by Dennis Crouch
Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One (Fed. Cir. 2017)
In parallel decisions, the Federal Circuit has affirmed two lower court judgments that Intellectual Ventures patents are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This post discusses the Capital One decision and leaves Erie for later.[1]
Collateral Estoppel Following Partial Summary Judgment: An initial issue is that of collateral estoppel. In a parallel still-pending case, a SDNY district court found IV’s Patent No. 6,715,084 ineligible under Section 101.[2] That decision was a partial summary judgment – not yet final judgment – since other patents are still at issue. Still, the MD district court in Capital One found that the prior invalidity decision collaterally estopped IV from arguing validity in this case. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the preclusion – finding that, under 4th Circuit law, a sufficiently complete partial-summary-judgment of invalidity is sufficient to preclude a patentee from asserting a patent in a parallel case. This outcome contradicts the Federal Circuit’s prior decision in Vardon Golf (issue preclusion does not flow from partial summary judgment prior to final judgment).[3] However, the Federal Circuit distinguished that case by noting that Vardon Golf was based on 7th Circuit law rather than 4th Circuit law at issue here.
The two additional patents at issue in Capital One (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,984,081; and 6,546,002) cover the editing of XML data. A representative claim (claim 21) of the ‘081 patent is directed to an “apparatus for manipulating XML documents” and includes a processor along with operational elements (software?). The patent claims use of a hierarchy of data structures for creating a dynamic document. At the top of the hierarchy is a “management record type” made-up of “primary record types” that are, in turn made up of “data objects” designated by “data components” of an XML document. A user interface allows modification and modifies (in an undefined way) the underlying XML document.[4]
Alice Step 1: Reviewing these elements, the Federal Circuit found that “the patent claims are, at their core, directed to the abstract idea of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.” IV had argued that the claims offered “a concrete solution” to the problem of dynamically managing multiple sets of XML documents. That view, according to the court, limits the patent to the XML technological environment but does not make it any less abstract since XML documents were already well known and used in routine business transactions.
Further, the inventor’s naming of the data structures with unique names does not overcome the fact that the limitations are directed to generic data types and “merely encompass the abstract idea itself of organizing, displaying, and manipulating data of particular documents.”
Alice Step 2: In applying step two of Alice, the court looked for whether the claims included something “significantly more” than merely describing the abstract idea and applying well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” In considering the claims at issue, the court found “no inventive concept” beyond the aforementioned abstract idea.
[T]he Claims recite both a generic computer element—a processor—and a series of generic computer “components” that merely restate their individual functions—i.e., organizing, mapping, identifying, defining, detecting, and modifying. That is to say, they merely describe the functions of the abstract idea itself, without particularity. This is simply not enough under step two.
Repeating its prior statement regarding the inventor’s coined-terms, the court wrote: “The mere fact that the inventor applied coined labels to conventional structures does not make the underlying concept inventive.”
Invalid.
= = = = =
[1] Intellectual Ventures v. Erie Indemnity (Fed. Cir. 2017) affirming invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,510,434; 6,519,581; and 6,546,002 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (eligibility).
[2] See Intellectual Ventures II, LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 13-cv-3777-AKH, 2015 WL 1941331, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2015) (“JPMC”).
[3] Vardon Golf Co. v. Karsten Manufacturing Corp., 294 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
[4] Claim 21.
An apparatus for manipulating XML documents, comprising:
a processor;
a component that organizes data components of one or more XML documents into data objects;
a component that identifies a plurality of primary record types for the XML documents;
a component that maps the data components of each data object to one of the plurality of primary record types;
a component that organizes the instances of the plurality of primary record types into a hierarchy to form a management record type;
a component that defines a dynamic document for display of an instance of a management record type through a user interface; and
a component that detects modification of the data in the dynamic document via the user interface, and in response thereto modifies a data component in an XML document.
= = = = =
As far as most investors are concerned, the standard warning in prospectuses — “past performance does not guarantee future results” — might as well read “Wjxsndf omv gyjrhubji qmta gjq ek blgy zbq oynru.” A new initiative at the SEC could be one small step in the right direction.
According to the Trumpette (MM), the two phrases are equivalent.
Just think: a machine that takes space, energy, and time to process information like our brains do is considered not eligible under 101 ’cause it is a witch. I think if Trump really wanted to drain the swamp, then he should disband the Fed. Cir. and reform it to get rid of the current judges (Google selected.)
