by Dennis Crouch
In Amdocs v. Openet Telecom, a Federal Circuit panel reversed the lower court’s ineligibility finding over a vigorous dissent. Judges Plager and Newman versus Judge Reyna. Claim 1 of the disputed business-software patent is shown below.
1. A computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium for processing network accounting information comprising: computer code for receiving from a first source a first network accounting record; computer code for correlating the first network accounting record with accounting information available from a second source; and computer code for using the accounting information with which the first network accounting record is correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.
U.S. Patent No. 7,631,065.
Although the Federal Circuit walked through its Alice/Mayo analysis, I expect that a more infringer-friendly panel would have almost certainly sided with the district court. Now, Openet has petitioned the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari – arguing that the Federal Circuit improperly reached beyond the clearly overbroad claims when making its decision.
Question presented:
Whether the Federal Circuit erred by looking beyond the claims to the patent specification to assess patent eligibility?
The case here is interesting. Rather than pushing back against Alice and Mayo as many patent attorney suggest, the petitioner here argues that the Federal Circuit is subverting those cases to find claims eligible when they clearly are not. It is possible that the Supreme Court could simply issue a one-line opinion: “Vacated, see Alice/Mayo.” I would look for several amicus briefs on each side of this one.
The unfortunate aspect of this case for most patentees is that it is another business method case — business method patents are unlikely to see friendly eyes from the Supreme Court.
Once again, I am reminded of the court’s reprimand to Young Mozart in the film Amadeus. When asked for its opinion on Mozart’s masterpiece it agonizes for ages, then hesitantly declares its concluded view: “Too many notes”.
Why reminded? Because this time around, the court is uncertain as to how much detail there needs to be in the claim, in order to jump the 101 eligibility hurdle.
All three judges are agreed, that there is something in the complete score, the specification, that one could discern as an inventive concept. But they differ on the claim, Reyna declaring of it “Not enough notes”.
I find this approach deeply unsatisfying, both as a test of eligibility and as a touchstone for those called upon to advise clients what subject matter is eligible and what is not.
Further, I regret the trend of 101 jurisprudence, to fix “inventive” as something other than the antonym of “obvious”. No good will come of it, mark my words.
A point upon which we may find accord, MaxDrei.
You, me, and the Congress that rebuked our Supreme Court with the Act of 1952.
The court made a point of stating: “Importantly, these components are arrayed in a distributed architecture that minimizes the impact on network and system resources. Id. at 3:56–65. Through this distributed architecture, the system minimizes network impact by collecting and processing data close to its source. Id. The system includes distributed data gathering, filtering, and enhancements that enable load distribution. Id. at 4:33–42. This allows data to reside close to the information sources, thereby reducing congestion in network bottlenecks, while still allowing data to be accessible from a central location. Id. at 4:35–39. Each patent explains that this is an advantage over prior art systems that stored information in one location, which made it difficult to keep up with massive record flows from the network devices and which required huge databases. See, e.g., id. at 4:39–42.
The court finishes its analysis stating: “Similar to the other examined claims in the patents at issue, representative claim 1 recites a series of limitations that, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, provide an inventive concept sufficient to confer eligibility. While the components and functionality necessarily involved in the ’797 patent (e.g., ISMs, gatherers, network devices, collection, aggregation, and enhancement) may be generic at first blush, an examination of the claim in light of the written description reveals that many of these components and functionalities are in fact neither generic nor conventional individually or in ordered combination. Instead, they describe a specific, unconventional technological solution, narrowly drawn to withstand preemption concerns, to a technological problem.”
It appears to me that the technological solution of “do it in a distributed architecture” could just as easily been equated to “do it in a mobile telephone system” of TLI, which in turn was equated to “do it on a generic computer.”
If using a distributed architecture was in fact a well-known conventional solution to the problem of network congestion, then merely limiting the concept of enhancing an accounting data record with supplemental information from a second source to this technical environment should have been found ineligible, IMO.
