yeah: ” Note distinction: ineligible. Invalid. Ineligible. Invalid.”
The stench of hypocrisy, folks – it’s over powering.
Still waiting for your in depth explanation of case law precedence.
See my post above at 10:06 AM.
As I recall, your mom didn’t mind my squinting at all.
Ned,
That is most definitely NOT the right answer about the precedence of this case.
C’mon man, use that resource that you yourself supplied regarding how case law derives from holdings and not dicta.
THINK
“First they ignore the “claim as a whole” requirement and distill the invention down to a “gist”. Then they declare the gist abstract “escrow” because it is old.”
I’m pretty sure that they take pains to not do both of the things you accuse them of doing. You should really read the decision.
” It is not a necessity to establish the recited shadow accounts and post the shadow transactions to the shadow accounts as recited in the claims. You can just hand the deed/title and check to an agent”
So then it is the abstract idea of an escrow tarted up with “shadow accounts” mirroring doing what you just said you can do with an agent correct? Just like Lourie said? And invalid just like Lourie said?
If you answered yes to the above, I concur.
“I think we have to face the fact that Lourie–at least–has no intention of applying the law”
It is a fact that Alice claims were not a disembodied concept until Judge Lourie “disembodied” the concept.
Thus it is a fair question to ask, on what legal authority did he act?
No one in this 200 plus thread has addressed the above or apparently has any answer.
Yeah I posted this before I realized that it was per curiam and the effects of that.
Still, “not following” this “decision” is simply refusing to follow DAT LAWL laid down by the USSC very much prior to this decision. Lourie’s position, aka my position tarted up really nice, has been the lawl of the land at least since Flook, and actually more or less since Benson. Refusal to follow it is simply a black eye on the face of the PTO, a corrupt black eye.
No prior Federal Circuit case involving these very same issues can be considered good law on a going forward basis.
“Good law” like In re Lowrey? Good riddance.
6, I can understand that. There is no majority opinion.
But where is the law now? How can we say there is any law at all on this exact issue other than the Supreme Court cases themselves? No prior Federal Circuit case involving these very same issues can be considered good law on a going forward basis.
What a mess.
The SC caused the problem by not clarifying whether the Bilski claims were abstract because they manipulated abstractions such as risk, or because they did not recite a computer.
They have to take this case just to make clear their meaning.
Congrats on getting one right. We Americans aren’t opposed to going with what works.
We don’t need experienced litigators, just experienced practicioners generally.
Time to retire under The Mango Tree and pick the many nits of sheepskin from my ever-growing navel. Et cum spiritu tuo.
Watch out for the IRS, bubba.
Gene Quinn fires up the propaganda machine:
The import of this is that machines are specifically patent eligible subject matter
So are “processes”, Gene. And “pencils” are compositions. Need I go on?
MM: you were wrong about Prometheus so stop pretending you are an “expert” on 101 issues.
101 Integration Expert: Actually, I was the first commenter on the this blog to go on record and say the Prometheus 101 holding was based on the legal doctrine of “Integration” and not turn on dissection. You first ignored the theory for quite some time then resorted to attacking it, me, and even at one point dismissing the entire legal precept of integration as just a word, or at best dicta. And now, as the following record clearly demonstrates, an entire patent community of legal experts, scholars, and authorities have acknowledge “Integration” as an integral part and legal substrate on which the 101 statutory subject matter analysis occurs. While in the interim not a single one has ever acknowledged or provided validation for any of your various mental steps dissection theories.
