By Dennis Crouch
In re Rudy (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Back in 1988, Christopher Rudy filed a patent application for a fishing hook that is both colored and translucent. An illustrative pending claim is as follows:
21. In an article of manufacture, which is a fishing hook, which is disintegrated from but is otherwise connectable to a fishing lure or other tackle and has a shaft portion, a bend portion connected to the shaft portion, and a barb or point at the terminus of the bend portion, thus itself not being a fishing lure to include a fishing lure in imitation of an insect or part of an insect to include an insect body, and which is made of suitable material, the improvement comprising where the hook is made of a suitable material, which permits transmittance of light therethrough and is colored a color, selected from the group consisting of red, orange, yellow, green, blue and purple, in nature.
In reading the claims, you might think that this is an abstract idea case since the invention is based upon the law of nature or abstract idea that the translucence and color of a fishing hook correlate with a fish’s proclivity to bite and, although the patent does claim a physical hook, that application merely uses well known technology in a way that basically occupies the same space as the abstraction itself.
However, the PTO rejected the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in light of the prior art. The prior art apparently teaches transparent fishing hooks as well as fishing hooks that are both translucent and colored but that are shaped like insects. Although neither of those references teach all of the elements of the claim, the USPTO found that it would have been obvious back in 1988 to combine the references to form Rudy’s invention. Rudy submitted a number of affidavits explaining the invention’s importance. However, the USPTO found those statements from the inventor and his “friends and family” to be insufficiently anecdotal to overcome the rejection. On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed the rejection without opinion.
The only interesting part of the oral arguments came when the court asked the USPTO to explain why the case was still alive and pending after 26 years. The USPTO placed full blame on Mr. Rudy. Explaining that “Mr. Rudy is a very zealous advocate on his own behalf.” In particular, during this time Mr. Rudy has apparently filed thirteen amendments to the claims; seven petitions; eight extensions of time; twenty nine miscellaneous letters; enjoyed three appeals; and has abandoned his action only to later revive it to be considered again.
On remand, I expect that Rudy will amend his claims and try again.
Guys I have question, does anyone know why there is all the formatting “<" 's and "Where two or more species are claimed, a requirement for restriction to a single species may be proper if the species are mutually exclusive.are mutually exclusive ifdisclosed formay also beto require restriction between claims limited to species, the< claims ** must not overlap in scope<.
The bizarre formatting broke the comment itself. I’m asking about
>
<
And
** as symbols used in the MPEP.
Why are they just randomly in there?
The MPEP – BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(or something to that affect as a certain poster recently noted)
Don’t pick on him. At least he opened the damn thing. Even if it is apparently for the first time.
6 – I often wonder the same thing. I think they are to show changes. I also think that they are left in accidentally of via laziness. Someone gives final approval to a marked up draft, and no one bothers to remove the mark ups.
But, that is just my guess.
“Even if it is apparently for the first time.”
Nah I’ve been wondering why they used that horrendous formatting, for the last 6+ years. But if you’re thinking that they’re used to show changes, do you mean since the last version? Because man, that would be a lot of changes.
“I also think that they are left in accidentally of via laziness”
Now that I would believe.
PTU says there are blue pages that ‘splain the markings (see his post below). I think he is correct. I now recall seeing some sort of unintelligible explanation.
I believe they should be left out. They make an already self contradictory, difficult to read, document, that much more difficult to read and quote document.
The section on restriction requirement being one of the worst.
“I believe they should be left out. They make an already self contradictory, difficult to read, document, that much more difficult to read and quote document.”
Indeed so. And back 5+ years ago when I was telling the higher ups to go ahead with a project like the empep (I’m sure I wasn’t the only one bringing that to their attention though) I explicitly noted that such garbage should be left out. But apparently they still think its important to make your document look like it was written by a 5 year old.
Those are indications of revisions since the last version. The Blue Page explains them as such:
“Sections of the Manual that have been changed by this revision are indicated by “[R-9]” after the section title. Additions to the text of the Manual are indicated by arrows (><) inserted in the text. Deletions are indicated by a single asterisk (*) where a single word was deleted and by two asterisks (**) where more than one word was deleted. The use of three or five asterisks in the body of the laws and rules indicates a portion of the law or rule that was not reproduced."
