I just received my copy of Patent Attorney Jeffrey Sheldon‘s book “How to Write a Patent Application – Second Edition.” Sheldon has been regularly updating the book since its original release 21 years ago. I have the ring-bound edition from PLI, but the somewhat cheaper Kindle Edition
is also available from Amazon ($329.41).
It is not an exciting reading, but the book does provide you with straightforward practical advice on how to draft and file patent applications. Chapters include:
- Introduction
- The structure of the patent application documents
- Electronic filing of patent applications
- Working with inventors
- Pre-filing patentability searches
- Drawings (formal requirements and informal advice)
- Claim Drafting
- Specification
- Information Disclosure Statements
- Design Patents
- Provisional Patent Applications
- Plant Patents
- Patent Applications on Electrical and Electronic Inventions
- Patent Applications on Software and Business Method Inventions
- Patent Applications on Chemical Inventions
- Patent Applications on Biotechnology
- Filing Foreign Applications Based upon a US Application
- Reissue Applications
One nice aspect of the tome is that each section includes numerous examples of how patent attorneys normally operate. The book is likely to be most helpful for new patent law professionals although the up-to-date information on case law makes it valuable for experienced attorneys who don’t want to delve into the depths of Chisum-on-Patents.
>
> 6 said: “In THAT situation above, is there anything that a judge or
> the patent office should do in order to ensure that the
> applicant/patentee has not done this thing (that the applicant knows they did)?”
>
> Correct me if I am wrong 6, but doesn’t the PTO have the power to
> discipline both attorneys/agents and their clients that knowingly
> engage in inequitable conduct, be it material or egregious, with
> criminal penalties in some cases? If you believe such is the case then you should proceed with whatever the process is to report and have the parties so involved disciplined. However we are not discussing misconduct. We are discussing statutory subject matter. A question of law. Particularly, whether Ultramercial’s claims are abstract, and non statutory according to the statute and case law, of the Supreme Court of the United States. In light of that fact can you please tell me why my citing of the statute, and Supreme Court case law is a “nonsensical” analysis to you? Furthermore, are you now ready to perform “Integration Analysis” on Ultramercial’s claims, as I have
> requested of you for over a year now?
Seriously 6, ?
You wait two weeks and post this utter nonsense? It looks like you are still trying to hide gravity. And you still have not supplied what you said you would supply?
Yes, I know that you changed your tune and begged off until the good professor posted a story on the particular decision, but as that decision fades into the past, your decision to post this particular nonsense of yours would have been better replaced with your lesson of how just wrong and banal your pet theory of ‘abstract/preempt/rung of ladder’ is.
The smackdown still awaits you – when you find the courage to reply (hint: don’t look to Malcolm who STILL has not found the nuts to admit the obvious FACT that I was right in the Myriad case and that he was wrong.
“Understand now?”
Yes, I understand that you would like to apply your little nonsensical process no matter the situation. However that is not what the question is about. I’m not asking about process. I’m asking about a situation where you and I know, beyond shadow of a doubt, that they intended to preempt an abstract idea, and they hide that fact from the office and courts.
Just as an example let’s say that there is an application, not ultramercial’s, but just a purely hypothetical application where you and I have not specified any specific claims for the purposes of our hypothetical but there are claims present. Let us presume that they filed the application, claimed a claim that doesn’t appear to be an abstract idea on its face, and they hide the fact that it preempts an abstract idea throughout the application. They don’t tell the office about it or the courts. However, let’s just say, for the sake of this hypothetical, you and I know, from internal documentation that you and I found in office of the drafting attorney that in fact the applicant wished to preempt a specific enunciated abstract idea and the patent attorney agreed to do it while hiding it. However, the patent office and the court remain oblivious to these documents you and I have. Only you and I along with the applicant/attorney know this.
The above hypothetical is meant to make it easy, so the question is: In THAT situation above, is there anything that a judge or the patent office should do in order to ensure that the applicant/patentee has not done this thing (that the applicant knows they did)? And furthermore, just as a bonus, do you recognize that your little analysis does nothing to ensure that the applicant/patentee does not do this?
The SAP decision has many legal problems one of the most glaring is the Boards conclusion ” Versata’s claims do not add meaningful limitations beyond the recited abstract idea and, in practical effect, preempt the abstract idea.”
