Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

Upcoming Events

Get a Job doing Patent Law                  

About Anthony McCain

Anthony McCain is a law student at Mizzou where he is focusing on intellectual property; He has a background in mechanical engineering.

110 thoughts on “Patentlyo Bits and Bytes by Anthony McCain

  1. 13

    Does everybody remember McWrong, the nonsensical 101 case that the CAFC published which completely undermines the Supreme Court and which is going to be reversed fast and hard?

    What happens when you ignore the Supreme Court is that judges in Texas start fawning over claims like this one:

    1. A method for conveying user location information, comprising:

    interfacing with an administrator that authorizes a first user associated with a first user identification code to access an object location information from a location information source associated with a second user identification code that is different from the first identification code; and

    conveying the object location information to a third user based on an information access code specified by said first user, said information access code being associated with a third user identification code that is different from the first and second user identification codes.

    5. The method of claim 1, wherein the second user identification code is associated with a zone information comprising a coordinate on a map; and wherein at least one of the object location information or zone information is conveyed to the third user based on the information access code.

    6. The method of claim 5, wherein the second user identification code is associated with an object location event information that relates the object location information to the zone information; and wherein at least one of the object location information or the zone information or the object location event information is conveyed to the third user based on the information access code.

    Try to believe it folks. The best part: no mention of a computer of any kind in the claim. But it’s sooper dooper techno! Authorization codes! Identification codes! Wowee zowee. We definitely need to listen to the patentee’s hired “expert” tell us how wonderfully awesome this invention is before it’s tossed in the trash. Otherwise nobody will harness the magical power of identification codes to “improve” the communication of information about “object locations.” LOL

  2. 12

    PTO grants design patent for “rectangles displayed on a computer screen”.

    No doubt this is just the tip of a massive iceberg of indistinguishable cr p.

    How long until graphical interface “designs” bite the bullet? Hopefully it’ll happen soon. It can’t happen soon enough, really. But I’m sure some patent attorneys raking in the cash will disagree. And we have to pay attention to them!

    1. 12.1

      Maybe people will “pay attention” if you do more than display your feelings and a desired End.

      Maybe if you admit to the present Means (the actual law), and discuss THAT…

      1. 12.1.1

        Go ahead and discuss “the actual law”, “anon”, if you think you’re the “expert” on that topic.

        Try plain English and declarative sentences. Maybe next year you’ll succeed in writing an entire paragraph that makes sense.

        For now, just point everyone to the design patent statute that expressly authorizes design patents on the “design” of light patterns projected from a light-emitting device onto a person’s eyes. Make everybody’s day, Mr. “Actual Law.” Note that I’m not suggesting that nobody is capable of doing this task. I am certainly suggesting that if you were to do it, everyone would be very very surprised indeed.

        So go ahead. Surprise everybody. Or just continue hurling insults. Dennis loves you!


          Lol – how typical of you Malcolm.

          Put off that which is asked of you, then couple it with your own ad hominem even as you accuse someone else of that which you do.

          Not sure you could be more of a putz even if you tried.


            Go ahead, “anon.”

            Surprise everybody with your “actual law.”

            Cat got your tongue again?


            Thank goodness Dennis lets you play these games. Otherwise we might think that the Junk Patent Luvvers Club was something we should take seriously.


              Quite at point here Malcolm is the plain fact that I am on record as saying the patent laws as to design patents are horrendous.

              This is NOT as you attempt to portray with some sort of “ Junk Patent Luvvers Club.”

              You are simply wrong and doubling done on your baseless ad hominem which follows your “feelings”and mere “desired Ends” with ZERO discussion of actual law.

              This type of “Wah/feelings/ad hominem/absence of law” is a blight.

              That you want to turn this into an accusation of me “playing games” is simply more of your usual mindless meme.

              How about you aim for the law – put your feelings aside, and drop the mindless and misplaced ad hominem?

              Give it a try. It’s a new decade.


                “anon” the patent laws as to design patents are horrendous.

                Why? Are there some design patents being granted that trouble you? If so, let’s see an example.

  3. 11

    The article about the impossibility drive is somewhat flawed.

    Even if the novel propulsion is shown to work, although it requires no fuel, it does not (can cannot) violate the conservation of energy. [A discovery of that magnitude would be earth shattering] The article indicates this drive means the equivalent of “a limitless resource of energy to tap into and utilize for space travel”. This is not true.