Integration Table of Authorities 2012-2013
All nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:
” In Diehr, the overall process was patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process “INTEGRATED” the equation into the process as a whole. 450 U. S., at 187. These additional steps transformed the process into an inventive application of the formula. ) [MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES v. PROMETHEUS LABORATORIES, INC 566 U. S. (2012) 3 Syllabus] (Emphasis Added) ”
Chief Judge Rader, and the dissenting panel of CLS Bank V Alice:
“Here, the claim recites a machine and other steps to enable transactions. The claim begins with the machine acquiring data and ends with the machine exchanging financial instructions with other machines. The “abstract idea” present here is not disembodied at all, but is instead “INTEGRATED” into a system utilizing machines. In sum, the system claims are indistinguishable from those in Diehr. For these reasons, the system claims are not directed to patent ineligible subject matter.” 38 CLS BANK INTERNATIONAL v. ALICE CORPORATION (Emphasis added)
Dennis Crouch, Associate Professor University of Missouri School of Law:
Most Section 101 subject matter eligibility problems can be cured by “INTERGRATION” the ineligible subject matter with subject matter that is patent eligible. This works because the fact that an invention encompassing some ineligible material does not preclude patentability – as long as the invention also includes sufficient eligible subject matter. Following this theory, the Supreme Court in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), agreed that a practical use of a mathematical formula was patentable even though the formula on its own would not have been subject matter eligible. [Patents Encompassing a Human Organism] Patently O, The Nations leading patent blog. ] (Emphasis Added
Andrew H Hirschfeld, Deputy Commisioner of Patent Examination Policy:
“ D. INQUIRY 3: Practical Application and Preemption
Does the claim include additional elements/steps or a combination of elements/steps that “INTEGRATE” the natural principle into the claimed invention such that the natural principle is practically applied, and are sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the natural principle itself? (Is it more than a law of nature + the general instruction to simply “apply it”?) ……A claim that focuses on use of a natural principle must also include additional elements or steps to show that the inventor has practically applied, or added something significant to, the natural principle itself. See Mayo, 101 USPQ2d at 1966. To show “INTEGRATION”, the additional elements or steps must relate to the natural principle in a significant way to impose a meaningful limit on the claim scope. ….. It is not necessary that every recited element or step “INTEGRATE” or relate to the natural principle as long as it is applied in some practical manner. However, there must be at least one additional element or step that applies, relies on or uses the natural principle so that the claim amounts to significantly more than the natural principle itself. Elements or steps that do not “INTEGRATE” the natural principle and are merely appended to it would not be sufficient. In other words, the additional elements or steps must not simply amount to insignificant extra-solution activity that imposes no meaningful limit on the performance of the claimed invention. See id. at 1966” [link to uspto.gov ] (Emphasis Added
First they ignore the “claim as a whole” requirement and distill the invention down to a “gist”. Then they declare the gist abstract “escrow” because it is old.
The claimed method is not co-extensive with the abstract idea “escrow”. It is not a necessity to establish the recited shadow accounts and post the shadow transactions to the shadow accounts as recited in the claims. You can just hand the deed/title and check to an agent…
idiots.
See my comment way below for the USPTO’s decision to not follow the lawl.
It is according to the insane logic of this court.
A method of driving a car is all mental steps except for insignificant post solution activity (turn the wheel, apply brake, etc…).
A claim to a computer method for driving a car would wholly preempt all car driving.
A system that implemented the method would just embody the same abstract idea.
The PTO cannot follow any of the opinions, as they have no precedential effect whatsoever. See Rader’s footnote 1.
lololololol
Keep laughing. If nothing is patentable, you’ll be out of a Job soon.
lolololol
lol, you really should.
lolololololol, so true!
Total confusion.
Tough times for business — this mess coupled with PTO budget cutbacks. All those applications, going nowhere fast.
You all might want to tell your clients to tell their Congressmen to ante up some cash for the Patent Office… or to tell the White House to quietly drop the PTO sequester hit, whatever.
There is one school of thought that trumps both of those: The Supreme Court – let me remind you:
Bilski: MoT not required.
Prometheus: MoT not sufficient.
Please do not attempt to ressurect your anti-business method or MoT crusades.
“in horror is hardly to be construed as authorization”
You need to realize that Stevens lost in Bilski.
He tried to rewrite what Congress did – just as you are now attempting.
Sorry I wrote this comment before I had gotten to read the decision. I’m just now finishing it up. You’re pretty much correct that a lot of rhetoric was covered, though some rhetoric, such as NWPA’s gets only passing coverage by one lone judge it appears.