““Sections of the Manual that have been changed by this revision are indicated by “[R-9]” after the section title. Additions to the text of the Manual are indicated by arrows (><) inserted in the text. Deletions are indicated by a single asterisk (*) where a single word was deleted and by two asterisks (**) where more than one word was deleted. The use of three or five asterisks in the body of the laws and rules indicates a portion of the law or rule that was not reproduced.""
Oh gotcha. Man that's kind of dumb to have that in the EMPEP. If we want to see the "revised version" then there should be a box to check.
You’ve just got to love the underdog … ‘specially when his name is Rudy:
link to en.wikipedia.org
As Rudy Ruettiger finally realized his dream of playing for Notre Dame … inventor Rudy will one day fulfill his patent dream …
I confidently predict that this application will be allowed and that a patent will issue on 30 February 2015.
Nah, why not allow him to file an prosecute a continuation and not point out to him that any patent he receives will be expired on the date of grant. Rudy may not be smart enough to figure that one out.
🙂
“A method for a player to render a harmonic chime on a stringed instrument that has a neck, a bridge, and at least one string, wherein the player has a string-stopping hand that can shorten a playable length of the at least one string plus a string-picking hand with a plurality of digits including a thumb and fingers, the thumb and a finger of which can hold, or the thumb itself able to have mounted thereon, a first pick, which comprises: providing the stringed instrument; holding by the thumb and finger of the string-picking hand, or mounting on the thumb of the string-picking hand, the first pick; and touching a second pick mounted on another finger of the string-picking hand, or touching another finger of the string-picking hand not having a pick, to a harmonic-rendering node position of the at least one string, and plucking the at least one string between the bridge and the harmonic-rendering node position with the first pick to provide the harmonic chime.”
I bet anon is just loving that claim. It’s a government certified “innovation”. Presumed valid you know.
Now the accordion example isn’t so far fetched. Just recite the new way of playing it. Or, heck, just recite the new “configuration” that occurs when you’re playing it.
You realize of course 6 that the claim is not to music (or fine arts) itself, right?
Or did Class 084 vanish…?
/facepalm
the claim is not to music (or fine arts) itself
Right. It’s a method of healing weary souls.
LOL! The patent teabaggers will defend everything, everytime. Too funny.
to be clear I was referencing the Malcolm claim (an instrument) and not the 6′ abbreviation that moved the goalpost to be a method claim in my comment concerning the class of musical instruments.
to be clear I was referencing the Malcolm claim (an instrument)
I don’t know what you are referrring to. I referenced no claim to a musical instrument. This claim from Rudy’s “harmonics” patent
15. An article of manufacture comprising a tangible medium of expression in or on which a harmonic chime tone is recorded, which is rendered by a method for a player to render a harmonic comprising blah blah blah
is to a tangible medium comprising a “new” sound recording, not a musical instrument. If you look at the PDF of his patent, he’s even got hand-drawn pictures of the various tangible mediums. It’s pretty funny.
article of manufacture = instrument…
(yes, still)
Do not tell me you missed the 80’s and the introduction and widespread use of the synthesizer….
Nobody is arguing that claims to new musical instruments should not be eligible for patenting. You can consider letting that issue go, as your incessant beating on it makes you look confused.
We’re talking about (1) methods of putting ones fingers on old instruments to make music; and (2) recordings of sounds made by (1).
Try to keep up. Go ahead and make your best arguments for the patent-worthiness of (1) and (2). Imagine you are trying to justify such claims to a group of talented musicians who have little love for patent law. You know, the sorts of people who don’t spend all year looking forward to eating steak with Big Gene at the American Super Patriot Inventors Conference.
Not necessary Malcolm.
Music is not within the useful arts – as I have so often reminded people (including you) that attempt to fallaciously create bogus arguments with such uses of music (or for that matter, mere words that do not meet the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter).
