by Dennis Crouch
In her confirmation hearings on January 21, Michelle Lee reported to the Senate that both the USPTO and the Courts have taken significant steps in addressing problems in the patent system following enactment of the AIA. However, Lee supports further “balanced” statutory reform to particularly address patent litigation abuses. However, Lee was unwilling to take a stance on any particular reform, such as the automatic-fee-shifting that was a central aspect of the Goodlatte patent reform bill in 2014. Republicans now control the Senate, and thus Republican support is a necessary element of the confirmation hearings. However, it appears that Lee will garner full support from the committee. A letter sent the same-day to senate leaders signed by 200+ entities also calls for balance and moderation in any patent reforms. [Inventing America Patent Letter]
Lee did take more of a stand in her speech at the Brookings Institute on the 22nd in explaining her major top priority of enhancing the quality of patents issued by the USPTO to reduce the cost associated with issuing patents that should not have issued. As part of that goal, the agency will soon announce a set of proposed quality initiatives and look for input from stakeholders. In addition, Director Lee has appointed Valencia Martin Wallace as the first Deputy Commissioner for Patent Quality. Martin Wallace was already an Assistant Deputy Commissioner focused on Electrical Disciplines after rising through the ranks of the PTO.
At 7312111 in this very thread, your comment is most welcome, Sticks.
I suspect that it is “new” for everybody here, and not just you, that, in prosecuting a patent application at the EPO:
“….the primary task of their EPO counsel is to help the Examiner to see how to draft the Votum.”
So in reply, as a free-standing new post, I run it up the flagpole to see what reaction it gets (esp. from the posters 6 and Random Guy).
Frankly, Readers, when it comes to “Quality”, I see it as a key difference between the USPTO and the EPO, that applicants at the EPO don’t get to issue until they have brought the 3-member EPO team that constitutes the “Examining Division” around to entering a so-called “Votum” in the EPO file, that is to say, solid reasons why the claimed subject matter does indeed exhibit an inventive step over the art. For some of the stuff allowed by the USPTO, writing such a Votum would be quite challenging.
Another key difference is the EPO c-i-t form of claim. Sorting the elements into those found in the prior art starting document, with the invention “characterized in that” the other features are present, will very often brutally expose that there is no inventive step at all.
So, Lee minions, what do you say about that?
I don’t ever have trouble writing a reasons for allowance (votum?). But I don’t have to futz around with an “inventive step”. I suppose I could come up with one but generally I don’t see why we would in Merica the Great.
Thank you 6. Do I see it right, that the file requires your written reasons, why the patentability of the claimed subject matter is not prejudiced by any of the obviousness objections you wrote earlier into that same file. That would be interesting for me to know.
As you say, why should you have to “come up with” an inventive step. I agree entirely. That job, to the extent that it exists, is one for the prosecuting attorney. the ED just adopts it for the EPO file.
BTW, in the EPC, Art 56, “obvious” and “inventive” are no more than antonyms, one of the other.
You would be well advised to study US law, particularly the 1952 Act, wherein our Congress made an explicit choice NOT to view, as you offer the EPO to do, invention as the antonym of obvious.
An article by the architect of the 1952 Act, explicated this in great detail. That article was written by Judge Rich (and I would posit that it is such explications that draw the fury of Ned Heller and the denigrations of Judgr Rich and the learned judge’s intimate views on the law).
As for Miss Lee to make any such thing compulsory, since the executive agency does NOT have the power to make law (see Tafas), she would only be able to make such a compulsory burden to be placed on the examiners.
That being said, I would very much applaud such use – and have even advocated such directly in the past.
This then, a rare common point we share (at least until we get to the ability to make it a burden for the selected “doer” of the action).
You don’t provide a clue, but I suppose you allude to the pre-1952 “flash of genius” and 35 USC 103’s “shall not be negatived” language. That is all irrelevant and beside the point, because under the EPC it’s no different. Do not make the mistake of supposing that the EPC’s “inventive step” connotes a flash of anything at all, still less “genius”.
