by Dennis Crouch
I was surprised when I ran these numbers and found that 4% of recently issued patents include a non-transitory claim limitation. (95% of these are in what I term computer-related arts). For the most part, these are software patent claims. However, because “software” per se is usually not considered patent eligible, patent attorneys moved toward claiming a computer-readable-medium having the software instructions stored therein. More recently, the PTO concluded that those claims – when broadly interpreted – would encompass transitory signals which are not patent eligible under Section 101. The PTO suggested that applicants amend their claims “by adding the limitation ‘non-transitory’ to the claims.”
Open question – how many of these cases have written description support for the new non-transitory limitation?
Why 112: The protection of “information” was not at issue in Nuijten. The broadest claim of Nuijten is as follows: A signal with embedded supplemental data, t
LOL. You’re joking, right? Please tell me you’re joking.
Lol previous to 2009 we didn’t invent many non-transitory things.
We still do not.
Again, there is no such thing as “non-transitory.”
He’s going to need it – as it fully appears that the nine years and running blight will not alleviate any into the foreseeable future.
Have a nice day!
“Transitory” is a nonce word.
So are “abstract” and “process” …..
One VERY big difference between “process” and either of “transitory” or “abstract”….
Can you guess what that difference is?
It is a critical difference if you want to make an appearance and do battle in this legal domain.
I assume you mean that “process” is written into the statue and the other are judicial refinements?
Is there a real-world meaning to that distinction?
Absolutely.
It has to do with our Constitution.
As I said – this very real difference has a most definite legal meaning.
If you want to fight (and win) in this terrain, you will want to understand this terrain. See Sun Tzu.
Is there a real-world meaning to that distinction?
Who cares about the real world when we’ve got “anon’s” eternally decimating fantasy world to deal with?
When Congress gets the Supreme Court out of patent law then everything will become crystal clear. Just you wait and see, Martin! It’ll be like a paradise of innovation. You’ll be able to litigate your patents remotely over your ComChip (TM), the robot jury will return the verdict in an hour or two, and your money will be transferred directly from the copyist’s bank account into yours.
Being an untrained noob and all, maybe I see things in a light that others may not…
Just as getting cancer tends to make one an expert in their kind of cancer, getting drilled in a nasty troll-like campaign has turned patent law into my second favorite indoor hobby.
I’ve spent a lot of hours contemplating a legal test that could reliably define both “process” and “abstract” in §101 and
§100(b), at least in relation to methods that involve information as a result.
Such a test would have to accord with the body of existing patent law, be easy to apply at the district level, and of course, align with the currently prevailing doctrines of statutory construction and stare decisis on §101 jurisprudence (Mayo, Bilski, Alice, etc.).
I think I may have something, but I don’t think the comment sections here would be a fruitful place to develop it. Maybe an amici filing in Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc if and when it goes up….
Nonetheless, as it stands now, “process” is a nonce word…even if a statutory one…
Your “hobby” leaves you ill-prepared for a discussion on the merits. Quite clearly, what you have been doing is reinforcing your already held biases.
A decidedly poor way of preparing to enter the battle in the domain of law.
awww even after I answered your little riddle Rumpelstiltskin?
Don’t worry, the guild is safe for the moment, but keep messing up like you have for the last 25 years…and well one never does know…
Martin, “Art” was well understood in 1790. What I find highly objectionable that Kennedy pretended that any series of steps was a statutory process, subject to judicial exceptions.
Clearly, Kennedy and his merry crew simply abandoned the law in favor of policy.
Clearly Ned is yet again ig noring what happened in 1952 and 35 USC 100.
Psst, MoT remains JUST a clue.
Anon, quoting back to me the holding of Bilski in order to support the notion that Kennedy’s opinion that any series of steps is a patentable process subject to exceptions is typical of you.
I doubt that more than a very few judicial actors have abandoned law for policy in the matter of interpreting “Process”.
The term is a mirror of what one wants to see- in a well functioning political system, Congress would fix it, or the courts would find a reliable, repeatable test for it.