Since we both know that you have admitted to knowing that controlling law, ‘confused’ is not the proper description for your action, but rather, ‘dissembling’ is the proper description.
Can you keep up with that? Or are you still going to run away from the simple questions that go to the heart of the software as eligible patent subject matter?
Music is not within the useful arts – as I have so often reminded people
LOL.
Bow down, everybody. Patent Jeebus is here to construe 101 and tell you what the words really mean. But this is nothing like how the Supreme Court construes 101. Nope. Totally different. You can trust him.
Malcolm – as I mentioned, this is not a Congress/Court writing battle.
This is directly from the Constitution.
Try to keep up.
“Music is not within the useful arts – as I have so often reminded people (including you) that attempt to fallaciously create bogus arguments with such uses of music (or for that matter, mere words that do not meet the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter).”
But the claim is government certified! It’s presumed valid! BY LAW! HUR! HUR!
This is directly from the Constitution.
Exactly “what” is “directly from the Constitution”? The prohibition on patents to useful recordings of audible sound waves and/or methods of producing such using old articles of manufacture? Or was there something else you have in mind?
Let everyone know, and please show us the super clear text that supports your interpretation, oh Sooper Dooper Principled Scholar Who Would Never, Ever Go Beyond the Text of Anything For Any Reason.
Utility as that type belong to the Useful Arts as opposed to the fine arts.
This is not a difficult concept Malcolm.
Try to keep up.
I miss the 80s, but there is a good chance that patent 8675309 will be published tomorrow.
I suggest you stop and take a look at class 084….
Um ok, I did. Amazing, we have a class for musical instruments! Yay! So what?
“Yay! So what?”
/facepalm – so THINK 6 – think.
“/facepalm – so THINK 6 – think.”
K, I’m thinking. Still not understanding what having a subclass for instruments has to do with this claim that is claiming a method of playing some generic instrument.
(sigh)
6, see 11.1.2
“(sigh)
6, see 11.1.2”
Ok fine, you were referencing a different claim or something that MM brought up not what I brought up (aka a method). Fine.
At some point do you want to discuss the method that I brought up or not?
“If you look at the PDF of his patent, he’s even got hand-drawn pictures of the various tangible mediums”
Omg this is going to be amazing!
oh, I see, you just responded to the wrong comment. Gj.
but see:
link to google.com.tr
Anon, you and I are on the same page that claims such as Rudy’s are not abstract, and the objection, if any, is that the claims is claiming something not within the useful Arts.
We are reminded here of our numerous conversations about the player piano or for that matter a flute or other musical instrument playing the new music or song or sound is that the subject matter, music, is not within the useful arts. The piano, flute or music instrument itself is old.
The Supreme Court seems adamant to avoid the discussion of subject matter within or without the useful Arts. Until they go there, they are going to have to invent artful dodges that make no sense whatsoever and which have no basis in law.
Anon, you and I are on the same page that claims such as Rudy’s are not abstract, and the objection, if any, is that the claims is claiming something not within the useful Arts.
Ned, you and anon can’t be “on the same page” about the issue of “useful arts” without anon turning into a giant hypocrite.
Making music is certainly “useful” to people, and so are recordings of that music (pretty much every musician records music for the purpose of re-playing it back — it’s an aid to learning). If Congress wanted to say otherwise, they could have written that into the statute. It’s not for the courts to get all power-grabby and decide what is and is not included within the term “useful art.” ” <—- not my argument, but it is the exact same argument anon and other faux-"principled" proponents of a de-fanged 101 make to justify their views
The Supreme Court seems adamant to avoid the discussion of subject matter within or without the useful Arts.
All that’s needed is for the proper claims to be brought before them by lawyers willing to make the necessary arguments. Get anon and Hricik to make the argument that recordings of music, used by musicians as learning aids, are certainly “useful” and it’s not the Supreme Court’s job to tell everyone else anything different unless the Supreme Court is just a power-hungry wax nose twister or whatever the rhetoric is.