Recourse to any dictionary of the English language will reveal to you that obvious and inventive are antonyms. Of course, each jurisdiction is free to write the caselaw that tells us how to judge what subject matter is “obvious” and what is not.
I have provided plenty of clues (having even posted links in the past – sorry I don’t have the links handy at the moment) and your desire to consult a standard dictionary for terms of art – especially these terms of art can only be classified as asinine.
Not my original link, but it took all of ten seconds to re-find a link to the same information:
law.case.edu/lawofpatents/docs/Chapter_5.Kettering_Speech.pdf
Enjoy with a mind eager to learn.
Also an interesting read:
link to americanbar.org
A post-morten reflection from the Judge’s clerk at the time of the Kettering piece.
Thanks for that Paper. Of course, European patent statutes also studiously refrain from defining “invention” too. Instead, they set up a requirement for objective non-obviousness. In particular, in the EPC, Article 52(1) provides:
“European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application. ”
but then Art 56 defines Art 52’s “inventive step” as “not obvious”.
See the parallel with Rich? Rich demands just 4 objective conditions for patentability: eligible, useful, novel, not obvious. The EPC requires the same 4 objective conditions, no more, no less.
“An invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art”
So I think the framers of the EPC were of the same mind as Judge Rich. an objective standard for patentability is needed, and that standard is “not obvious”. Going by this Paper, Rich would bless the EPC scheme of patentability.
If you disagree, tell us where you see the difference, between the Rich vision of patentability and the EPC implementation (Art 52-56, eligibility, utility, novelty, non-obviousness) of conditions for patentability.
Move the goalposts back and note the parts of the paper wherein Judge Rich rejected your position on trying to equate the two words.
The Rich-authored Kettering Award Address (drawn to my attention by anon) reveals Rich’s distaste for the enquiry how much inventive activity does it take to qualify for a patent. I share that distaste. So does the Supreme Court of Germany, which has scrapped as unworkable the difference between “inventive activity” and “inventive step” in its respective 10 and 20 year patent categories. These days, obviousness in Germany is a binary Y/N enquiry, for all utility patents.
The Rich Address vindicates the EPO’s TSM approach to obviousness, sweeping away all subjective assessments about whether the claimed subject matter is “inventive” enough to qualify for issue, and replacing it with a brutally objective, transparent and predictable binary Y/N obviousness enquiry.
I see that Giles Rich was the son of an eminent patent attorney. So, he was steeped in patent law all his long life. If he were alive today, he would I am sure be enthused by the EPO’s approach to obviousness.
While I am appreciative of your reading the references I provided, and of the laudatory things that you have to say about Judge Rich, I cannot help but notice that you have not yet addressed the point that precipitated this discussion.
I cannot tell if you have learned that lesson.
Pray tell, do.
“Do I see it right, that the file requires your written reasons,”
Nah, it isn’t “required” but most spes make us do it anyway to appease the qases and to make it easier for them or the public to review.
And no, usually I don’t drone on about how there is something now making the claim not obvious ivo the art of record. Instead I just write down what the features are that I see as distinguishing patentably. Usually that’s how it happens. Of late I have a spe whose hand I have to hold so much I just go ahead and put down why it isn’t obvious or whatever little blurb. This spe is particularly afeared of the boogeymen qases.
Well thanks again 6. For me, novelty is relatively boring because it is piss simple to plug into a claim a feature that renders the claim novel over the art. If what you write down is a note of what features deliver novelty, that’s not in itself very interesting.
More challenging is to think through, and then express in words, what it is about the claim that saves it from being obvious. Examining Divisions at the EPO have to do this, every time they feel inclined to allow an application.
From your contributions here, I get the impression it would be no trouble for you. But from my overall “take” on what gets issued routinely by the USPTO, I have the feeling though, that it would be considerably more challenging for many of your brother and sister Examiners. Still, practice would make perfect, wouldn’t it.