I take issue with this because the Board does not present an abstract idea Versata’s claims actually preempt. The entire basis of the Courts judicial exceptions such as abstract ideas is that the statute implicitly prevents an inventor an exclusive right to the “basic tools” of scientific and technological work. In order for the Board to conclude Versata has claimed such a basic tool as an exclusive right, its seems to me the Board should specifically identify this abstract tool, and explain why it’s abstract. Furthermore if Versata can demonstrate the basic tool is free to be used by all men, as Versata contends it can do, then that fact should overcome the Board’s argument. As it stands now the Board merely ordained Versata’s claims as abstract. Easily one of the worse Board decisions of all time.
“Should recent final decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board where rejections of claims as being non-statutory abstract ideas were affirmed be reviewed by the PTO to make sure they were correctly decided and for the right reasons in view of Ultramercial v. Hulu?”
Yes, absolutely!
Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. 14 How. 156 156 (1852).
Agreed anon. The same reasoning can be applied to concepts as well.
Math can be an abstract idea.
Applied Math is not.
NWPA, what I think the Supremes are trying to accomplish is this:
Prevent me from getting patent on a concept I invent that for example describes gravity pushing us down, as opposed to something underneath holding us down, because such is an abstract idea. And to prevent me from getting a patent on a math equation I invent that proves my theory, because that equation is considered a representation of what is now considered a scientific truth. The math equation by itself is then considered a basic tool of scientific and technological work and is treated as a familiar part of the prior art. I think they are trying to say the statute implicitly allows everyone to use the math equation to prove new and improved theories. However, the math equation is not abstract.
6: “You may assert that but there was no showing on the record that the temperature reading and autoopening was an old process.”
My point is that the “new” in 101 is not a barrier to statutory subject matter. The new in 101 is a statement of the conditions and requirements for novelty in 102. Temperature reading and opening of lids in rubber curing is an old process. However the combination for automating these steps made the process more efficient, a result that may very well have been novel. But again, thats besides the point for 101.
NWPA: “Even in Benson, how in the world they say a method to convert from one base to another is a scientific truth is a stretch.”
One thing for certain is that math is not an abstract idea, or a law of nature. Far too many involved with patents at all levels make this fundamental error.
>
> 6: “What do we do, for instance, if they try to hide the abstract idea
> from view so that their claim doesn’t die in 101?”
>
> Let’s take Ultramercial for example. We begin with the clear and
> unambiguous letter of the law, 35 USC 101. and ask;
>
> Are the claims a process?
>
> The answer is, yes.
>
> Since the claims are a process under 35 USC 101 and meet the
> definition of Process under 35 USC 100(b) the claims are physical and
> not abstract. However, this does not mean the claims pass 101 and are
> statutory subject matter. The Supreme Court has created exceptions,
> derived implicitly from the statute. Therefore me must ask 4 more
> questions as required by the Court.
>
> 1. Are the claims a Law of Nature?
>
> The answer is, no
>
> 2. Are the claims a physical phenomenon?
> The answer is, no.
>
> 3. Are the claims a mathematical equation or formula representative of
> a Law of Nature, Physical Phenomenon, or other “scientific” truth?
>
> The answer is, no. (In such a special case as when the answer is yes,
> in addition to the mathematical equation or formula, the claim would
> need at least one additional step that limited the process so that the
> claims as a whole did not pre-empt the LoN, Natural Phenomenon, or
> “scientific” truth. Furthermore, if the additional step(s) were added
> and the LoN, Natural Phenomenon, or scientific” truth itself were
> still pre-empted by the claim as a whole, the additional steps would
> be counted as extra-solution activity, and the claims would still fail
> 101. However such is not the case in Ultramercial)
>
> 4. Do the claims recite an intellectual concept of a fundamental
> truth; an original cause or a motive?
>
> The answer is, no.
>
> In which case we are now required by law to take the claims as an
> inseparable whole ( integrated ) and determine if they are new and
> useful, if so they pass 101 and we proceed to the other sections of
> title 101 to see if they meet those conditions and requirements. For
> example, if you truly are having difficulty understanding the claims
> as written and described you proceed to 112 and read the claims “in
> light” of the specification, for “enlightenment”. But you pass the
> claims at 101 for statutory subject matter.
>
> Understand now?
Come on anon, gravity is a bit more apparent than some abstract ideas. So just what if they try to disguise it up a bit without coming right out and saying the abstract idea? I mean, I’m just asking, what should be done in such a situation?
Let’s just say they tried. Just hang with me for a second, and entertain the thought, what IF they tried? And what if they did a pretty good job?
Should we do anything?