“if Trump really wanted to drain the swamp, then he should disband the Fed. Cir. and reform it to get rid of the current judges (Google selected.)”
We agree on one thing at least. Too bad about federal judges being appointed for good behavior. At least we could abolish the CAFC once and for all though.
How would you feel Owen if we did that as a part of jurisdiction stripping of the Supreme Court of the non-original jurisdiction of patent law appeals and set up a new Article III court (to preserve the judicial review holding of Marbury) in place of the now tainted CAFC?
The article suggested looking at the i4i XML patent 5,787,449 patent.
It seems that ‘449 patent claims in means plus function form and discloses basic embodiments in the specification. But presumably the “equivalents” of these embodiments could be argued to cover generic computer-implemented XML processing.
The ‘081 patent has a “computer-implemented method” that involves organizing, identifying., etc., a “programmed memory” with stored instructions for organizing, identifying etc. (seemingly a variant on Beauregard), and a means-plus-function-style claim.
But in the case of the IV ‘081 patent, the “embodiments” disclosed in the specification seem as vague and purely functional as the claim elements, so it is difficult to see how 112(f) could get you to something that would not be tankable as “abstract” under anything other than pre-Alice CAFC law.
State of the art? The priority date of the ‘081 is 2001. By 1998 art could draw on the XML specification (W3C), the DOM specification (W3C), which would seem to be expressly designed as an API implemented in Java and JavaScript (and implemented appropriately in other standard languages) precisely for modelling XML documents in computer memory as “dynamic documents” and modifying them. Of course a “non-programmer” would not write Java code, but Java 1.2 came out in 1998, with the Swing API with GUI widgets for building user interfaces that a PHOSITA might naturally turn to build a tool to enable non-programmers to modify XML documents.
The ‘081 specification has no mention of DOM or Swing, or any mention of any tools designed to enable the PHOSITA to succeed in building GUI user interfaces to enable non-programmers to modify XML documents. The specification indeed seems to mention nothing but XML, DD (dynamic documents), primary record types (PRT) and management record types (MRT). The inventors have been their own lexicographers. A “PRT” seems to be defined as follows: “A PRT is similar to a relational database table: they contain most of the data”. The definition of an MRT: “A MRT is a grouping of PRTs; they contain pointers to individual PRT records and some calculated data”. So which of the following would be PRTs? Linear arrays? Python lists? associative arrays? C structs? Python dictionaries? Javascript classes? Linear arrays of associative arrays? Relational database tables?, groupings of relational database tables? Or might any of these be MRTs? And if the definitions of the PRTs and the MRTs are difficult to construe, how would one construe the claims in the light of the specification to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims?
I suppose it would be uncharitable to suggest that the inventor might have had little knowledge of the art of XML-processing, even back in 2001, but was skilled in the art of creating flow-diagrams and apparent “structure” described in terms of relationships between these PRTs, MRTs, and DDs, interacting with one another in ways amenable to being described in the English language that clearly would have been sufficient to impress some current former CAFC judges in earlier years that the specification disclosed “sufficient structure”. But surely a true PHOSITA would make an attempt provide at least a basic survey of the state of the art within the specification. But the “Description of the Related Art” mentions nothing technical beyond “XML documents”, “XML formats”, “relational data-base schemes” and “message formats”.
“But surely a true PHOSITA would make an attempt provide at least a basic survey of the state of the art within the specification.”
An absolute non-starter – for ANY art field, and if any attorney did such, they would be facing serious malpractice charges.
“An absolute non-starter – for ANY art field, and if any attorney did such, they would be facing serious malpractice charges.”
The application I’m reading right now has one.
thanks “Les”
Why are you using my name in vain?
Not in vain at all Les, merely highlighting a propensity to think that finding an application means more than what it actually means (finding an application).
“But surely a true PHOSITA would make an attempt provide at least a basic survey of the state of the art within the specification.”
An absolute non-starter – for ANY art field, and if any attorney did such, they would be facing serious malpractice charges.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
If what “anon” says is true, it ounds like there’s some big big money to be had defending patent attorneys … most of whom routinely “survey” the “state of the art” in their specifications.
But of course there’s no truth to what “anon” is saying. As usual.
“most of whom routinely “survey” the “state of the art” in their specifications.”
LOL – wrong. More than wrong, blatantly wrong.