I think they’d love to participate. I think they’d also lose in a magnificent fashion but that’s beside the point, isn’t it? I mean this isn’t about the public’s interest in a functional patent system. It’s about respecting the Founders. And by that I mean Van Halen.
Malcolm, clearly you do not understand what the Useful Arts means (as opposed to the fine arts).
There is no hypocrisy in understanding (and applying) this concept.
This is not a Congress/Court law writing battle (as you would dissemble).
Pull your head out of the sand.
Shorter anon: clearly you do not understand what the Useful Arts means
LOL. Try to recall, bozo, that I’m the one who identified the junk claim to recorded music comprising any of ten zillion different harmonics.
You’re the one who couldn’t even read the claim without putting your foot in your mouth. Apparently the term “tangible medium” made your brain stop working.
This is not a Congress/Court law writing battle
I’m pretty sure this “battle” you refer to takes place every time a statute is construed by a court and the court’s construction includes words not in the statute and someone disagrees with the construction. You choose to pretend that the question of what is and is not within the “Useful Arts” is crystal clear only because it suits you to do so.
Do you want to talk about “new” methods of using old machines (e.g., a pocket calculator) to calculate a number? Useful Arts or not? Does it matter if we give the number a fancy sounding label like “price of dog food”, or can we just describe the manner in which the numbers are manipulated on the calculator? What does the statute say?
How about a method of achieving improved relaxation by plucking certain strings on an old instrument in a certain order? Are methods of achieving improved relaxation in the Useful Arts or not? What does the statute say about that? Does it say that drugs and massage methods are okay for achieving improved relaxation but music-making methods aren’t okay? Show me where.
The term “tangible medium” was clearly secondary to the term “article of manufacture.”
And what you are “pretty sure of” is dead wrong. The Useful Arts is not being construed through the statute. PAY ATTENTION: the term is in the Constitution.
LOL – You do not even understand where to look.
The Useful Arts is not being construed through the statute. PAY ATTENTION: the term is in the Constitution.
Okay, if you want to rely on the Constitution that’s fine with me.
So how about “new” methods of using old machines (e.g., a pocket calculator) to calculate a number? Useful Arts or not? Does it matter if we give the number a fancy sounding label like “price of dog food”, or can we just describe the manner in which the numbers are manipulated on the calculator? What does the Constitution say?
How about a method of achieving improved relaxation by plucking certain strings on an old instrument in a certain order? Are methods of achieving improved relaxation in the Useful Arts or not? What does the Constitution say about that? Does it say that drugs and massage methods are okay for achieving improved relaxation but music-making methods aren’t okay? Show me where.
MM, first you an I agree that a process of using an old apparatus comprising a series of states of that old apparatus should not be claimable as a machine as there is no new machine. Section 100 supports this view, declaring the new use of a an old machine is a process.
Thus we have a claim comprising using a computer to do X, Y and Z steps; a flute that plays X, Y and Z notes, any apparatus that has a specific configuration that produces function F. All are not new apparatus.
So, is playing a flute in a specific way eligible? It certain might be new and useful, but is it within the useful Arts?
So, is playing a flute in a specific way eligible? It certain might be new and useful, but is it within the useful Arts?
I would say “of course it isn’t” because patents weren’t intended to “promote progress” in new music, they are unnecessary for that goal, and they are either incapable of achieving that goal or they are a hindrance towards achieving that goal
And because Kevin Noonan surely wants to know: my answer does not change if this “particular way of playing the flute” cures cancer in children.
Maybe next we should discuss what “promoting progress” means in the patent context. From whose perspective is “progress” determined? The patentee? Or the public?
Malcolm,
Once again you are lost and clueless.
It is clearly a system NOT to the benefit of one over the other – it is a balance, as captured in the Quid Pro Quo.
Wake up son.
Note how you slide back into a fallacy of “but-for” and “need to” – “they are unnecessary for” is simply a mistaken view of why the patent system exists. It has never been a Must have system – it has always been a “let’s invite more and faster” system.
You are so often wrong in our discussions because you just don’t have the basics right.
“Promoting progress.”