As MM points out, something about the ‘information age’ causes a reaction of mysticism and fear an policy makers at all levels- a special problem in a system where patenting information can be so destructive of value.
Your “well functioning”: and Malcolm’s “pointing out” are two canard-peas in a pod.
The desire to act like things are a “mystery” is nothing more than the strawman and goal post moving exercises that my counter points show as false and dissembling antics.
One VERY big difference between “process” and either of “transitory” or “abstract”….
Can you guess what that difference is?
“Process” is a noun, while “abstract” and “transitory” are adjectives.
^^^ um sure, now try to take that next step.
Wait a Minute.
1. If the result of an invention is to put something onto a monitor or out through a speaker, isn’t that transitory?
2. If a program is stored in a computer’s main memory, and that memory is DRAM, it needs to be refreshed periodically (about every 4 ms) or it goes away. Does that mean that a program stored in DRAM is transitory?
3. If a program is stored in a computer’s main memory, and that memory is magnetic core memory (you can find it in the history books) there is a problem.
In a core memory, reads are destructive. Reading a memory location destroys the contents. Then you write it back.
The data is there permanently until you read it but in order to read it, it must be destroyed.
Is that transitory or non-transitory?
It is like if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it. Does it make a sound?
If data is in core memory and no one reads it, is the data there?
Or is it like Schrodinger’s Cat?
4. Data in a Flash Memory is stored as charges in an oxide layer. Eventually the charges will leak away. (It’s called “bit rot”.)
The time it take for Bit Rot to set in depends on several factors including the temperature history of the device.
Figure 10 – 20 years.
This assumes you don’t wear it out by exceeding the number of write cycles, which is most likely to happen first. (Don’t use Flash Memory to archive data.)
5. Is Schrodinger’s Cat transitory or non-transitory?
I have to admit that I am now more confused than before the discussion was opened.
Is it possible that the phrase “non-transitory computer readable medium” is simply supposed to exclude a computer readable medium that consists of one or more carrier waves?
Carrier wave with no modulation transports no information.
JM: Is it possible that the phrase “non-transitory computer readable medium” is simply supposed to exclude a computer readable medium that consists of one or more carrier waves?
Oh my.
It can’t be. That would make too much sense.
So, you don’t mind a term like “non-transitory”, even though this term has never been defined and has no clear meaning (as evidenced, e.g., by the many posts here on the subject), but you cannot stand a term like “laminated”, which has a clear meaning to everyone but you?
The layers of his eyes remain firmly closed.
“non-transitory”, even though this term has never been defined and has no clear meaning (as evidenced, e.g., by the many posts here on the subject),
Nobody knows what “transitory” means! You heard it here first, folks. “Transitory”, “borgoflarb”, “vorvolitudinous”, just completely made up stuff without any meaning.
you cannot stand a term like “laminated”
Yes, let’s just make up pure baloney because it pleases ourselves. Keep up the great work, PB.
There is no “pure baloney” here Malcolm.
Your indication as to such is simply dishonest.
That’s why some people add limitations such as “a computer readable medium that does not encompass carrier waves”. However, the PTO may or may not like that.
One would think “a computer readable medium that does not encompass carrier waves” would be the default if the written description contains no explicit reference to carrier waves.
Of course, the one time I tried to write a Beauregard claim, I just used “non-volatile computer memory” because that was the phrase contained in the written description.
Yikes. You’ve only used one Beauregard claim? In what field do you write patents? (I can’t remember the last case I wrote that did NOT have a Beauregard claim.)
PB: I can’t remember the last case I wrote that did NOT have a Beauregard claim.
Now it all starts to make sense.
In theory, I don’t write patent claims. I am supposed to be an engineering scientist. I assist patent prosecutors and litigators as they do the legal stuff.
Can I play the “I was born yesterday” game, too? You guys seem to be having soooooo much fun.
1. If the result of an invention is to put something onto a monitor or out through a speaker, isn’t that transitory?
Nobody is suggesting that the transitory nature of the “result” of the invention is relevant here. The issue is the eligibility of a signal (e.g., an electromagnetic wave traveling through space).