” If what you write down is a note of what features deliver novelty,”
Usually what I write down is what makes it both novel and non-obvious. I try to be comprehensive like that if possible all at once.
“More challenging is to think through, and then express in words, what it is about the claim that saves it from being obvious. Examining Divisions at the EPO have to do this, every time they feel inclined to allow an application.”
Sux for them.
“From your contributions here, I get the impression it would be no trouble for you. ”
Nah, not really.
“Still, practice would make perfect, wouldn’t it.”
Yeah probably.
I enjoy reading your stuff, 6. It often brings a smile.
I see that obviousness reasoning is all so easy for you. You know, you would enjoy serving on an EPO Board of Appeal. No further right of appeal for the patent owner, and that for the entirety of a market of 600 million consumers. When you pronounce it obvious, the claim is dead and gone, for the whole of Europe. It is pretty scary, appearing for the patent owner before an EPO Board of Appeal. I daresay you would enjoy that tension in the room.
Smiling at the thought of anti-patent 6 with such beaurocratic power…
If that’s not twisted, I’m not sure what is.
Yet another “with a friend of patents like this, who needs enemies?”
Yeah I might max, but idk man, I’m more of a “work out the issue between individuals” sort of person. It’s so much easier that way and works for like nearly ever case. It would likely work for every case where someone wasn’t acting an ar se if I were a bit better, but I have a ways to improve yet on my abilities of persuasion.
Well thanks again 6. For me, novelty is relatively boring because it is relatively simple to plug into a claim a feature that renders the claim novel over the art. If what you write down is a note of what features deliver novelty, that’s not in itself very interesting.
More challenging is to think through, and then express in words, what it is about the claim that saves it from being obvious. Examining Divisions at the EPO have to do this, every time they feel inclined to allow an application.
From your contributions here, I get the impression it would be no trouble for you. But from my overall “take” on what gets issued routinely by the USPTO, I have the feeling though, that it would be considerably more challenging for many of your brother and sister Examiners. Still, practice would make perfect, wouldn’t it.
Well thanks again 6. For me, novelty is not so interesting, because it is relatively simple to plug into a claim a feature that renders the claim novel over the art. If what you write down is a note of what features deliver novelty, that’s not in itself very interesting.
More challenging is to think through, and then express in words, what it is about the claim that saves it from being obvious. Examining Divisions at the EPO have to do this, every time they feel inclined to allow an application.
From your contributions here, I get the impression it would be no trouble for you. But from my overall “take” on what gets issued routinely by the USPTO, I have the feeling though, that it would be considerably more challenging for many of your brother and sister Examiners. Still, practice would make perfect, wouldn’t it.
Why the repeat of the post above? Because two words snagged the filter and attracted an “in moderation” flag. They do not appear in the second posting.
I see the flag has gone. Thank you Moderator.
I believe that with the USPTO that it is completely optional for the examiner to explicate in any meaningful detail the reasons for allowance (the equivalent to the EPO ‘Votum’).
The difference perhaps being in that the US, such is not strictly a legal requirement (that damm sovereignty thing rearing its head again, perhaps).
Again, thanks. Optional then.
Just an idea of mine, (and no encroach on the USA’s sovereignity) but would quality rise if Ms Lee were to delicately flex her fragrant muscles and order it henceforth to be compulsory? After all, you yourself told us it would be no trouble for you personally. But your colleagues? For them, might it be a tad more troublesome, at least every now and then?
Oops, sorry folks. I thought there I was in dialogue with 6. Never mind. Makes no difference to the question.
Not strictly a legal requirement at the EPO either, strict or otherwise. Just Routine mundane Office procedures, imposed by EPO in house management, presumably to maintain “Quality” and consistency and a good reputation.
Regarding these meetings with stakeholders, are they at least on the record, open to the public?
Less than a year ago, the answer to both questions was a resounding “NO.”