If, however, the specification (and plaintiff’s counsel) did not (or would not) admit that using a distributed architecture to reduce network congestion was conventional in 1997, then the court had the opening to do like it did in Bascom and enhance the inventive concept to something that was “sufficiently more.”
AIGC, If the claims included the objective system architecture as what was being improved, the claims would have passed 101.
The problem is that the claims were not limited to such a system, but merely called for doing something old — updating a record.
Ned, I agree that claiming the structure of an improved system architecture would pass 101.
You mentioned below in 9.1.3.2.1.1.1 that inventing a more efficient way of processing data would improve the computer because it takes less time to do the same thing. I assume we can agree that claiming such a new way of processing data should pass 101 as well.
There is a curve ball in this case since the court had undertaken a claim construction from an earlier proceeding in which the term “enhance” was construed to mean to apply a number of field enhancements in a distributed fashion close to the source of network information.
I assume that reading in this additional language from the spec into the claim allowed the court to characterize the step of “enhancing” as a more efficient way to process data (supplement a data record with information from a second source).
My problem is that, even with this narrowing claim construction, the claims still merely call for doing something old or abstract (updating an accounting record with supplemental information from a second source) using known or conventional computer processing techniques (in a distributed fashion close to the source of network information).
Like the claims in Alice, where the Court had to deal with a stipulation that some methods steps required a computer, here the CAFC had a construction that the claims necessarily required a distributed architecture. I see no rationale for treating the claims here differently since the purported technological improvement results only from a (generic) distributed architecture, which was read in but not recited in the claims (just like Alice’s generic computer in its method claim).
“Ned, I agree that claiming the structure of an improved system architecture would pass 101.”
Sorry to break it to you, but the Supreme Court does not agree with you.
Something about the “Gist/Abstract” sword comes to mind 😉 .
Max, “inventive” application means “new (or improved) machine, manufacture, composition, etc.”
Ned,
You are conflating and leaving out WHY Congress acted in 1952 to remove the common law authority previously granted to the judicial branch to set the meaning of the word “invention.”
We’ve been over this.
anon, we did go over “this.” Congress simply did not do what you say it did, and so ruled the Supreme Court in Graham.
“and so ruled the Supreme Court in Graham.”
YOU were the one once that produced a reference warning of the danger of taking DICTA as a new law, and Graham‘s “finger’s in the wax nose of 101” was the WORST type of dicta possible.
Sorry, but the Court does NOT have that type of power.
In Deener, all the machines were old. The only thing new was the combination of steps for the process to process grain.
Again, the game being played is the anti-patentist are generating abstractions that have no meaning in the context of technology, science, and patent law.
NWPA it looks like leftism finally caused a major blow up in the tech world. You’ll be glad to know where it happened.
link to finance.yahoo.com
Let’s be absolutely clear about this: the “alt right” has no monopoly on being anti-PC.
The article seems to make the matter into some type of binary view. It is just not so.
Being anti-PC is merely being pro-think-for-yourself. Many of the “alt-right” do not meet this aspect of being anti-PC, and tend to be merely anti-anything-Left.
There is a H U G E difference.
“Let’s be absolutely clear about this: the “alt right” has no monopoly on being anti-PC.”
For sure.
“The article seems to make the matter into some type of binary view”
That’s because that’s what lefties do, “you’re either with us or agin us, there is no middle ground”. And that is because currently lefties are not moderates, they want to artificially try to make people equal, or at least more equal, at great cost if necessary. That’s part of “cultural marxism”, artificial equality. And whitey has traditionally bowed to their demands / emotional manipulations, so they’re all emboldened to spend spend spend away.
“Being anti-PC is merely being pro-think-for-yourself.”