    Basically, the EM waves upon which the propulsion system is based must themselves be produced by consumption of energy (stored electrical energy of a battery is used to generate the EM waves), the resulting momentum cannot have a total kinetic energy which exceeds that consumption. It does not constitute a limitless resource of energy.

    1. 11.1

      The patent doc itself is here:

      link to

      The patent doc itself *correctly* states that the EM drive does not violate the law of conservation of energy, does not violate newton’s third law (contrary to what the article claims…), and does not violate conservation of momentum.

      Such a bad article.

      1. 11.1.1

        The time machine is explained in detail in patent application 61/028,885. The time machine is a virtual world that contains an emulated environment of the real world. All physical and non-physical properties in the real world are copied into the time machine. This would include gravity, atomic structure of objects, realistic object interactions, physic laws and so forth.


  4. 10

    when Donald Trump is losing, he falls back on allegations of rigged results. Whether it’s failure to get an Emmy for his reality TV show or a weak showing in a primary contest, The Donnie makes it all about trying to cheat him out of what he views as his due reward. Tremendous as he knows himself to be, outcomes unfavorable to him couldn’t possibly be fair

    “The scoreboard is broken!”

    Gee, that sounds familiar.

    1. 10.1

      You are really reaching.

      You mischaracterize what the phrase means in the context of discussions here about patent law, and your “tie” to Trump is as false as he is.

      There is no personal animus in regards to the “broken scoreboard” in my discussions.
      Thus your “analogy” fails at the start (something you should have been aware of – and the only plausible reason for your post is that you are yet again dissembling.

      You really are the Trump of this blog. Your number one meme of


      1. 10.1.1

        “Big box of protons! Anthromporphociation! Royal Nine! Last week’s accusation! Broken scoreboard!”

        Please, please, please dig faster and deeper.


          Says the guy holding the shovel.

          You know that making sound bites out of catchphrases does NOT make your “argument” in any discussion in which those phrases appear, right?

          Maybe you “man up” your inte11ectual honesty factor and engage meaningfully those conversations instead of your usual empty ad hominem, short scripts and – in the end – mere run aways.

          Also, those catchphrases resonate so well for a variety of reasons, including that you have nothing inte11igent to say in response to the issues under discussions containing those phrases – and never have.

          Maybe – just maybe – the phrases would not make such an impression if you were able to come up with some inte11igent reply/response/answer/just-about-anything.


              Not quite big as either your ego, or your lack of willingness to address items in a straight forward, inte11ectaully honest manner, or your “awe-inspiring reliance on

              but, yeas, the resonance IS huge.


    2. 10.2

      ““The scoreboard is broken!”

      Gee, that sounds familiar.”

      ^MM ignores the blatant propagandizing of the leftist media.

  5. 9

    link to

    MM, what did you think if this case? I was rather persuaded by Newman’s dissent. The PTAB had no evidence upon which to base its holding that the claimed invention (oral inhalation of a specific drug) was obvious. The evidence cited by the Prost majority did not state what Prost said it stated.

    1. 9.1

      A panel of lifer APJ’s and then a panel of appeals judges led by a chief judge whose sole qualification appears to be that she used to pick up Sen. Hatch’s dry cleaning and carry his brief case to hearings.

      Not a surprising result IMO.

  6. 8

    link to

    Last week the federal government recommended that the court grant review in Impression Products v. Lexmark International, a case involving the scope of the “patent exhaustion” doctrine. Although the federal government’s advice is not dispositive, studies have shown that the justices generally give it significant weight….

    In his brief on behalf of the federal government, Acting Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn urges the court to take on both of the questions presented by Impression’s petition. First, the government’s brief contends, the Supreme Court has long held that when a patent holder sells (or authorizes the sale of) a patented product in the United States, the patent laws do not restrict the subsequent sale of the product. This is true, the government argues, even if – as here – a patent holder like Lexmark has put limitations on the post-sale use or resale of the product as part of the terms of the sale. The Federal Circuit’s decision to the contrary, the government tells the justices, “would substantially erode the exhaustion doctrine.”