The reason we don’t include a survey of the related art is that 103 has changed. Now examiners will just look at the related and spout off that it is all obvious with no evidence.
Going back down memory lane, I realise that, back in October 2004, I did create a software application allowing non-programmers to modify data in XML format using a GUI application.
In the department where I work, there is the necessity, once a year, to gather and process a large volume of data during a period of around 3 weeks every year. My work colleagues tended not to have desktop computers that ran operating systems on which MS Office software can be installed, so it would not have been practical to ask for the data to be returned as an Excel spreadsheet. And requesting this would certainly have resulted in complaints from colleagues. In any case, extracting data from a spreadsheet using point-and-click menus was an is a tiresome and time-consuming process.
The task my colleagues needed to complete would correspond to filling in a column in a spreadsheet with the new data to be processed. Accordingly I wrote a program or script in Python. The templates for data entry were sent round in an XML format. My Python script would set up a GUI spreadsheet-like interface for data entry, with appropriate scrolling behaviour. When my colleagues, some of whom were “non-programmers”, typed the marks into the GUI, a “dynamic document” in standard data structures was updated, and the XML document was modified.
I have just been looking at some of the Python code from 2004. The XML-formatted data files were read and modified using Python’s xml.dom.minidom module, and the graphical interface was created with TK widgets using Python’s Tkinter module. When deployed, my colleagues used the spreadsheet-like application to update the XML files, which they then emailed back to me.
I certainly would not have regarded this as an invention, more an application of standard software tools for their intended purpose. And computer programming is not an intrinsic part of the day job, so I certainly would not have had the skills of an appropriate PHOSITA. I was simply getting practice learning how to use these tools. The program worked! And the program was developed and deployed after the 2001 priority date but before the 2006 filing date of the 7,984,081 patent.
(And the program was not put on sale or otherwise made available to the public. It was just a tool for local administrative use.)
Distant, the coding may have been routine, but was the idea of using a GUI to update underlying code old or new generally? If it was an old idea, then the application to a specific example is not invention.
But if it was not old, perhaps it was an invention….
Ned, LaTeX is a markup language widely used in areas such as mathematics, computer science and physics. LaTeX was around in the 1980’s, and built upon TeX developed by Don Knuth and first released in 1978. There are various GUI front ends for creating and editing LaTeX. One of them is LyX, which seems to have been released in version 1.0.0 in 1999. The concept of entering tabular information into a table would be suggested by the prevalence of spreadsheets.
So the idea of using GUI interfaces to parse and modify documents in markup languages was in 20th century art.
Not quite as old as the priority date for the ‘081 patent, the book “Python in a Nutshell” by Alex Martelli was published in 2002. Older books include “Programming Python” which appeared in 1996, and discussed building GUI interfaces with Tkinter. Going to the 2002 “Python in a nutshell”, as it is to hand, I note that “Tkinter GUIs” is Chapter 16, Structured text: HTML is Chapter 22, Structured text: XML is Chapter 23, and these chapters, with an indication of their contents are on facing pages in the list of contents. If we assume that the PHOSITA has a background in Java programming, the PHOSITA almost certainly implemented the “Hello, World!” program as a GUI application, using either AWT or Swing. Books like Sams “Learn X in Y days” series would tend to emphasize using Java to build GUI interfaces. The DOM used for parsing HTML and XML was initially developed for Java and JavaScript (ECMAScript), which were the first languages supported by web browsers. So one would expect that the PHOSITA, confronted with the problem of allowing non-programmers to update data held in XML format would combine the teachings of widely-sold computing textbooks, using the DOM API published by the W3C consortium as the basic tool for parsing XML, probably using either implementations in Java or else implementations constructed around James Clark’s Expat XML parser (released in version 1.0 in 1998). Given the motivation to create an interface for non-programmers, there would surely have been multiple teachings to suggest using the widgets commonly used to develop GUI interfaces in the programming language of choice (Java, Perl, Python).
This would go to whether my claimed “invention” would be obvious over references presented in separate chapters of a single book, widely available in good bookstores, together with what I would have thought was a strong motivation to combine the teachings of the separate chapters.
Distant, thanks.
What appears to be missing from the examination of software patents are educated and experienced programmers.
How long has the manufacture in its own right and design choice of ware that is software compare to the other wares of hardware and firmware) been around, Ned?
Ned says: “The process in question must otherwise be eligible and when it is, it remains such even tough it uses old machines.”