Excellent point there. This is also the gravamen of argument advanced by CLS Bank, that claims covering fundamental economic principles cause more damage than any invention they incent. The value of the contribution is almost non existent in comparison to the restraint on commerce.
Others have pointed out that free market competition is the policy of the US and that allowing patents on economic principles conflicts with THAT policy.
The Court may indeed declare business method patents antithetical to fundamental policies of free competition. Thus, Congress could never have deem patents in this area the kind of patent it would authorize.
Ned,
Once again you run into the item you cannot run away from: how does the ‘old box’ – without changing and adding the machine component and manufacture in its own right of software change to have the capability of something, a characteristic, that it did not have before? This is a VERY simple question, and yet one no one wants to answer. No one from the anti-software patent crowd, that is.
This question is directly tied to several things that you find ‘annoying.’ – Mainly it appears that you are annoyed because I refuse to let you slide away from giving answers to these simple – but critical points, and you do not give answers because you have no answers in your world view.
First there was the Grand Hall experiment.
Then there was that experiment brought to life in the Nazomi case.
Then there was the clear discussion on the ITC thread (machine as staple item imported, but changed with software after import and thus then infringing).
The plain and simple fact of all of this is that I have always been right in understanding the law (See Alappat, understand the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine).
Face it – to continue to hold to your view would mean that the ‘oldbox’ would necessarily already inherently have all future inventions – even those not yet created – already ‘in there.’ That is precisely the fallacy of the “House” argument – the first – and only the very first – computer should have a patent, and that very first computer somehow inherently contains all future computer improvements. That is exactly what you cannot have per Morse.
“Thus, Congress could never have deem patents in this area the kind of patent it would authorize.”
Again Ned – except for the FACT that Congress expressly did deem patents in this area to be the kind of patent it DID authorize.
“The plain and simple fact of all of this is that I have always been right in understanding the law (See Alappat, understand the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine).”
Even if it were so, what you don’t seem to understand mr. re re is that nobody cares about you, or your “correct understanding of the lawl”.
Another glorious 6 character suicide…
Sorry 6 – you are wrong yet again.
Those that care about the law will care about my poss.
Those that only care about the lawl – or the “subjective in the head make up whatever you want to post” thing that you often think is the law – yeah, no one really cares about that.
“Those that only care about the lawl – or the “subjective in the head make up whatever you want to post” thing that you often think is the law – yeah, no one really cares about that.”
Tell it to Mr. Bilski. Tell it to Mayo. Tell it to X person that just had his sht go down under 101 Benson style.
And tell it to Alice 1 year from now.
“Anon, you and I are on the same page”
And Ned, let me share a little hint that might help you understand the constant losses you suffer in your anti-business method crusade.
The battle there in the “anti-business method” crusade is likewise not actually in the category aspect of 101.
There too, the proper facet to use is the utility aspect of 101.
And that is why the only way you can even attempt to gain traction is to redefine (for yourself) what “business methods” means, always trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, complaining that “the Court has not defined things” when in truth, it is not up to the Court to so define things.
The problem you have – due to your belief system – is that you refuse to even see the issue as one of utility instead of as one of category. It is easy to see why you resist the utility aspect view. The utility is undeniable. The entire purpose of modern socisty is exrpressed EITHER in business or pleasure – in the Useful Arts or the Fine Arts. As I explained, simple set theory is all you need to know to understand the Useful Arts. Accepting this then you would recognize that clearly business is within the Useful Arts (as it is undeniable that it has utility).
What is comical is 6’s attempt to portray a lack of business in his literature search and simply proving himself (and the anti-business method contingent) wrong. He displays the vapid examiner characteristic of looking for a mere key word, not realizing that ALL the categories he did find engage in business.
He does not recognize that “business methods” is just one rung up the ladder and describes business methods “doing business” – and this “doing business” is in each, any and possibly all of the lower rung items. You cannot ‘get rid of’ business methods without getting rid of the patent system itself.