Maybe it was one of those “quality” thingies…
I fear that the influential “stakeholders in” a specific part of the Executive, namely the USPTO, have desired mandates and aims for the USPTO which are arguably broader than that strictly within the delegated authority of the USPTO, and moreover, that “the USPTO” may be sympathetic with those particular “influential” stakeholders and their mandate.
I fear this because “the dialogue” of those “stakeholders” might be used by “the USPTO”, to try to lead or influence the Legislative or Judicial branches, the way a tail might wag a dog.. so that in the capacity of following the law within the mandate given it the tail follows, but in that the goal of the tail becomes to influence the authority that makes the laws i.e. that wags it, if successful, it in fact becomes the “wagger”.
Query whether any attempt by “the USPTO” to “lead the dialogue”, to exert influence on the other branches which make the laws it is to follow, is ultra vires the official responsibilities and duties of the USPTO… or is it simply good politics of modern “democracy”?
anon2, I recall when Hillary consulted with stakeholders behind closed doors to craft a medical care bill in ’93 or so, the resulting uproar brought the GOP to power in the House for the first time in 45 Years. Even if it is legal, and there was substantial question of whether it was legal, it did not have the appearance of impartiality or of fair and open debate.
Here is a link to the decision: link to aapsonline.org
It quotes the relevant act as follows:
“FACA places a number of restrictions on the advisory committees
themselves. Before it can meet or take any action, a committee
first must file a detailed charter, see i~ § 9(c). The committee
must give advance notice in the Federal Register of any meetings,
see id. § 10(a)(2); and it must hold all meetings in public, see
id. § iO(a)(1). Under section 10, the committee must keep
detailed minutes of each meeting, see id. § 10(c), and make the
records available– along with any reports, records, or other
documents used by the committee–to the public…:
Dennis, please disregard my posts awaiting moderation in thread 15, and let me know what part of your site posting rules, my post in this thread 16 (currently awaiting moderation) has run afoul of should you decide not to allow it.
Thank you Dennis!
In regard to your question, I don’t know what triggered the spam filter.
Anyone care to speculate why the Ms. Lee has chosen to describe one of her focuses as the “quality” of granted patents rather than “validity” of granted patents or “quality of examination” (which seem more straightforward conceptually)?
Is it because of the “dialogue” of the “stakeholders”? (notice the “air quotes”)
Anyone care to speculate on the metes and bounds of the her concept “patent quality”?
Remember the Execute branch (as opposed to the Legislative or Judicial) does not actually make law… patent or otherwise… but is required to follow the law.
the Execute branch (as opposed to the Legislative or Judicial) does not actually make law… patent or otherwise… but is required to follow the law.
I don’t see any indication or suggestion from Ms. Lee that the PTO isn’t going to “follow the law.”
Question: if a client comes to you with an extremely valuable non-obvious correlation and asks you to obtain claims which would prevent others from applying that correlation in their otherwise unpatentable business endeavors, are you “following the law” if you cleverly draft a claim that fulfill’s the client’s dreams?
Question: if a client comes to you with an idea for a “new display” that is structurally indistinguishable from prior art displays but instead distinguishable only on the basis of the information communicated by the display, are you “following the law” if you submit claims to the PTO designed to protect this “new display”?
Question: if a client comes to you with a data structure encoded on tangible media, where the data structure encodes information for 3-D printing an incredibly useful jet engine component, are you “following the law” if you submit claims to the PTO designed to protect that data structure?
I’ve no doubt that the PTO doesn’t always “follow the law” but in nearly every case it’s because it’s bending over backwards to help the applicant avoid “following the law”. That’s the real problem.
Nobody is surprised that the usual patent maximalists are attacking the PTO like there’s no tomorrow. It’s what they always do. And of course they are going to turn up the volume when they don’t get what they want, regardless of whether their wishes involve “following the law” or not. Take it to the bank.
>Nobody is surprised that the usual patent maximalists are attacking >the PTO like there’s no tomorrow.