You are spending a lot of ink trying to divert the attention from what is lacking from you.
Perhaps you should focus on that item instead of trying to be witty elsewhere (those attempts are not working too well for you anyway).
I have a question.
Where can we hide the Point of Novelty canard?
MM is intellectually castrated on the issue of tying his own shoes.
LOL
Executive branch? Really 6? The constitution wants a little word with you.
(even the judiciary knows where to implicitly find their authority)
Hide the abstract idea…?
Clueless 6.
You might as well ask what if the applicant wanted to ‘hide’ gravity.
LOL – oh wait, you already impliedly did that.
‘D’Oh!‘ (said in the best Homer Simpson tones)
No comment here, McCracken?
Do you implicitly support the baseness and enmity evident here by Malcolm?
WWJD?
anon: “Well Malcolm, 101 Integration Expert asked you to apply the Prometheus-generated Office protocol to the claims.”
MM is intellectually castrated on the issue of “Integration Analysis”
Well I’m moving on to that part. You’re welcome to simply withhold judgement if you don’t have the ba lls to make the call either way.
“Any Questions?”
Yes, what are we to do when the applicant is not as forthright with us as the patentee was in Prom? What do we do, for instance, if they try to hide the abstract idea from view so that their claim doesn’t die in 101? What do you propose be done in that circumstance IE?
“, in light of the Court cases presented, where do you get your authority to go on a abstract idea witch hunt when presented with a fully integrated claim? ”
The prezzy my nezzy of the denntz? You know, ultimately.
6: “If they be “truly” integrated I have little problem. The only
> issue I take with your “integration analysis” is that you make
> “integration” trivial. If it is non-trivial then sure, your
> “integration” might not be so bad.”
>
> Well, my “Integration Analysis” is the the “Integration Analysis” of
> the Supreme Court of the United States of America. While the Court in Prometheus did explain Diehr’s claims were “Integrated” and thus statutory subject matter, the “fundamental precept” of the analysis can be traced back to at least Aro Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Convertible Top
> Co. – 365 U.S. 336 (1961); Where the Court made it clear: “ that there is no legally recognizable or protected “essential” element, “gist” or “heart” of the invention in a combination patent”..Ibid
>
> A combination by it’s nature is “integrated”. And a process is
> essentially a combination of steps. What this means 6 is that you can’t legally recognize or label the invention as being one element, or even the “heart” or “core”. As Diehr told you, you are required to view the claims as a whole. This is as applicable to processes as to any other category under section 101, because while the Aros case was about a machine, a process is also a physical thing within the realm
> of science and technology, even if it has no machines or mechanical parts. And while Prometheus did say you can’t simply state an idea and apply it, there has to be an “idea” so stated in the claims in the first place for you to identify. Prometheus had no problem identifying the Judicial exception in that case, a LoN. The correlation was manifest. But If you have to go looking for the idea, it’s most likely because it’s “integrated”, and you have veered off the legal course of Supreme Court jurisprudent and gone on a witch hunt.
>
> Any Questions?
6,
Why are you asking questions when it is answers that you should be giving?
“so just to be clear”
LOL – nice attempt at deflection. We haven’t got to that part yet, 6 – we are still waiting for your awesome FAIL to be presented.
Leopold, awww, you don’t like my analogies?
Perhaps you should think about your posting habits – the analogies – as colorful as they are – fit.
And speaking of posting habits, what is it that attracts you so to Malcolm?
“But hey, I didn’t read it all that deeply, it’s pretty long.”
LOL
Hey, sorry to have offended you, but your quotation mark tic is just weird. Not nearly as weird as your buddy anon’s recent obsession with blood, cheerleader outfits, and petroleum jelly, of course. (Man, do I wish that I was making that last part up.)
“The district court dismissed the suit on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because the claims were deemed patent-ineligible; that motion came before any facts could even be garnered in discovery for a motion for summary judgment.”
So they dismissed the case for failure to state a claim because the claims were ineligible (I noticed that in the decision), but this is not “summary judgement” (that I was not aware of, as I had thought the motion they used was simply a form of summary judgement) because the two are separate motions you can make and nobody got a chance to even make that motion. Ok, fine, the dismissal may well be premature, I’m open to the possibility.
Doesn’t change that the claim is self evidently ineligible as the DC held (though under a slightly different rationale). And if a court wants to save itself the further trouble I don’t see what the problem is, other than, omg, we didn’t have any discovery to garner some facts! Oh noes! And a federal judge thinks there might be some facts material to this pure question of lawl. It is my opinion that the pure question of lawl before us can be answered very easily without them, Rader’s nonsense the contrary. Perhaps he should have noted what he conjectured that those facts might be which will be pertinent.