Certainly, when what is being claimed is a process, what you said is true.
However, when what is being claimed is a machine, the process does not need to be eligible.
For example, process of playing a song is not eligible.
However, a machine that performs the process of playing a song is
eligible.
link to patentimages.storage.googleapis.com
Notice the Trumpettee (aka MM, aka the anti-patent judicial activist) does not respond to any substantive comment. Never does.
And, Ed the Ned, is like an autistic person creating his own words for new witch tests.
This case is another case of judges gone wild. We don’t need no prior art. We don’t need no obvious arguments. We have Alice (a g#n).
This case illustrates the absurdity of Alice- introducing obviousness issues into a 101 analysis. “XML documents were already well known”?? That should never be included as a rationale under 101. Patents like this should die under 102/103, not 101. Invalidity was probably the right outcome, but the rationale is absurd.
Ahmen
“XML documents were already well known”?? That should never be included as a rationale under 101.”
It’s not a “rationale”. It’s a fact. And the relationship of the claim to the prior art is always relevant to a determination that the subject matter of the alleged innovation protected by the claim is eligible. And that’s not going to change because, logically, it can’t. The only way to avoid this is to get rid of subject matter eligibility considerations entirely. Good luck with that!
Consider also how silly your “argument” in another context, say, an ineligible claim such as the following:
“A method of cooking an egg, comprising (1) breaking an egg in a circular pan and (2) following the instructions in a recipe book, wherein the instructions are written in Swahili, and wherein the instructions indicate that the pan should be continually turned counterclockwise at a rate of 1 degree per second.”
Are you really going to sit there and argue “Swahili language recipe books were already well known? That should never be included as a rationale under 101.”
Patents like this should die under 102/103
News flash: patents “like this” do, in fact, die under 102/103 all the time. The entire “art” of logic patenting is clogged up with ineligible and invalid junk because 75% of the practitioners don’t understand the law and most of the rest of play silly word games like the hapless scriveners in this case. Every week it seems like there’s a new “hot” term that logic patentistas are supposed to stick into their claims. First it’s “mobile”, then it’s “dynamic”, then it’s “data structure”, then it’s “distributed”. It’s all g@rbage is what it is.
Go respond to the substance of my response to you.
Trump boy.
You really are so unethical MM. Go respond to the substance of what I wrote. You are making up case law, conflating case law, ignoring science, etc.
Just ridiculous.
Trumpette (MM) :>>The entire “art” of logic patenting
Your behavior is unethical.
OT: but something to think about for all of those looking at the word “new”…
link to blogs.scientificamerican.com
“Mendel’s discovery that genes produce discrete effects—blue eyes or brown, but never blends.”
Never blends? “Pink snapdragons come about when a red and a white snapdragon are cross-pollinated”
link to newhealthadvisor.com
MM>>>The question always boils down to the nature of the alleged “innovation” that is being protected by the claim. If the “work piece” is “data” and somehow the “meaning” of the “data” is critical to the patentability of your “device”, then you’re in a load of trouble from a 101 standpoint because data is ineligible for patent protection.
Such ignorance. So, let’s see, why do you bother to write sentences MM? What are the judges paid for? Unbelievable. So, a machine that takes space, time, and energy to generate “‘meaning’ of the ‘data'” is abstract, but this is what is most valued in people. This is what the judges are paid for. This is what you labor over in writing your comments.
The funny thing is that MM doesn’t see the connection between his absurd assertions and Trump’s behavior. It is the zeitgeist. We have people that are telling us things that are against common sense, logic, science, patent law, and common decency. We have MM the purveyor of unethical near psychotic nonsense streaming from his keyboard, and yet, according to MM and his medieval mob there is no meaning to any of it–“‘meaning’ of the ‘data'”.
Just bizarre. We have definitely entered a time where reason means nothing. MM: just grab that pu$$y.
The thing that scares me right now is that MM who is a member of the new might makes right party is part of a movement where rational thought and dialogue means nothing. They do not engage in any meaningful way, but say things that are against modern rational thought.
I really do not like the fact that this type of thinking inevitable leads to war. We are just seeing the frothing madness of people like MM in patent law, but inevitably this is pervading all parts of our society. MM is definitely the Trump of the patent world.
Of course, ultimately, this all goes back to Lemley. If Lemley were ethical, he could have put a stop to this. But, instead Lemley fanned this with this unethical behavior.