Nobody is surprised that the judicial activist are actively paying bloggers to blast the most popular blogs with sound bites.
Nobody is surprised that the judicial activist are actively paying bloggers to blast the most popular blogs with sound bites.
Who’s “getting paid” to “blast the most popular blogs with sound bites”, NWPA?
I’m not.
Or are you just channeling that little spaceman who lives in your tinfoil hat again?
Don’t forget: the patent system is not under attack…
Um sure… (those little spacemen tell you that…?)
Don’t forget: the patent system is not under attack…
There’s a big difference between observing that a system is being criticized, on one hand, and accusing people of being paid to write “soundbites” in the comments section of a blog.
No surprise that you are having difficulty with that.
If the correlation is “Integrated” in a business method, ( which is definitely patentable) yes you are following the law. See ( Diehr, Bilski, and Prometheus).
Any questions regarding Integration?
::Silence::
Anyone care to speculate on the metes and bounds of the her concept “patent quality”?
Sounds like you do. Is there a reason you can’t?
Classic Malcolm – not bother to give answers, just wanting that from others.
not bother to give answers, just wanting that from others.
LOL.
Pretty sure it’s your bff “Anon2” who’s “wanting answers from others”.
Nice try, though.
Pretty sure you kind of missed the point there Malcolm.
Yes, Anon2 wanted answers – yet answers is not what you supplied.
Again.
(Obtuse. Is it deliberate? – said in the best Andy Dusfresne tones)
Anon2 wanted answers
So do I.
[shrugs]
Keep on [shrugging] and keep on missing the point.
Here’s a hint: it matters not to chime in with a “I want too” as the impetus from Anon2 is to derive answers from you.
You don’t ever seem all that big on giving answers to the questions of others. Especially when those questions prompt answers that don’t fit your memes.
the impetus from Anon2 is to derive answers from you.
Really? I think he was trying to “derive answers” from you.
In any case, my “impetus” is for Anon2 to derive answers for himself, assuming he’s capable of doing that. But go ahead and pretend that Anon2’s “impetus” matters more than mine. Whatever floats your tiny, tiny boat.
You don’t ever seem all that big on giving answers to the questions of others.
Riiiiiiight. When you come down from whatever drugs you’re on, try again.
Tried to answer you MM, but my answer is in moderation.
Anyone care to speculate why the Ms. Lee has chosen to describe one of her focuses as the “quality” of granted patents rather than “validity” of granted patents or “quality of examination” (which seem more straightforward conceptually)?
All patents have a presumption of validity until proven otherwise. But the law says nothing about a presumption of quality….
What does the law even say about this notion of “quality”…?
Anything at all?
If not, can the executive branch even take the lead? Would that not be tantamount to the wrong branch of the government creating law?
anon2,
What she does and says about stakeholders raises all sorts of questions about political corruption. If the people at the stakeholder table are limited to major campaign contributors, this whole patent quality initiative is a political shakedown.
The appearance of corruption is as bad as real corruption.
B-b-but we don’t really know about “the appearance” because it was behind closed doors and it was not recorded.
“Trust us”
Hmmm, I wonder if the head of the EPO can borrow that “trust us” line…
Here’s yet another example of a d.0.a. claim pressed by a desperate applicant all the way up to the Federal Circuit (which wisely affirmed the Board per curium under Rule 36; In re Traffic Information LLC).
This is a perfect example of the very lowest form of functionally-claimed, information-processing “innovations” that needs to be permanently (and quickly) expunged from the patent system if the system is expected to return to anything resembling “normal.”
There is no reason on the planet for the PTO or Federal judges to be wasting more than five minutes time with this nonsense.