Though yeah, I would have thought they would have just done summary judgement, but apparently they had other concerns that wanted them to just get er done. Meh, I care little. If they want to reverse because of the procedure then fine. But they shouldn’t be all, “I’m reversing on the merits” if they’re really just taking issue with the procedure. It looked to me like they reversed on the merits. But hey, I didn’t read it all that deeply, it’s pretty long.
Alright bro, so just to be clear, you’re still of the opinion that this patent will be upheld if it goes to the supremes right?
“Automatic door opening mechanisms were NOTORIOUSLY old in the art”
Well ok, perhaps someone should have made that of record. In any event, even 30 years later the cream of that art’s crop didn’t produce any reference showing such. Nor did they show the combination of the other steps besides the Arrhenius equation. Sorry bro, but they were a long way from 103ing it, much less 102ing it, even if they ignored the Arrhenius equation. Regardless of whether or not they “should have been” or not, the record shows what the state of the art was taken to be and it isn’t even close. I also heard no tell of any official notice being taken.
“Which is what the Court has legally defined abstract ideas to be. ”
Oh, I missed that, perhaps you could cite their “defining” it in such a way?
6: “When you’re no longer preempting any judicially excepted subject matter. You’re really making this more difficult than it needs to be.”
In sticking with the topic, the abstract idea exception, it is evident you are not preempting an abstract idea if the claims do not recite a fundamental truth; an original cause; or a motive. Which is what the Court has legally defined abstract ideas to be. Since you insist on going further, ( and without legal authority) it is obvious you are the one making it more difficult than it needs to be.)
So 6, in light of the Court cases presented, where do you get your authority to go on a abstract idea witch hunt when presented with a fully integrated claim? I will tell you. From no where because you have no such authority from the Office, Congress, or the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
6: “Ok, well I tell you what, as soon as Rader acknowledges his DUTY to go ahuntin’ for the abstract idea and not just take both of the party’s word for it when it comes to finding it, then I would bow to the superior skills of abstract idea finding by Rader. ”
101 Integration Expert: You are wrong. The Chief Judge is right. The Supreme Court does not say you are suppose to go hunting for abstract ideas. First, the Court has legally defined abstract ideas as Intellectual concepts such as : ” a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive. The Court has said “no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.” .. Because “they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” This would apply to laws of nature, physical phenomenon, and other scientific truths, as well. See ( Rubber-Tip Pencil Co. v. Howard, 20 Wall. 498, 87 U. S. 507, Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 55 U. S. 175, Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Co., 333 U. S. 127, 333 U. S. 130 )
And in ALL the Court cases previously cited the abstract intellectual concept that was claimed was manifestly evident, i.e. clear or obvious to the eye or mind. Therefore the Court did not go as you say, “a hunting” nor instruct any other lower court to do so.
You first have to get the Supremes to take their collective finger out of the 101 nose of wax.
As to the chances of that (absent a very messy and public demonstration) can be seen in Prometheus and their attachment to their implicit readings (and note – again – this is another thing that I corrected Malcolm on and that he has never had the nuts to simply say that he was wrong and I was right).
Fish scales, I am sure that EG meant it in the kindest way – like, go and study patent law like that gentleman Fish scales so that you can contribute to a worthwhile conversation.
And EG is Eric Guttag, a respected (by most sane people) professional, but who (in Malcolm’s eyes) has been ‘tainted’ by an association with Gene Quinn, whom as far as I know, Gene has never posted here (but that does not give Malcolm pause for his denigration of Gene and Gene’s pro-patent beliefs).
LOL – but look who the first one is to go all QQ if the Left is painted honestly as attacking the patent system…
C’est La Vie
NWPA: ” I thought his arguments were quite excellent.”
The Expert Judge of the Expert Court put on a 101 Tour De Force!
LOL – way to do that projecting your own angst thing again Malcolm. I just happen to like colorful metaphors (and you have to admit, I pretty much nail it every time too).
You really need to get into a line of work you can believe in and try to salvage that soul that the Good Lord blessed you with.
EG said in reply to 101 Integration Expert…
“101 IE, I’ve scanned through this Ultramercial remand opinion (enclosed) and it is HUGE for the computer software world.”
Yes, this is just the type of leadership we needed from the Expert Judge!