Do you all think it is likely the plaintiff will appeal given the likely result at SCOTUS? If they don’t appeal, can anybody else appeal? If they can, is that likely?
Did you have anything intelligent to say to my post? Do you really think that “but for” is the only reason for patents?
Or do you merely insist at charging at the red cape of “anon says?”
anon, regardless of what congress intended to authorize (and reacting in horror is hardly to be construed as authorization) there remains two schools of thought about what made the Bilksi claims abstract.
1. Lourie and 4: The escrow idea is abstract.
2. Rader and 3: The claims are abstract because they are not tied to a machine.
Lourie’s approach and the holding in the case is in conflict with Prometheus
Sure it is. Just like any decision finding the Prometheus claims ineligible had to be “in conflict” with the holding in Dierhr. We heard this story already, 101E. You told it to us already a billion times except you got the ending wrong.
The legal philosophy and application of 101 is one of inclusion and “Integration” not exclusion and dissection.
Sure it is. Dissection and exclusion is only for 103! Just like the statute says. In other news, you were wrong about Prometheus so stop pretending you are an “expert” on 101 issues. You never were. You aren’t now. You never will be.
Lies are told because sometimes (a lot of times – sadly) they work.
Oh my, Trollboy! Imagine if one of your “enemies” had such a thing. Imagine what you’d say about them.
the reality involved with what software is.
Tell us all about it, anon.
“And let’s be clear: if all of these claims, including the system claims, are not patent-eligible, this case is the death of hundreds of thousands of patents, including all business method, financial system, and software patents as well as many
computer implemented and telecommunications patents.1”
Judge Moore stating what should be so 🙂 It is too bad she rails against progress 🙁
Just fyi guys, apparently the PTO declines to follow the leading opinion and instead will be “studying” the decision more. So declareth Andrew H. Hirshfeld, who, coincidentally I think is probably ashamed of his agency. But that is just my opinion of what he must be feeling.
There was 135 pages of 7 opinions. Whose rhetoric didn’t they cover?
But now you’re for ending software startups. Care to rethink that position yet?
“As I start my next quarter century of judicial experience, I am sure that one day I will reflect on this moment as well. I can only hope it is a brighter reflection than I encounter today.”
Oh Rader, such drama! It’ll be fine bro.
lol.
Whew, I take one day off and all of a sudden the CAFC goes spouting my rhetoric in its official proclamations!
“First and foremost is an abiding concern that patents should not be allowed to preempt the fundamental tools of discovery—those must remain “free to all . . . and reserved exclusively to none.” . . . [T]he animating concern is that claims should not be coextensive with a natural law, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; a patent-eligible claim must include one or more substantive limitations that, in the words of the Supreme Court, add “significantly more” to the basic principle, with the result that the claim covers significantly less. Thus, broad claims do not necessarily raise § 101 preemption concerns, and seemingly narrower claims are not necessarily exempt. What matters is whether a claim threatens to subsume the full scope of a fundamental concept, and when those concerns arise, we must look for meaningful limitations that prevent the claim as a whole from covering the concept’s every practical application. ”
Amen bro.
Can’t wait to get into this guy a bit further.
another admission that toasts one of your agendas.
HUMPTY HAS SPOKEN!!!!! BOW DOWN!!!!!
Squint as hard as I can
Pretty sure your mom saw you squinting harder that one time when she came into your room without knocking first.
not one responsive
HUMPTY HAS SPOKEN!!!!! BOW DOWN!!!!!!
bored: “Except when it isn’t. Like when using a spam filter to screen email is exactly like screening registered snail mail. Or so I’m told.”
By whom
By whom? By anon aka Trollboy aka the yapping puppydog who’s tailing you right now.
Screening email for spam is extremely difficult
Programming computers to do perform complicated information processesing tasks can be extremely difficult! Nobody disagrees with that … except for the softie woftie patentistas when it serves their purposes to assert otherwise. The point, Mr. Bored, is that writing the typical computer-implemented claim is not difficult at all. “A computer, wherein said computer receives [insert label for information to be received], wherein said computer determines that [insert label for information to be sorted out], and wherein said [insert label for information to be sorted out] is put in a different [insert fancy name for “folder”] from [insert label for remaining information].”