    As for the second question in the case, the federal government asserts that the Federal Circuit was wrong to hold that an overseas sale never exhausts U.S. patent rights in the patented product. But Impression’s argument that an authorized overseas sale always exhausts U.S. patent rights is equally erroneous, the government continues. Review is warranted, the government argues, because the correct rule is that U.S. patent rights are presumptively exhausted unless the terms of the foreign sale specifically provide otherwise.

    1. 8.1

      Contract terms that “contract away exhaustion” need TOO to be scrutinized.

      Contracts of adhesion and all….

  7. 7

    Whether young voters vote for Clinton by a 2-1 margin, or whether it ends up a 3-1 margin, the fact is no other age demographic comes close to matching those numbers. These kids are our nation’s future … [N]ot only will these young voters help deliver a dominant victory to Clinton, not only will they be the margin in close states, and not only will they help decide close Senate and House elections, but they will establish a voting pattern that will serve us well into the future.

    I wonder what these kids think about the awesomeness of patenting logic and “data structures” on existing programmable computers? It’s really just so hard to predict ….

    1. 7.1

      You never seem to get around answering the simple question:

      Your assertion is that software is “logic.”

      And yet, the simple question put to you is: can you obtain a copyright on logic?

      Yet – ad infinitum and ad nauseum you propagandize that term without regard to law and facts.

      Maybe the byline needs to be changed…

      1. 7.1.1

        can you obtain a copyright on logic?

        Can an invisible flying horse circle Jupiter’s room in an anti-gravity spaceball?

        Tune in next time for more of “anon”‘s deep, deep questions that we all have to take super d00per seriously.


          It’s a real easy question Malcolm.

          That you apply pure ad hominem instead of a direct and inte11ectually honest is an answer telling more about you and your propaganda efforts than you probably realize.


              It would be nicer if you stopped prevaricating with your propaganda and provided an inte11ectually honest answer.

    2. 7.2

      Young voters should be asking themselves a simple question, are there going to be any good paying jobs for them when they get out of school? Sober thought on that issue suggests that we need a radical change in direction.

      But, with a 2-1 margin in favor of Clinton? That indicates they are extreme conservative as Clinton promises no change at all.

      1. 7.2.1

        The “no change at all” favors her backers.

        And we all know who those people are, right?

        Hint: it is exactly the type that Malcolm usually preaches against.

        I will let you figure that one out.


          If you guys didn’t exist, I’d almost be compelled to make you up.

          Wow. Just …. wow.

          Cry me a river, rich white guys! Boo hoo hoo!


              You mean Hillary Clinton, the left-leaning woman who’s making all your favorite backwards-facing fundamentalist rich white daddies pee their diapers because … left-leaning woman? Exactly like Obama did because … left-leaning black?

              Go ahead and tell me all about her “main donors”, “anon.” You’re the expert on this stuff, in your own mind anyway.

              Vote for “anon”, everybody! He’s pure. And really really smart. Oh yes. He’s super smart. And totally not a hypocrite.


                Once again, you want ot turn this around and play your mindless ad hominem games.

                I asked you a direct and simple question in plain English.

                ALL of you CRP in your reply is non-responsive and inappropriate. It simply is not on point to what was asked of you.

      2. 7.2.2

        with a 2-1 margin in favor of Clinton? That indicates they are extreme conservative



          MM, depends on how one defines conservative, does it not? Those who prefer the status quo or slow change to those who prefer radical change are conservatives. See e.g., Edmund Burke’s commentaries on the French Revolution.

          Now, Hillary may not think she is a conservative, but she is. She represents the establishment in the United States. Even traditional Republicans prefer her rather than Trump.

          Now I know you think and many others think conservative applies primarily to religious beliefs and what we now call social conservatism. But that is not the way I view it – because I believe that most young people and most educated people are not socially conservative, but are liberal. But that does not mean that they are not conservative in the traditional sense in that they do not want radical change. What they want is slow or no change at all in their basic institutions upon which their very lives depend.

          But, as amply demonstrated by reality, the status quo is not working. Take a look at the inner city for example. We need change. We are never going to get that from Hillary Clinton.

          Also, I tend to disagree with her on foreign policy. From voting for the Iraq war, to her hyper-interventionism in the local affairs of other nations in order to overthrow regimes that are excessively sanguinary, I think she has made mistakes and has made things worse. The way she is now talking, she is going to get us to a war with Russia.