You are a smart man/woman.
I take offense to that comment.
As if insulting the man was not enough immediately after his father passed away, do you really feel the need to show how classless you are Malcolm?
And likely, you won’t even think there is anything wrong with your post.
Just standby and [shrug].
Meanwhile, you continue to either avoid making any attempt at substantive commenting or burning down your agendas when you do venture into such an attempt.
The federal circuit has been slowly chopping away at the doctrine of claim differentiation; not sure how much is left of it.
EG’s dad was the Atticus Finch of Quotation Marks. Too bad he isn’t around to show you a thing or two.
Leopold,
“Go fish.”
Agree with you on all counts, Fish Scales.
Thanks LB. From what I see though, day after day, the function (and value) of dependent claims written in the USA is to widen the claim from which they depend, using a theory of claim differentiation. Thus, if the independent claim is directed to a stent, being something invariably made from either stainless steel or nitinol, a typical dependent claim calls for it indeed to be made of stainless steel or nitinol.
Wrong again, am I? I hope so.
“except patent prosectors griftin’”
Hmmm, cheerleader Leopold once again volunteers me to obtain ‘help’ and ignores the obvious pleading from Malcolm – that he needs desparately to get into a profession that he can believe in.
Leopold, serious question: why do you ignore and not post comments to the person who most needs help (which in case you cannot see, is Malcolm)?
other than…
LOL – as typical, your ‘other than’ is wrong.
That petroleum really does mess up more than just your vision…
LOL – Malcolm talks about mutual stroking and out pops Leopold, cheerleader outfit and all.
Sooo sweet.
The responsibility essentially then for weeding out the software and other computer-implemented inventions that are not deserving of patent protection will then rest with 103, 102 and 112 — where it belongs. Yes, that is more work for the Patent Office, but with better prior art classification and better training of examiners (both technically and on patenting) it should be no problem.
Everything else besides the dip into the Leopold pool of blood that you said was correct.
I have no idea what that means, other than that you really need to get some professional help.
Fish scales is right. That is, if you want those dependent claims to be of any real value.
MM, I am first and foremost a person with intellectual integrity.
And second, I’m a person with really high standardized test scores!
EG, you seriously need to drop the “quotes” you sprinkle “through your” comments. You clearly don’t know “how to” use them.
Wrong? Oh really, Fish? Because anon tells that I am right. Which of you is correct, I wonder.
You see, above, anon reports that I am wrong, but “only” in that I assumed that somebody would tell me I’m wrong. Thus, in all other respects (it seems) I must be right.
Are you telling us (and in this does anon agree with you) that also for the USA:
“…you need, for every dependent claim, a story in your specification of precisely what enhancement of which technical effect flows from the more specific technical feature combination of each such claim”.
Can you confirm? That would be very helpful. Thanks.
MM, I am first and foremost a person with intellectual integrity. Even if I believed that information processing methods shouldn’t be eligible for patentability, I would not be making the arguments that you and Lourie (Stern, Lemley, Posner, Stevens, Douglas etc.) make.
I would go to Congress where the argument belongs.
Now what is your excuse for sacrificing your intellectual integrity for your “cause?”
Your heritage is that you are a dirt bag
Hey, Night Wiper, how many other “liberal Democrats” do you know that share your bizarro views about what qualifies a Federal judge for “dirtbag” status?
I know Sillycon Valley has more than its fair share of clueless flakes who think everyone needs to get out of the way and enjoy the awesome “progress” they are trying to bring to lazy people everywhere. But your attitude is a new one. Is it just self-interest or do you really believe that the loss of strong patent protection for computer-implemented j–k is going to make a hill of beans of difference to anyone except patent prosectors griftin’ off the current system?
EG,
You’re wasting your time with this dummmmy. He is the classic example of, “I’m not a lawyer, but I play one at the PTO and on the internet.”
6,
Your ignorance of the procedural posture in this case is again showing. As anon would also tell you, read the opinion more carefully. The district court dismissed the suit on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion because the claims were deemed patent-ineligible; that motion came before any facts could even be garnered in discovery for a motion for summary judgment. In fact, page 6 of the slip opinion makes clear that Rader sees the potential for factual issues to arise even in this case.
Sorry Malcolm, as I’ve told you before, no “baiting allowed.”
Nice strawman.
Careful though, as you should be aware tha thandling straw may cause your agendas to spontaneously burst into flames.
Oops – too late.