2. If a program is stored in a computer’s main memory, and that memory is DRAM, it needs to be refreshed periodically (about every 4 ms) or it goes away. Does that mean that a program stored in DRAM is transitory?
Programs don’t belong in the patent system so who cares?
If a program is stored in a computer’s main memory, and that memory is magnetic core memory (you can find it in the history books) there is a problem.
There are all kinds of problems associated with patenting programs. You’ve identified another one? Congrats.
No One in Particular,
By George, I think you’ve got it! Since patents expire 20 years after filing (give or take, but lets not quibble), any information (data) storable for more than 20 years is non-transitory for all useful purposes.
Let me know where this sui generis patent requirement comes from that the shelf life of the item must endure for the entire term.
(you do know that not a single pharmaceutical compound has a shelf life that long, right?)
Big Pharma won’t be happy with you.
Anon,
Big pharma won’t care. They do not use “non-transitory” claim limitations as far as I know.
Everything is transitory (and that is the point, eh?)
But here to your post, there is NO pharmaceutical product that retains its utility for a twenty year term – so, yes, Big Pharma is going to be a bit ticked at where you are going.
“Non-transitory” has “government agency” written all over it. Is matter transitory? Is a signal bouncing back and forth between to opposing reflectors transitory? Arguably, everything is transitory … life, the Universe, Pauly Shore’s career; it’s all relative. Even the most allowance-minded attorney should think twice about whether the PTO’s fondness for “non-transitory” makes the term definite.
Here’s a conundrum. Laser light (a signal) is passing through a special solid state material that can be controlled to be opaque or transparent. As the light is passing through the material in a transparent state, the material is turned opaque, and the light is locked into the material (it lasts about a minute). Is the light locked in the material transitory?
google “Viewpoint: A Long-Term Memory for Light”
Nice add, HOPoB,
oh, I wish upon a star, whose transitory existence I long to have my own non-transitory existence match in duration…
[High-fived]
Some hum1l1ty please:
link to planetary.org?
Arguably, everything is transitory
How strange, then, that someone ever tried to make a distinction between transitory and instransitory things.
I’ve heard it said here as well that “everything is abstract.”
Patent attorneys truly seem like they are from another planet, sometimes.
Most of these patents will be quite… transitory.
Most…?
ALL patents are transitory.
Which ones, my friend, make up the ones outside of the “most” that you have in mind?
Perhaps unwittingly, you make the point that “transitory” is but an artiface, a sham, a device best retired.
The cover article of the September 2011 issue of Intellectual Property Today had an article discussing the mess that is “non-transitory.” Too bad no one at the Patent Office seems to have read it.
What software or service are you using to run these numbers? Just curious what is best way to broadly analyze PTO happenings.
I downloaded all of the patents on to my home computer. I then wrote a script that parsed through all of the claims.
Dennis,
All, as in all about two million since 2000? From the PTO? Using their Search Patents? What search terms does one use?
The USPTO has ReedTech hosting all the data for bulk download and macro-level analysis. Head to link to patents.reedtech.com
More realistically, one could do the queries on any of the commercial search engines such as Innovation, Orbit, PatBase, TotalPatent, STN, or even many of the lesser known commercial engines.
PS DIP,
Thanks. I see that one can download a variety of bulk data from Reed Tech. Since 1976, issued patents are organized as one ZIP file (without much compression) of about 100 MB per week.
How large is that file?
I suggest anybody looking for a good read on the history of “signal claims” read the following article from 2005:
link to integrityip.com
In vol. 61, No. 40, pages 74-78 of the Federal Register dated February 28, 1996, the USPTO published a set of guidelines that included examples of statutory subject matter. Example 13 reads as follows:
A computer data signal embodied in a carrier wave comprising:
a. a compression source code segment comprising [the code]; and
b. an encryption source code segment comprising [the code].
This claim was described by the USPTO as being statutory subject matter. The following is from the August 2001 version of the MPEP:
However, a signal claim directed to a practical application of electromagnetic
energy is statutory regardless of its transitory nature. See O’Reilly, 56 U.S. at 114-19; In re Breslow, 616 F.2d 516, 519-21, 205 USPQ 221, 225-26 (CCPA 1980).