            MM, depends on how one defines conservative, does it not? Those who prefer the status quo or slow change to those who prefer radical change are conservatives. See e.g., Edmund Burke’s commentaries on the French Revolution.

            I think there’s a vast universe of in-between that you are ignoring.

            Also, there’s a yuuuuuge and important difference between a “revolution”, on one hand, and electing a dangerous id i0t, on the other.

            And lastly, it’s been the case for the last 50 years or so that “conservatism” in this country is not defined by a desire for “slow change” but a desire to turn the clock back to a time that either never existed or to a time that only a tiny tiny fraction of the country (the racist white fundamentalists, mainly) believes is preferable.


              Malcolm enjoying that difference between Donkey CRP and Elephant CRP…

              You still have that dribble on your chin son.


                Malcolm enjoying that difference between Donkey CRP and Elephant CRP…

                And “anon” enjoys sniffing the behind of his imaginary white horse. It’s so beautiful, “anon”! We’re all so impressed by your wonderful purity. You’re totally not a hypocrite!

                Bow down, everyone.

                1. I see zero point or value in this “response” of yours Malcolm.

                  Maybe you want to address something that I have actually stated, or otherwise (somehow – even if it is just a try) to connect your mindless ad hominem to SOME point….


              MM, no doubt there are those who would prefer to live in a world like the ante bellum South, or before Brown v. Board of Education, but it is also true that people become wedded to their way of life and are unwilling to change at all. The problem of the Indian reservation has festered for a 100 years, but serious efforts at reform are blocked. Recently, in California, efforts to bring skilled teachers into the ghetto were blocked by union teachers who didn’t want to pay those teachers more.

              If we are going to solve our problems, we need bold leadership. I do not believe we will ever get that from today’s Democratic Party, and we will never get it from yesteryear’s Republican Party.

              We almost do need a revolution.


          2nd vid out now, will also go viral.

          “But but but it’s re-enfranchising these people”

          The Creamer guy has met many times officially with obama over the last few years. They just now took down the guest list on but people have it backed up.

          link to


            Take down the guest list….?

            From the president who ran on a platform of “transperancy” – who also happens to hold the record for being the least transparent administration ever?

            When you want only the other guy to be “upstanding,” it’s easy to see where the
            simply has your eyes closed to your own actions.

      1. 7.3.2

        “The kids” practically always vote democratic since like the 60’s tho.

        What’s that all about? Somehow racism and Bible bashing and woman bashing and celebrating the ignorance of the 19th century just doesn’t have the awesome appeal that it used to? Gee, I wonder what happened …

        It’s all so complicated.


            Right. Because you have to be “grown up” to understand the need to force women having abortions to have v#ginal ultrasounds and pay for the “funerals” of their “unborn children.” A grown up like Mike Pence or Pat McCrory or whatever the name of that governor of Kentucky is. Those are the “real grown ups” in this country.



              “Because you have to be “grown up” to understand the need to force women having abortions to have v#ginal ultrasounds and pay for the “funerals” of their “unborn children.””

              You and I both know those are just measures to get people to eschew having abortions. Should just be an abortion tax and do away with the theater, but lefties will go all crazy eyed “taxin’ mah abortiun omg omg the oppressions frum the whiit mails!” “Prty plz whiit mail saviers plz help mehz!” and then you and the white male savior brigade will ride to the rescue to the damsels in distress all gynocentric like.

              And Pence isn’t so bad, what’s your beef with him?

                1. I’m just saying cut the drama. If they’re going to do something then just make it a tax.

                  Plus, I’m more or less for taxes on irresponsible luxuries. Cigarettes, Booz, Mari J, etc. down the list. Aren’t you? What better to tax? The vilified demonified old rich white mans like poor ol MM?


                6: you and the white male savior brigade will ride to the rescue to the damsels in distress all gynocentric like

                Serious question, 6: have you ever dated a woman for longer than two weeks?

                1. Bruh I have news for you, no young 30 something Deplorable (TM), relatively well off, in shape dood is hurting in the womenz dept if he knows about hypergamy. At least not in “it’s 2016!”. The only dept I’m hurting in is the “good woman who’ll have babies and maybe raise them half right and not frivorce” dept. And even there I have a few possibles in the mix.