LOL – that’s some squirming you are doing 6. You think that article is the only article? the dispositively defining article? Your continual broadcasting of your ignorance on the topic is like pouring yet another gallon of gasoline on the bonfire.
What next? Announce that you are not going to provide what you have said you have already ‘done’ twice?
LOL
Your FAIL is transparent.
That does not explain why Lourie’s concurrence should have been long and detailed and specifically track the plurality opinion.
Has.
Not ‘might have.’
You remain clueless.
it’s rare that a question under Section 101 won’t have factual disputes that make summary judgment inappropriate.
Depends on the claim. Is it “rare” that ineligible claims are asserted?
Some claims are very easy to attack under 101. Did you notice that Rader seems unaware of this fact, EG? Or at least he seems very reluctant to admit it. Why do you suppose that is, EG?
Try this claim on for size, EG:
1. A method for determining the likelihood that a patient has a cancer, comprising:
obtaining a blood sample from said patient and measuring the level of glucose in said blood sample;
weighing the patient;
comparing the measured glucose level and the measured weight to pre-determined values on a chart, wherein the chart comprises information relating the measurements to a likelihood of cancer.
Go ahead, EG. What do you tell your client when he asks you if that claim is eligible? Explain your reasoning.
if he though Rader’s opinion should track the plurality opinion, why shouldn’t his concurrence
You are wrong.
“Even one rung down has significance.”
It might have significance. It doesn’t here.
“that’s not something you even can disagreee with,”
You don’t even know what the article’s premise was do you? Or did you write that article? Because you’re the only one I know of that is that obsessed with the “ladders”.
Why?
Lourie’s concurrence then should have been long and detailed and specifically tracked the plurality opinion.
“I wouldn’t say I’m trying that hard.”
LOL – you are suceeding in saying nothing. Not sure if you want to brag that you aren’t trying that hard.
What you are trying hard to do is actually do as I asked you to do, you know, defend your B$.
“Although I disagree with its premise somewhat.”
LOL – that’s not something you even can disagreee with, 6. It IS. That’s like you ‘disagreeing’ with gravity and willing yourself to float to the moon. Your shiny hat needs A LOT more buffing to reach that state.
“The USSC specifically noted that the applicant believed his process that the equation was attached to was new”
As a whole – 6. You missed that element.
Thermocouples do as they had done: provide a continuous signal.
Automatic door opening mechanisms were NOTORIOUSLY old in the art – and thus not even at issue in your attempt to divide and conquer here.
Quite in fact, the very notion of divide and conquer was thrown out by the Supremes.
You remain clueless.
“Why you think it being lower on the abstract ladder scale somehow makes it magically not an abstract idea is quite beyond me anon”
Thanks for the confirmation 6 that you are clueless as to what the ladders of abstraction are and that your ‘pet theory’ is complete B$.
Even one rung down has significance.
“Why do you feel like you have the authority to tell me, or MM, to do a task?”
Translation: “Wah, Wah, Wah, someone is trying to hold us accountable for the B$ we post.”
Answer: LOL. As I have indicated as to the path to better blogging: Don’t CRP if you don’t want your noses rubbed in your own CRP.
I wouldn’t say I’m trying that hard.
“All three of my points remain uncontested.”
just to ease your troubled mind:
1. I read the article all about the abstract idea “ladders” in the JPTOS about a year ago. I’m pretty sure I have a pretty darn good grasp of it. Although I disagree with its premise somewhat.
2. whether it is a load of CRP or not, it is the lawl.
3. I may well be, but your protests about my being ignorant of the lawl/process regarding summary judgement is quite false. I was informed of what EG tells me below before and Rader made passing mention in the case. I still don’t see any genuine issues of material fact that need resolving or needing any benefit of the doubt being given to the non-movant. In fact I don’t see anything other than two questions even remotely pertinent to this case, both of them being pure issues of lawl. Claim construction (maybe) and 101. Rader’s protests that there are only a few cases where there are none doesn’t seem relevant since this appears to be one of those few cases.
Why you think it being lower on the abstract ladder scale somehow makes it magically not an abstract idea is quite beyond me anon. It would have to be pretty far down the ladder to not be an abstract idea. And the one I proposed a couple of times surely isn’t that far down the “ladder”. In fact, I crafted it specifically to avoid such.
“Dodge the task”
Why do you feel like you have the authority to tell me, or MM, to do a task?
“6 – YOU are the one that said you had done this.”
Yeah, I did, at least twice and I’ll get around to it again just for you to stfu.