Also, you really need to disabuse yourself of the notion that a typical educated person “doesn’t understand software.” Many of us college-educated types below a certain age grew up programming computers (and calculators before that) in grade school. I’ve been sharing electronic communication with people using a POWERFUL COMPUTER BRAIN since the early 80s, long before AOL or gmail or Twatter or whatever program the kids are using these days was a twinkle in anybody’s eye. So put a lid on the email server lectures, please. Sheesh, talk about “boring.”
So in other words, “but for” is a canard.
Thanks Malcolm – chalk up another admission that toasts one of your agendas.
LOL – tell me Malcolm (again, hence the LOL): is “configured to” structural language?
hint: this is archived.
bored f you knew just a little about software,
Ooops, there he goes again! You see, folks, it’s just not possible to disagree with the s-ssypants softie woftie patent protectors without being accused of one of two failures: (1) you don’t understand software or (2) you don’t understand the law.
Now our li’l softie woftie patentistas are clinging to the notion that because computers and brains are sooooooooo different from each other that, regardless of the fact that computer-implemented claims recite the same steps that could be used to describe a mental process (and in fact would literally read on mental processes in some cases were it not for the recitation of “computer”), these “inherent” differences mandate the patent eligibility of computer-claims. You see, it’s simply cr-zy to compare computers or software with brains … unless of course you’re trying to sell that software to somebody. Ooops!
As for the rest of “bored already’s” comment, it’s just a quintessential example of how difficult it is for the pro-patent patentistas (1) to keep two thoughts in their head at once and (2) to articulate themselves coherently.
It all depends upon how it is done.
So says “bored already.” Thanks for the insight! What’s “it”? Who knows? What claim is he referring to? Who knows? All that matters is for “bored already” and his crew is the endless w-nking and kvetching about how “nobody understands” his very special “technology.”
More of that vacuous accuse others crp, Malcolm: you missed the fact that Paul’s post applies to your rather usual ‘sniff’ and go posts.
“Circling back, I think it is manifest that business methods are not within the useful arts. ”
apt choice of words for another ride on the merry-go-round.
Sorry Ned, but nothing here changes the lesson from Bilski: Congress has explicitly allowed patents on business methods and you may not, cannot create a categorical exception that goes against the rule of law as set by Congress (no matter how often you ride the merry-go-round).
I think it is more true than not true that startups need patents especially when they have new technology that will soon be copied by others if they are successful.
That’s not what was asserted earlier. I agree that if a company’s “new technology” is easily copied, and if they have no way of keeping people from copying it besides patents, and the nature of their business is such that they will be easily outsold by copiers and run out of business, by all means get a patent on the “new technology”.
This is not true of most businesses, of course. It’s true perhaps for a tiny, tiny fraction of new businesses.
Do you have anything intelligent
Paul Cole and I agree you are contributing nothing but hot air to the discussion, Trollboy.
Rader’s other point also cannot be ignored: This decision – all 135 pages – is LARGELY meaningless.
Sure it is, Trollboy. Keep telling yourself that.
we can next stop patents from issuing on arbitrary rearrangements of atoms.
I urge all the pro-software patinistas to please, please, please press forward with this incredibly compelling argument. It’s very persuasive because functional claiming of software apps/”readable-media” etc is exactly analogous to structurally claiming new compositions. Some people actually think there is a distinction to be drawn but you KNOW that isn’t the case because you keep bringing this awesome argument up! Please, never stop. It’s been working so well for you thus far, after all.
Just saying, I think you detect the same flaw that I do in the reasoning of Judge Lourie. There might be some justification for preventing patents that effectively preempt all practical uses of laws of nature, natural phenomena and even mathematics as a matter of constitutional imperative. Thus it it is the constitutional command that patents not cover such subject matter because to do so would be to retard the progress of the useful arts rather than promote them, the preemption analysis makes sense.