  8. 6

    link to

    This is an interesting article on the working relationship between the Supremes and the lower courts, with an emphasis on the (occasionally disapproved of) practice of “narrowing from below.”

  9. 5

    Just a friendly reminder to all the patent attorneys out there: there’s lots of great pro bono opportunities to be had in the upcoming weeks assisting folks with understanding their voting rights and protecting them from being disenfranchised.

    Support Democracy and donate your time!

    link to

  10. 4

    link to

    Nina Totenberg reports that “Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) said Monday that if Hillary Clinton is elected, Republicans will unite to block anyone she nominates to the Supreme Court”

    But they’re very serious people! We have to pay attention to our rich white daddies.

    1. 4.1


      My comment “chastising” Greg is removed for not being careful enough with the McCain story, and here now we have Malcolm playing the same misleading CRP.

      Maybe the editing needs to take another look at what needs editing….


          The “headline” (and the takeaways being used from that snippet) and the actual body of the article are in polar opposite directions.


            This was also the topic of a discussion between Greg, Ned and I a little while ago.

            Needless to say (but will say it anyway), my view in that discussion is in line with the actual takeaway from the full article.


              the actual takeaway from the full article.

              The “actual takeaway” is that super serious rich white daddy John “I Lost, But I’m Never Going Away” McCain was quoted accurately.


                Except for the rest of the article which explicitly walked back the statement – you mean, right?

                1. I do agree that John “I’m on TV Every Sunday” McCain will do and say pretty much anything to excite the racist misogynist fundamentalist base that currently controls the rate at which the Republican party is swirling down the t0ilxt. And he’s also the type to dissemble as soon as someone calls him out on it.

                2. It’s totally on point if you’re a Republican fetus worshipper who’s biggest fear is being “forced” to bake a cake for a gay person.

                3. It is completely NOT on point to the conversation here.

                  It surely may be on point to any number of conversations that are NOT here.

                  Maybe you need a refresher on what “on point here” means?

                  (Hint: just because you are thinking of it does NOT make it on point)


              my view in that discussion is in line with the actual takeaway from the full article.


              Everybody following along?

              I’m sure Dennis will be along to fill in the blanks for everyone.


                Just write in your own name, “anon”.

                Like you do every time.

                It’s really a lovely gesture. We all respect you!


                Do you think Trump has strong moral character?

                · White evangelicals: 44%
                · Atheists: 18%

                Most. Fun. Election. Ever.

                Keep the laughs coming, Republicans!

                1. What is the point of your reply to me?

                  Trump is CRP.

                  Hillary is CRP.

                  Enjoy the sandwich of your choice. Don’t forget your napkins.

                2. Trump is CRP. Hillary is CRP.

                  Vote “anon”, everybody!


                  Seriously: if you can’t tell the difference between the two candidates, please just stay home and watch NASCAR “in protest.”

                3. It is NOT a matter of “can you tell the difference.”

                  The difference is meaningless in the grand scheme of things [pun intended].

                  As I stated:
                  Trump is CRP
                  Hilary is CRP

                  Deciding on having either in a sandwich still means you are chowing down on a CRP sandwich.

                  You already have driblings on your chin Malcolm.


            Polar opposites? There is the slightest of backpedaling by a staffer at the end of the article. If the headline is at 180 degrees, then the article as a whole is at 190 at most. Hardly polar opposites.


              Read the article again Les – at least three paragraphs that are the opposite of the “headline” takeaway.

              Read the full article please.


                I read the full NPR Nina Totenberg article. It was very short. If you think there are polar opposite paragraphs, you are going to have to paste them here. I didn’t see them.

                1. Read the earlier one that Greg supplied – that is the one that has like four paragraphs different than the “instanst liberal sound bite.”

    2. 4.2

      Well, MM, Republican presidents have long had to negotiate with Democrat majorities to get any nominee appointed.

      1. 4.2.1

        Republican presidents have long had to negotiate with Democrat majorities to get any nominee appointed.

        I’m not sure what you’re point is here. Surely you’re aware that Obama nominated a judge that Republicans approved of until suddenly they decided that complete obstruction would keep a tad more trickling in.

        All I can say is: I’ve enjoyed watching the meltdown.


              Do write in Bernie Sanders.