“They do not engage in any meaningful way, but say things that are against modern rational thought.”
This is true somewhat.
“I really do not like the fact that this type of thinking inevitable leads to war.”
Probably true.
“MM is definitely the Trump of the patent world.”
You mean the SJW of the patent world. They’re the opposite of Trump.
You’re conflating the two camps bro.
>>They’re the opposite of Trump.
The tactics are the same. That is why they are the same as Trump.
MM is a Trumpette.
“The tactics are the same.”
Um, no they aren’t. One is feelings-based bullying and authoritarianism. The other is just plain ol everyday bullying and authoritarianism. The former is, surprisingly perhaps for some, much much much worse nearly every time it is encountered in real life.
But they are similar.
A difference without a distinction, 6.
As I was first to note: Malcolm very much is the Trump of this patent blog.
“A difference without a distinction, 6.”
Actually the distinction is ginormous irl. Which I’m trying to convey to you, but your being near asperger’s level of EQ is hampering you from understanding.
Gi-normous…?
Meh, not really.
Everyone should notice too that what MM is doing is conflating SCOTUS cases and misrepresenting them.
No case holds that information processing is per abstract.
MM: is a charter member of the grab the p****.
NW So, a machine that takes space, time, and energy to generate “‘meaning’ of the ‘data’”
I’d like to see a machine generate meaning. Human beings supply the meaning NW, in their minds.
What do the quotes around data mean anyway? Is there more than one kind of information?
Trump is a manifestation of widespread ignorance, which has been cultivated, if not directly intentionally, than at least somewhat intentionally, for over 40 years. He is also totally off-topic.
>>I’d like to see a machine generate meaning. Human beings supply the meaning NW, in their minds.
Martin, this is a ridiculous statement. Of course machines generate meaning. The meaning may be something like turn right, this is cancer, here are the representations of the images from the image sensor, etc. M2M communication is meaningful.
I put the quotes around it because MM did. Trump: Martin you are like Trump. You are not willing to engage in meaningful debate where science, patent law, and ethics matter. Just look at my answer to you above. Clearly M2M communications are meaningful with a fair definition of meaningful including functional useful.
Turn right, this is cancer, here are the representations of the images from the image sensor are M2H, unless they are M2M.
I think M2M algorithms should be eligible as processes under any reading of abstraction. However, if they are not non-obvious, and fully described, they should not be patentable, and if they are not new, they should not be eligible since they are not actually inventions. If a claim is an aspiration or a functional description, it can be an abstract idea despite being a non-abstract process.
The Supreme Court is very clear on the latter. It would be good if they became clear on the former. But either way, you are completely off-base if you think every variation possible on a computer system will ever again be nearly automatically found eligible or patentable without significant novelty, under 101 or any other patent statute.
So you are kind of agreeing with me while throwing in all sorts of other things.
I’ve been writing for literally years on this subject.
I agree that some information processing methods, which are entirely intangible and have nothing to do with improving computer systems, may in fact be the proper subjects of patents.
But patent maximalists ideologues have no interest in nuance, since we all know that it’s better that 10 innocent firms be destroyed than one infringer go free.
Have you read Sir Thomas More yet?
He is noticeably confusing eligibility and patent ability….
MM: just grab that pu$$y.
Go f ck yourself, you miserable c re ep.
No substantive response. What a surprise.
Not sure a substantive response is even possible to your “P” statement…
How is he supposed to make a substantive response to that lol?
MM> “No, I did not grab that pudding”.
lol
…does that depend on what the definition of “is” is?
😉
Dennis, I think we are going to need a new lexicography as to ‘final judgments.’ 1. Final judgment of the Court of record, 2. final judgment by the court of appeals, and 3. final judgment after all SCOTUS appeal are exhausted by time, and 4. final judgment as to the issue of the mandate, and 5. final judgment as the exhaustion of the APA with the IPR. Because issue preclusion and res judicata, is being very selectively applied.
It is certainly at odds, with all the other law concerning when a judgment is ‘final’ and issue preclusion and res judicata and law of the case applies. The CAFC is making patent law the ‘red headed step child’ of jurisprudence.
MM “And third of all, “easily configured hunks” that do nothing more than what they were designed and expected to do are per se obvious”
Yes, they are. The injustice is that to prove them obvious is (at least) a million bucks, if not two million bucks, plus years of grinding discovery and the business-herpes of patent litigation hanging over one’s head. Insane for every variation of logical process that one might imagine.