But when one is dealing with business methods, it simply is not apparent why there is a constitutional mandate that business methods be in the public domain lest the progress of the useful arts be retard ** ed.
This harkens back to the central failure of the Bilski Supreme Court opinion. Just why were the claims in that case abstract? Clearly Lourie is of the view that they were abstract because “risk” is an abstract concept. I believe it is also clear that five judges on the court including Judge Rader believe that the problem with the Bilski claims was that they were not tied to a machine. These are two fundamentally different views.
Circling back, I think it is manifest that business methods are not within the useful arts. That is why we can’t issue patents on them in the first place. Patents on technological advances that have a business application should be eligible, in my humble opinion, but not patents that essentially manipulate abstract concepts like risk or price or number are quality and the like.
The 50-50 split here demonstrates that the Supreme Court needs to rethink, or at lease clarify, its position on business methods.
Could you also say Jake, this house is not beautiful but this is my beautiful wife.
Malcolm, I think it is more true than not true that startups need patents especially when they have new technology that will soon be copied by others if they are successful. I give you SanDisk is one example. Their breakthrough technology was a new type of NAND-flash cell. Had they not patented that cell, SanDisk would not have been the company it is today. Trust me.
When SanDisk was still SunDisk, and Eli Harari was young, I represent are one of those investors. The fact that SanDisk had heavily invested in patents was extremely important . Eli Harari had invented a brand-new type of flash memory cell. It revolutionized the flash memory business. Had he not had patents, that new flash memory technology would have been soon copied by others leaving SanDisk in the dust.
But Eli had invested in patents, and had invested heavily. That has paid off handsomely for his company. SanDisk is where it is today not only because of the invention of the NAND-flash cell, but because of the patents that protect it.
“Do you have a patent?”
That’s every savvy investor’s first question. It’s obvious who has dealt with startups, spinoffs, investor relations, etc. (hint: It’s not Reinier Bakels)
Baby with the bathwater.
You have an acute inability to see the bigger picture.
“Speed” is not “matter” and thus cannot “matter.”
/anti-software patent nonsense
+1
Squint as hard as I can, I see nothing of substance in your response, Malcolm. Please try harder to actually say something.
The soapbox of C&C is dragged into the three rings…
It’s too early to tell if the Court thinks Myriad’s invention actually has a new function that is not inherent in the original material.
(yes, I know that’s not the example you were thinking of)
“try to keep your giant head away from sharp objects.”
(sigh) – there goes Malcolm, accusing others of that which has been used to describe him. His ego as a balloon metaphor cheaply attempted to be co-opted.
Do you have anything intelligent (or original) to say, Malcolm?
Because i4i never really happened…
Did you have anything intelligent to say to my post? Do you really think that “but for” is the only reason for patents?
Or do you merely insist at charging at the red cape of “anon says?”
NWPA: You’re forgetting the principal advantage of computers: speed. There are many processes that depend on the calculations being carried out quickly. A case on point is calculating your location from GPS satellite signals: SiRF Technology, Inc. v. International Trade Com’n, 601 F. 3d 1319, 1333 (Fed.Cir. 2010).
Whenever possible, patent drafters should give attention to the advantages provided by a computer implementation of the “abstract” process.
Sorry for not being clear enough. What I meant was the established caselaw of the EPO, that assesses eligibility without reference to the prior art (so that a claim to “A computer programmed to perform (business method X)” for the EPO has “technical character” and thus is eligible.
At the EPO, the flaim fails on patentability because it has no technological novelty and because its subject matter is (in all fields that are technological) obvious, no matter how clever it might be in fields non-technological.
Does the EPO still issue cr_p Claims? No doubt. But just how many slip through in today’s tougher times I don’t know. But this is more or less inevitable in an ex parte process. That’s what the Opposition process is for. And as there is no presumption of validiy after issue except the ordinary civil balance of probability it seems unjust to many people, not just applicants and their attorneys, to deny borderline cases their day in court.
Very funny…