And then came the 2006 Fed. Cir. panel decision noted below, In re Nuitjen, and that old PTO position on claiming signals themselves, rather than an apparatus for generating them, suddenly became obsolete.
Yes Paul, Nuitjen is controlling law.
That’s not the point.
The point is how factually bad that decision is – factually as to anyone who understands physics and the law.
Anyone else who merely wants a pre-determined philosophically driven ends, just bumble along with your eyes closed.
Nuitjen is controlling law.
That’s not the point.
The point is how factually bad that decision is
Regardless of how “factually bad” you beleive it is, the decision will never, ever be reversed — even if it were “factually better” — so maybe quit your crying about it.
Nine years have gone by. Anyone notice a massive decline in the number of “new signals” being “innovated”?
Me neither.
Your own words bring more condemnation than I could pen when you (gleefully) embrace an ends reached not only through suspect means, but admittedly bad means.
That “nine years” also marks something else as rank….
Anon, methods of producing signals were held patentable in the American Bell Telephone cases.
Morse? System of signs, etc. Is that a claim to a signal or a process? I think the latter.
Remind me again Ned, how much did his “space” weigh…
😉
I don’t read Morse as explicitly rejecting the patent-eligibility of a signal.
I read Morse as the categorical rejection of any claim that recites a (the transmission of alphanumeric signals) without (1) any particular implementation (“by any means whatsoever”), and (2) any particular purpose or problem to be addressed.
Morse is about both the “abstract ideas” exception, and preemption. It is not about the patent-eligibility of particular statutory classes. As I recall, none of the (non-apparatus) claims in Morse centrally recited a “signal” as the statutory class – they read like: “the use of electromagnetism to transmit messages.”
Actually, Morse based its holding in the then analog of 112. It was NOT and exception.
…and yet, when there was a 101, the Court did not use 112, but instead attempted to use 101.(with Morse.
Why is that, Ned?
Yes – I do have my “theory,” and it very much has to do with a facial feature and a substance made by bees.
Morse was not a 101 case. However, Rubber-Tip Pencil was. That is it case upon which the Benson rested.
Dennis, the only support for Beauregard claims the I see in most patents is no more than a recitation of a general purpose digital computer.
Wouldn’t it be hilarious if the PTO and the courts were to hold that the term CRM was governed by 112(f), and were to look to the specification for corresponding structure?
…because basturdization of law and reality is always “hilarious“….
/face palm
Below is a Beauregard claim that I proposed for a 1990s patent application. Because the attorneys were uncomfortable with my use of relative clauses, which differed from usual patentese, it was entered in a somewhat different form. I believe it contains a good deal more than a recitation of a general purpose computer.
[The claim will be clearer if the HTML pre tag works. I have never tried this particular tag in this forum.]
For use with a network switching device having a plurality of
input/output devices, a non-volatile computer memory that stores
software instructions
that direct a processing unit to configure the network switching
device and to operate the network switching device once
configured,
that include:
at least one configuration routine that:
defines one or more logical bridges, wherein each of the
one or more logical bridges includes one or more ports
that provide one or more connections to a logical bridge,
selectively associates each of said input/output devices
with a selected one or more of said logical bridges, and
creates one or more data structures that represent which
input/output devices have been associated with each
logical bridge; and
at least one bridging routine that responds to said one or
more data structures by creating said one or more logical
bridges with which one or more input/output devices have been
associated to operate as one or more separate media access
control level bridges including, and having an attached a port
for, each of the input/output devices represented as being
associated with such logical bridge by said one or more data
structures,
whose said configuration routine upon execution creates the
one or more data structures, and
whose said bridging routine upon execution operates the one or
more separate media access control level bridges.
Oh well, the pre tag did not work. 🙁
Also of interest (and amusement) are the 40+ patents with claims that explicitly state they are “non-statutory” as in a “non-statutory computer readable storage medium.” Care should have been taken so that a spell checker did not translate “non-transitory” into something requiring a Certificate of Correction.