              Even if he is no longer running, send the message that CRP Republican sandwiches and CRP Democrat sandwiches are still filled with CRP.


          MM, well this is an election year. Next year a president Clinton will be able to place her nominees on the Court if they are of high caliber and not overtly radical.

          Even Ginsburg and Scalia got along very well.

  11. 3

    link to

    If Gurman and Webb’s account in accurate, then at one time a contingent of Apple Car staffers had some pretty futuristic concepts in play; they would have added up to a fully autonomous electric vehicle that could replace the ignition key with a fingerprint and operate at the push of a single button.

    Ooooh, fingerprint detection! One single button! If I travel back to 1950 it sounds really impressive and futuristic!

  12. 2

    SyncThink Gets A Patent For Eye Tracking In Virtual Reality

    Remember, folks: the relevant prior art includes *at least* (1) a headset with a screen in front of the viewer’s eyes (because one of the goals is to associate collected information about the viewer’s eye movements with content on the screen) and (2) cameras to monitor the movement of a viewer’s eyes.

    Try to believe this claim:

    1. An apparatus comprising:

    a headset adapted to fit over a face of a test subject and to be mounted on a head of the test subject, the headset including a single screen positioned at a predetermined distance from the eyes of the test subject when the headset is mounted on the head of the test subject,

    a pair of lenses, including a lens positioned between each eye of the test subject and the screen, to focus light emitted from the screen onto the eyes of the test subject; and

    a camera located within the headset and configured to be trained on an eye of the test subject to facilitate determination of gaze direction by the test subject.

    Heckuva job, PTO.


          Hmmmm, well…. its not obvious to me what the lenses are for. Assuming 20/20 vision, I would have though a user could see a screen in front of her eyes, or images thereon, without lenses ….


            its not obvious to me what the lenses are for

            Enlarging the image is one obvious possibility. 3-D viewing is another obvious possibility.

            This is like rocket science, Les. Usually it takes me half a second to answer these questions. I think it took 1.9 seconds this time.


              If the screen is right in front of their face, what needs to be enlarged? Why are lenses needed for 3D? You would just isolate the eyes and project slightly different images on the two halves of the screen.


                If the screen is right in front of their face, what needs to be enlarged?

                That would depend on the size of the screen. You’ll note the claims aren’t limited to a particular screen size.

                Why are lenses needed for 3D

                In some cases, 3-D effects are created using lenses. You can look all this up on the Internet, Les! It’s like a big encyclopedia with all kinds of facts.


                Les, you’re arguing with someone who thinks everything is “old”, no matter how new it is. And he of course can look on the “Internet” or wherever he thinks he can and find it. Or that what is argument will be. It’s like arguing with a brick wall. You won’t change him, so why try? Do what I do, and ignore everything he says. It’s easier and takes less time.

                1. Les, you’re arguing with someone who thinks everything is “old”, no matter how new it is

                  The things that I just described as “old” are, in fact, very old.

                  And that claim is obvious junk.

                2. I’m not arguing with him on this point. Eye tracking has been around since at least the mid 80’s. I worked briefly with a professor/doctor that was using it in medical research at that time…. though it may not have been perfected…. I think the claim might recite something hat is new….”single screen”, combined with plural lenses, combined with eye tracking camera”… but not obvious, as vaguely recited in the claim. is a tougher sell, and I’m not arguing it…. I’m just saying, I don’t get why the lenses are even recited….unless they are required in the combination, for novelty

                3. Eye tracking has been around since at least the mid 80’s.

                  Indeed it has. Some forms of it have been around longer than that because I can recall a psychology textbook from the mid 70s with eye tracking analysis.

                  I’m just saying, I don’t get why the lenses are even recited

                  Read the spec and see if you can figure it out. There’s a a paragraph about the lenses being needed because of the preferred distance (40 cm) between the screen and the eyes. But that distance isn’t recited in the claims. There’s also reference in the specs to “prisms” used to create 3D. Are the “prisms” in the spec the same as the “lenses” in the claim?

                  The claim appears even junkier than it looked at first glance.

  13. 1

    As per usual, the article about a patent doesn’t provide a link to or a number for the patent and a search for the inventors name in Google Patents yields “zero-point”s. Does anyone have anyone have document number for the impossibility drive patent?

Comments are closed.