If something is so obvious (or aspirational) that there is no chance of an invention existing within the claims, it’s then beyond obvious, which is another way of saying ineligible
In my scheme, these claims would be eligible processes because the XML is consumed by machines, but ineligible for not being invented or discovered, which is not quite the same thing as being anticipated or obvious under 102/103, because you can’t very well have a non-obvious non-invention.
Coming from someone who does not understand obviousness, a comment on “per se” obviousness is downright laughable.
Your comments are as ineligible as these claims usually are; lacking any actual content.
Do say, how do I not understand obviousness anon? What inviolable insight about software from 1952 might you offer? TSM? Secondary indicia?
You got nothing. You never do.
Lol – except the point here Marty is how little YOU have.
Try to keep up son.
Martin, uniting things that do no more than they do separately is not patentable not because they are obvious but because they are not “new.”
“We conclude that while the combination of old elements performed a useful function,[4] it added nothing to the nature and quality of the radiant-heat burner already patented. ”
“[4] 35 U. S. C. § 101 provides:
“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.”
Absent here is the element “new.” For as we have said, the combination patent added nothing to the inherent characteristics or function of the radiant-heat burner.”
I agree Ned. Lack of new means no invention, IOW, beyond obvious.
Ed the Ned: this is so deceiving. You and Stern are so full of witch tests.
Ed the Ned: >”uniting things that do no more than they do separately is not patentable not because they are obvious but because they are not ‘new.”
Ed the Ned, you are playing games with the word “new,” and the level of abstraction by which an invention is analyzed. In fiber optic cable, the glass doesn’t nothing “new” as an individual component. In fact, in any invention, the atoms do nothing new in the invention. So, you are playing a game of abstraction level to analyze an invention. And, then acting as if you are the smartie boy and that others won’t get what you are doing. Just like Stern does. We get it. You aren’t fooling us. You are bullies with Google bucks–not intellectual elites.
You are the ones that are throwing shade on our civilization –not enlightening our civilization. You are the destroyer of our civilization by destroying civil debate and intellectual honest debate.
All Ned is doing is embracing the “Big Box of Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons” mindset.
After all, protons, neutrons and electrons are (nearly) as old as the universe, and any and all configurations of those items are only using those items according to laws of nature as equally as old, thus “No patent for you.”
So the unhinged, insane, unworkable, unjust flip side is that every last variation that can be distinguished between two or more items is worthy of a new patent, and can only be proven non-worthy by the full panoply of a completed federal court litigation.
Oh. OK then.
No Martin. We have 103 and 112 that take care of all those.
He is complaining that those sections of law are not fast or cheap enough (so he wants to mishandle another section of law to get to his desired Ends).
The “New” in Section 101 does not go away just because you want it to. If something is so beyond obvious that it can’t be an invention, there is no need to get to 102/103/112, and you shouldn’t be able to get there anyway without a construed PHOSITA, which means you have to look at what the art is, which means some reflection on prior art.
I have no trouble with the “new” part, but that is explained pretty well in 102
What I have a problem with is introducing random, vague, unpredictable tests into a statute where there is nothing there to support their inclusion
Section 100 for example specifically says an eligible process includes a “NEW use of a KNOWN process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material”
So statute on its face tells one you cannot bar new functions/processes b/c they are on “conventional” computers.
A process includes a new use of a known process, but that’s not a tautology. It’s actually very clear as to what a process is for the purposes of the patent law. Very. Clear.
Martin, agreed.
A process that is nothing more than dealing with abstractions is not a patentable process and it does not become patentable simply because it uses old machines.
The process in question must otherwise be eligible and when it is, it remains such even tough it uses old machines.
As explained previously Mr. Snyder, there is no tautology if you understand the historical aspects of patent law and the broadening that Congress sought from the “old-school” ways of manufacturing (the things that Ned often references), and the fact that such “old school” is but a subset of the modern use of the word “process.”
Maybe if you were less antagonistic to those views that happen not to align with your desired end state, you might learn something.
the broadening that your fever dreams produce was endorsed not by Judge Rich or by any subsequent court- the entire point in Bilski was that they would not commit to such a broadening- nor would they commit to the narrowing which most reasonable people might expect, since virtually everything human beings do can be characterized as a process, 99.999% of which cannot be patent eligible in a sane world.