A second cause of confusion – and one you are more prone to – is the old school sense that method patents are a sub-tier category to the ‘hard goods’ category. You (personally and the Royal You) glom onto the word ‘method’ as if the problem is some ‘method’ aspect. That is why there is so much confusion and aim for a 101 category aspect resolution. The problem you have is that the process (method) category simply is NOT a sub-tier category. Thus, if you recall, I chastised you heavily with the banter of medical method patents being ruled ineligible after Prometheus, as that was a medical methods case. Did all medical methods disappear after Prometheus? According to your world view, they should have! You refused to see the connection and draw the distinction away from the issues being one of method patents, when what you were really trying to do was attack business patents.
As Prof. Crouch and I have tried to educate, the business of business has matured into a science – and an applied science called engineering – of its own. So in addition to being a pervasive aspect of any of the trades of lore, it is a science, an engineering and a patent art field in its own right.
Patent law – written to be forward-looking embraces this evolution.
If you seek peace in your soul and understanding of the law, so too, must you embrace this evolution – and be open for more, as no one can tell where next innovation will blossom. That is its nature.
anon, I am, as you are, concerned for the statutory or constitutional basis for excluding “fundamental economic principles.” I concede that as claimed, the claims in this case, all of them, are neither abstract, nor failing in utility. Thus, nominally, they are statutory.
The Supreme Court has to justify Bilski from a legal point of view. They simply announced the Bilski claims abstract, when clearly they were not abstract. Excluded? Perhaps. But they disavowed exclusion as the basis of their holding.
So, Bilski remains inexplicable, legally. At the bottom line, it was a simple announcement that the claims were abstract. That kind of “reasoning” is bogus, and has lead to years of subsequent confusion.
And that Ned – is the fault of a 101 nose of wax addicted Supreme Court which refuses to curb its addiction and bide by the explicit words used by Congress – the branch of the government duly sanctioned by the Constitution to have authority to write patent laws.
“anon, I am, as you are, concerned for the statutory or constitutional basis for excluding “fundamental economic principles.” I concede that as claimed, the claims in this case, all of them, are neither abstract, nor failing in utility. Thus, nominally, they are statutory.
The Supreme Court has to justify Bilski from a legal point of view. They simply announced the Bilski claims abstract, when clearly they were not abstract. Excluded? Perhaps. But they disavowed exclusion as the basis of their holding.
So, Bilski remains inexplicable, legally. At the bottom line, it was a simple announcement that the claims were abstract. That kind of “reasoning” is bogus, and has lead to years of subsequent confusion.”
Jebus Ned, you a flip flopper for sure. Not just the other day I had got you edumacated on what they meant in Bilski and you were all like “oh ok, that makes sense and is fine”. Now you’re all “but but but that doesn’t make sense and is so terrible wah wah wah”!
Repeated here for convenience:
Ned,
See my comments (both now and in the archives) admonishing you for your outdated view of “process” as some sort of second class statutory category as noted in the Tarcsy-Hornoch case that you cite to.
“The expression “function of an apparatus”is our legacy of 19th century controversy over the patentability of processes. Early cases proscribed a kind of overweening claim… ”
Note too, that your penchant for old and outdated patent academic articles omits this understanding.
Thus, it can be seen that if you attempt to achieve clarity in understanding the law of 101, that one must be aware of two different aspects: the aspect of statutory category and the aspect of utility.
It is time to put the crusade against business method patents to rest.
As Prof. Crouch and I have tried to educate, the business of business has matured into a science
Did either of you explain when this happened?
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
“The entire purpose of modern socisty is exrpressed EITHER in business or pleasure – in the Useful Arts or the Fine Arts.”
Made that up yourself did ya?
Simple set theory..?
No 6, I learned that in kindergarten.
“Simple set theory..?”
Um no re re. I’m talking about what I quoted. Which I will requote for you.
““The entire purpose of modern socisty is exrpressed EITHER in business or pleasure – in the Useful Arts or the Fine Arts.””
^ your previous statement repeated for your dumarse.
What I’m asking regarding that statement is: did you make up this description of the “entire purpose of modern society” yourself? And did you then assign the two categories you just made up to be “useful arts” and “fine arts” respectively? Or did you copy this description from some other re re? In other words I’m asking is this absurd description your creation or did you copy it from someone as retarded as yourself? I want to know the source of this particular part of your retardation.