Only a white cis hetero patriarch (of either gender and of any ethnicity) has the priv of being able to see it that way though. The people outside the white cis hetero patriarchy (either by choice or not) tend to be vulnerable to the rhetoric of lefties telling them that their lot in life is tots mcgots whitey’s fault. Whereas if you just “think for yourself” you can comfortably still live a comfy white cis hetero patriarch life (in what passes for a “society” that remains), however there are quite a lot of people that will not get to comfortably still live a comfy white cis hetero patriarch life if they “think for themselves” and arrive at any thoughts that differ very much from the lefty handout/entitlement agin whitey based view. If you understand what I’m saying.
In other words, if you think for yourself and differ from leftism on a topic then you, and those you know, probably don’t lose much. If someone that is not white cis hetero patriarchial does so they, or those they know, may lose some or even much.
“Many of the “alt-right” do not meet this aspect of being anti-PC, and tend to be merely anti-anything-Left.”
Mmmmm, idk about that, I don’t even know what you mean. The actual alt right are all about white identity, and to that end, white interests. Their “thinking for themselves”, based on info provided unto them (rightly or wrongly) leads them to believe that they like to consider themselves as white and that white interests broadly affect them and other white people.
Let’s be clear though anon, what we’re witnessing in real life is near certainly the shifting of the overton window. Which is a fascinating phenom.
Serious question for 6 and “anon”: have either gotten laid in the past ten years?
I mean by a real peson, not by a blow-up doll or some virtual anime thing.
MM pulls the “code pink” lefty card, as it’s called, for the tenth time. MM bruh nobody cares about your insinuation, and I’ve been over and over the large extent of my own hedonism in the last few years. We’re too busy magain’ while you’re busy crying and wearing a pu ssy hat.
We’re too busy magain’
Yes, we all know that sitting in mom’s basement with your face pressed up to the p u k e funnel takes up most of your precious time. All I’m saying is that you’ve got a whiff of the Steve Miller about you. It’s strong. Is that a winning formula, you think?
If that is your “serious” question, then I have one for Prof. Crouch:
How is not nearly everything that Malcolm posts not offensive to you?
Like 90% of what he posts has nothing to do with patent law, is patently offensive being riddled with ad hominem and precious nothing else beyond a short and tired script, or both.
At least with the “attempt at civility” with the DISQUS system, one could see all of Malcolm’s posts co-located and literally see the mountain of
C
R
P
that he engages in.
But the pretending of wanting one thing while the actions say the opposite can only create perceptions that do not reflect well on you.
And eliminating this post under some “don’t talk about meta” – while letting Malcolm run rampant does not help you either. I am surely not the only one in the patent blogosphere who sees the disjoint between professions of “offense” and actions towards what is easily this site’s single largest source of blight.
How is not nearly everything that Malcolm posts not offensive to you?
Says the guy with whose face is stained brown from sniffing up 6 and NWPA’s oh-so-civilized behinds.
Please keep the laughs coming, “anon.”
“anon”: Being anti-PC is merely being pro-think-for-yourself.
LOL
Because if you think Perznt Mango Hairball is a r@ cist mi s0gyinist bttwipe and you aren’t afraid to say so, you can’t possibly be thinking for yourself.
But filling your di@pers in public on a patent bl 0g worrying about “ivory towerism” and “commies,” well, that’s the height of bravery.
So it goes in “anon”s world. He’s a very serious person! Very deep.
Your poker tell of “so serious does not hide the fact that you are attempting to do that “everyone who does not agree with me is in one bucket” thing again.
Oh wait, even 6 mentioned that: [“The article seems to make the matter into some type of binary view”] – “That’s because that’s what lefties do, ‘you’re either with us or agin us, there is no middle ground’.“
Oh wait, even 6
“Even 6”?
LOLOLOLOLOL
“on a patent bl 0g”
I do hope that you realize that there is a difference between discussing things that affect patents – “on a patent bl og” and the incessant simply political whining that you engage in (which draws such comments as the immediate ones).