90/011,600
A system for providing traffic information to a plurality of mobile users connected to a network, comprising
(a) a plurality of mobile user stations, each mobile user station being associated with a display, a global posititioning system receiever and a communicating device to allow each of said mobile user stations to send and receive signals;
(b) a computer system interconnected with another communicating device and a network, said network being capable of sending and receiving signals to and from said mobile user stations;
(c) said computer system including a map database and a traffic information database containing data representative of traffic at a plurality of locations;
(d) at least one of said mobile user stations providing a request to said computer system for information together with a respective geographic location of said mobile user stations information representative of selected portions of said map database and selected portions of said traffic information database based on said respective geographic location of said mobile user stations;
(e) said one of said mobile user stations displaing graphically on said display information representative of said selective portions of said map database and said selected pritions of said traffic information database.
I’ve highlighted in bold the only “new” features of this “innovation.” Does everybody see the problem? That’s right: the only allegedly “new” subject matter in this claim is the allegedly “new” information stored in the database that is (omigod!) “displayed” upon request (who could have predicted?). In other words, the applicant here is trying to protect the information that can be stored and transmitted by pre-existing computer technology.
That’s a 101 problem. It doesn’t matter how much nonsense you load into the information content and it doesn’t matter where the information comes from. It’s still just information. It might be valuable as all heck but you can’t protect that information with a patent.
The issue in this case wasn’t subject matter eligibility but rather the prior art which taught (surprise!) that computers could be used to transmit information upon request, including information about traffic (there’s nothing at all special about traffic information, just like there’s nothing special about brown dwarf information and there’s nothing special about stock market information or bingo card information — computers really could care less).
Go ahead and read the applicant’s arguments trying to distinguish these claims from the prior art. And then tell everyone with a straight face that the “real problem” facing the PTO is “poor quality examination.”
MM,
Do you know where I can find the appeal briefs?
link to plainsite.org
It’s going to take you to Pacer. I couldn’t find a free source for the briefs. You can get a good sense of the “merits” from the oral arguments. The judges’ minds are made up (as any reasonable person’s mind would be) and they can barely stay awake.
link to cafc.uscourts.gov
Listen to the applicant’s attorney vainly try to make hay out of the “request” limitation. Even if there was a colorable argument (and there isn’t), is this “request” baloney really the “innovation” over the prior art that the applicant deems patent-worthy? Seriously? The applicant’s computer system responds to a “request” but the prior art system, which sends the same information to the same mobile users, somehow doesn’t? This merits the waste of PTO resources, not to mention that of three Federal judges??
But that’s how the game is played by the lowest form of innovators. Hey, why not put some dependent claims in there about “the request” being made from a car wherein the car comprises some french fries? Or wherein the user has a beard? Or wherein the car is driving between 43.22 and 53.23 miles per hour? Or wherein the car is green? That’s the typical level of “innovation” cheered for by the micromental “innovators” who dominate the software patent industry, which is to say: there is no innovation whatsoever. Instead it’s just a transparent, desperate and endless game of whack-a-mole, completely divorced from any progress in any technology.
And if you’re really up for having your brain scrambled, check out the oral arguments in Virginia Innovation v. Samsung. The patentee’s “innovation” there is putting a signal converter (e.g., digital to analog — and functionally claimed, of course) on a mobile device. WOW. Because, you know, “mobile.” Super techno stuff, man. Keep a damp cloth nearby. There was so much dust kicked up in the courtroom it’ll come out of your computer’s speakers.
It is just amazing that after someone explains an invention to you it all seems so obvious.
I wonder if there is a name for that? I don’t think MM has ever heard of it. I think it is called hindsight and, of course, we can expect our Google judges to have no idea what that is.
All inventions are made up of known components.
The claim you posted does not seek to claim the information. The claims cover a system for displaying the information.
You didn’t mention the filing date. So, I don’t know if the system in my car is prior art or not. But the system is heaven sent. Whenever I’m stuck in traffic…. 30 seconds later a lady turns down my radio and says: “Your route is being recalculated due to traffic information”. Then she steers me around the problem. That on top of a map display showing the problem areas in yellow or red depending on the severity of the problem…
So, If this is the guy that invented that, he should get a patent, a pat on the back and a whole lotta spendin money.
