America's leading patent law source
Chamberlain Strikes !
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG and JUSTICE BREYER join, concurring.
Interesting that Kagan didn’t join this group of Stevens followers.
I guess that 4 is now 3.
Extremely disappointed in Sotomayor. I judged her for having more savvy and ability to break from her initial days on the bench.
or that many computer-implemented claims areformally addressed to patent-eligible subject matter. But if that were the end of the §101 inquiry, an applicant could claim any principle of the physical or social sciences byreciting a computer system configured to implement the relevant concept. Such a result would make the determination of patent eligibility “depend simply on the draftsman’s art,”
Above is the nugget that is wrong and evinces complete ignorance of information processing and patent law. Why? Enablement.
CLE: how to write claims so that the judge can’t figure out a simple abstract idea to encapsulate your invention.
I hope other people realize that what the SCOTUS has done is made an exception to the Law of the Land as passed by Congress and then put that exception before the Law. Now rather than 101, we have the abstract concept generated by a judge and then the “determine whether it contains an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application” (by a judge–not a PHOSITA).
I hope others can realize that this is not the application or interpretation of law, but the generation of law by federal common law despite the Congress having the authority to make the law and despite the Congress having made the law.
The explicit words of “machine” are no longer “enough.”
Meh. Unimpressed. Basically, Bilski claims + generic computer =/ enough. Was hoping for much more.
Look for many BPAI decisions and Fed. Cir. decisions defining an “abstract idea,” which is really the main inquiry now.
I agree with mmmkay. Fundamental truths, longstanding practices, and methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas. See p. 10. Not clear what if anything else is abstract. Sup Ct “need not labor to delimit the precise contours of the ‘abstract ideas’ category in this case.”
Big Sam, you missed the point that it is the d@m scriviners that are at fault for claiming machines. How dare they think that by using the explicit words of Congress that they could ‘hoodwink’ the Royal Nine and try to get around the Royal Nine’s implicit words.
Don’t they know who was granted to write patent law by the Constitution?
/off sarcasm (just in case your sarcasm meter is broken).
Comments are closed.