I note that I just helped you understand your own subjective dual-categoried “theory” the other day when I asked you if you thought everything humans did was separated into “useful arts” and “fine arts” respectively. I see now that your answer is “yes”. Even though that is ridiculous, even if we were using 1800’s terminology. I mean jebus son, where do theology, natural science (aka natural philosophy in the 1800’s terminology), political science (politicking in 1800’s terminology), warfare, etc. etc. fall into newly absurdly simplified absurd categories?
” He displays the vapid examiner characteristic of looking for a mere key word, not realizing that ALL the categories he did find engage in business.”
In other words, your entire argument for “business methods” being patent eligible is nothing but a big ol argument ad absurdum. A joke.
Huge surprise. Really.
In other words…
No 6 – your spin is not needed. Just use the words that I used.
“No 6 – your spin is not needed. Just use the words that I used.”
My “spin”? There’s no need to “spin” what you’re asserting. You literally just stated that all the categories I found engage in business.
Well of course they “engage in business”. But that isn’t what we’re discussing when we discuss “business methods” and the patent eligibility thereof. This you surely know, even as retrded as you are. So all this is just you trying to make us be talking about something which we are literally not talking about in order to implement an argument ad absurdum so as to attempt to mock what we’re actually talking about. Or you just do it to appear a fool. Whichever way.
Surprise surprise. But at least now that you’ve confirmed it for us we can go ahead and dismiss you out of hand just like we did the last person making this “argument” that “everything’s business (or replace this with your new “all the old useful arts are business”) so therefor business method patents have to be patent eligible and always have been!”. AI was a big belieber in that argument ad absurdum. It’s absurd and can be dismissed out of hand simply because the person making the statement doesn’t even understand what is being discussed. Or they’re pretending not to when they do in fact understand.
That’s some pretty babble there 6, but you still can use my words without your spin.
“That’s some pretty babble there 6, but you still can use my words without your spin.”
In other words you’re super fond of your argument ad absurdum and even though it’ll never cut legal butter in a court room you’re married to it by now.
LOL – cutting legal butter…?
Talk to me after you get into law school, pal.
I see nothing that fits in class 84’s definition in the claimed invention. The claimed invention is a method. Class 84 is for instruments. Not methods. It’s people like you that are so bad at classification that make the US classification system so bad.
“CLASS 84, MUSIC
SECTION I – CLASS DEFINITION
This class includes the instruments used in producing music and includes (1) electrical music instruments, (2) automatic instruments, and (3) those hand played. The automatic instruments and the hand played instruments have a parallel classification so far as seems practical, and in both the patents are divided in the usual way into four groups, stringed, wind, rigid vibrators, and membranes. Then follow details or features common to groups (1), (2), and (3). This class also includes some accessory devices generally recognized as belonging to the art or industry.”
Do you see that definition? It limits the class to instruments and excludes methods. Bad classification, anon excels at it.
just recite the new “configuration” that occurs when you’re playing it.
I just configured the settings on my “smartphone” in a way that improved it, from my perspective, at least. Can I haz patent now? I don’t see where anybody described these exact settings. It’s a totally new machine, right? It must be. Because Monte Hall Experiment or something. Clearly it would be in everyone’s interest for me to patent this and sue the smartphone company.
Also my disco band just recorded a new song called “Do the Patent Tonight (Junk Mix)”. In the process of making the recording, there was a two-second moment where all the band members moved our fingers in ways that were previously not disclosed. So I should be able to patent all recordings with noises made using those finger movements, right? Surely this is best for society as a whole. I mean, have you heard the music kids are making today? It stinks. Promote the progress, baby! Innovation today for better litigation tomorrow.
do claims to it pass a 103 test?
Les, 103? If the examiner cannot find the note sequence in the prior art he must allow the claim?
The problem is not that the claimed subject matter is obvious. The problem is that the differences are not related to structure or to material, but to subject matter which is not eligible: music.