FYI, the Patent in question has a 1999 priority date…
link to google.com
I suppose it was all obvious and known then too…
Say, I have an idea that you can mine valuable minerals from asteroids using a plurality of spacecraft, one spacecraft comprising mining tools and another spacecraft transporting said minerals to Earth.
Down to the PTO I should go, and untold wealth will my reward as soon as someone infringes on my invention!
If there is an invention there Martin, which there would not be in what you have said.
You know Martin, you should spend some time actually learning patent law before spending hours spouting off on a blog.
Say, I have an idea that make valuable chemical for curing diabetes from atomic elements using a plurality of reaction vessels, one vessel comprising mixing tools and another vessel applying heat to said element, thereby encouraging a chemical reaction.
Down to the PTO I should go, and untold wealth will my reward as soon as someone infringes on my invention!
What is your point?
Les: the Patent in question has a 1999 priority date…
So what? Computers were old in 1999. Sending signals to mobile devices upon request was old in 1999. The prior art describes it all, quite plainly.
The utility of traffic information is even older, of course.
The claim you posted does not seek to claim the information. The claims cover a system for displaying the information.
Again: the technology is old. The only “new” aspect of this information sharing system is the information content being shared.
“Claims” don’t “seek” to do things. Applicants do. The applicant here is trying to exclude people from using old technology to communicate certain types of information. That raises the eligibility issue. The claim is, in fact, ineligible.
If this is the guy that invented that, he should get a patent, a pat on the back and a whole lotta spendin money.
Nobody’s preventing you from giving the guy some money, Les. I’m pretty sure he’d take it. Send him some flowers, too, while you’re at it.
“Computers were old in 1999”
The canard of Malcolm’s “logic” (read those as air quotes) is trotted out (yet again).
According to that same “logic,” look at my big box of electrons, protons, and neutrons.
Couple that with the thin veneer of the debunked “House” arguement and of course Malcolm’s refusal to explain how “old box” without change – (hint: use the inherency doctrine of patent law) can come to have new capabilities that “old box” did not have prior to the addition of the component – and manufacture in its own right – of software, and we have (yet again) the exact same C R P – run away and C R P merry go round that we have every time Malcolm uses the canards from the short script of anti-patent mantra.
According to that same “logic,” look at my big box of electrons, protons, and neutrons.
The fact that computers are old is not “the logic”. It’s just a basic uncontroversial fact that I’m relying on when explaining why the claim at issue — and so many claims like it — are unpatentable. It’s also a fact that the PTO needs to remember to rely on (they did a good job in this case and the CAFC had no problem tanking the claim per curium without further comment).
If you want to argue that “because electrons, protons and neutrons are old, every new structurally defined composition of matter and article of manufacture is unpatentable” go right ahead. But try to remember: that’s your argument, not mine.
I know that it’s hard for you, “anon.”. So does Dennis. So does Jason. So does everybody else. That’s why your “electrons are old” baloney is just a big joke.
Go ahead and try to float the argument in court and see what happens. Even the desperate attorney representing Traffic Information LLC didn’t stoop that low. Nobody does. Except you.
“structurally defined”
I almost did not notice your attempt (again) to make an issue out of using one optional claim format as if it were the only allowed claim format under the law.
Why do you persist in this material misrepresentation of the law in your advocacy on this social media?
It is not as if you are unaware of either your mistake nor the ethical implications of such dissembling. But the constant choice to ig nore what the law is in this matter only makes you look f001ish, manipulative, and desperate – that your “world view” crashes if you were to actually admit what the law – per the words of Congress – allows.
Traffic information may have been old in 1999. But delivery of timely traffic information to an ordinary motorist was not. The best one could hope to receive is a thrice hourly traffic update on some FM or AM radio station. That information being old and more than likely in regard to a rode that the motorist was not on.
This is the information age. Many inventions will be related to improvements is the processing and delivery of information.
Get over it.
I agree.