The points that i present that you merely want to denigrate ARE things directly affecting patents. Your own political rants – not so. This has ZERO to do with any notion of “afraid to say” or not. ZERO. That you think yourself somehow brave for ranting under a pseudonym on a patent blog is a rather sad commentary on you. That you so rant all the while YOU are this blog’s own version of Trump is…
well…
stultifying.
Many of the “alt-right” … tend to be merely anti-anything-Left.
But “anon” — in stark contrast — shares many views with the left! Sure he does. He just prefers to publicly obsess over “ivory towerism” and “commies” and “political correctness” because … reasons. He’s a very deep and serious person!
Where does this “shares many views with the left” come in and why would such be anything but a non sequitur?
Maybe try less ad hominem (you clearly aiming at the speaker) and focus on the merits of the item presented.
I know that such would need you to break your 11 year habit, but at least try.
“In Deener, all the machines were old.”
In any composition (another statutory class of eligibility), all of the constituent subatomic particles are old. As is the “law of nature” manner of how any configurations of those subatomic particles (as well as those of the larger configurations of groupings of those subatomic particles), and yet those preaching an anti-software view – if their ‘logic’ were to be extended – would nullify an entire ‘nother statutory category on its face.
Therein, the Big Box meme is a slap in the face of the anti-software folks. Some (Malcolm in particular), have a difficult time grasping this, and think that the meme is a support for software patenting. Other, like Ned, somehow think that only a new manner of how software is functionally related would be patent eligible (which would be analogous to requiring any new composition to be put together through some new and improved “natural law.”
It is no surprise then that the sAmeones (and not just merely someone) refuse to understand that software is a machine component and manufacture (as that term is understood in patent law).
Once basic principles and facts of the art are put on the table and treated in an inte11ectually honest manner, most all of the anti-software arguments crumble to dust.
the Big Box meme is a slap in the face of the anti-software folks
This “meme” (LOL) is more like a running joke at your own expense but, hey, knock yourself out with it! After all, you’ve had such remarkable success with your “memes”, after all. Victory after victory at the Supreme Court …
“more like a running joke at your own expense”
LOL – you persist in not grasping this and want to turn this around as a joke on me… Ah yes, Malcolm’c number one meme of Accuse Others…
“Victory after victory at the Supreme Court …”
Non sequitur at best. Maybe you should pay attention to why the scoreboard is broken instead of mindlessly referencing a broken scoreboard.
Ned,
Held in moderation (the anti-actual-dialogue-blocking-automatic-moderation)…
To your post at 14.1.1 (Listen anon, it is that simple. Truly.”, I responded:
Truly not.
You have yet to pass the Grand Hall experiment, and you constantly omit a key fact that to “just use” a computer with a new program you first MUST reconfigure that computer TO “just use” the new program.
I would also add a reminder that you have not addressed this counterpoint and tht you continue to attempt to use a machine “magically” that has not been changed with a machine component called software. Further, I would add that your attempted reliance on Hotel Security (based solely on the incorrect use of that case by Justice Stevens in his attempt to wipe out actual words of Congress in the Bilski case) has been critically panned by both Prof. Crouch and another poster, David Stein, who took the time to detail, point by point, case by case, just how off your attempt has been.
To your post at 9.1.3.2.1.1.1, I replied:
“The new program is like the old program from the point of view of the computer.”
Except of course that it is not (otherwise the old program would DO what the new program does, and you would be able to re-establish your hard drive with your Britney Spears CD).
“ in much the same way since the first stored program computer was invented in 1946”
That is most definitely NOT the meaning required in the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter, Ned.
You are falling to the Big Box of Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons fallacy.
I would add that your Big Box fallacy is that you are attempting to discount “any improvement thereof” by making ALL improvements by way of software unpatentable because of the mode of improvement (“software”). There is ZERO basis in patent law for this action, and in fact would be directly analogous to attempting to discount “any improvement thereof” by making ALL improvements by way of hardware unpatentable because of that different mode of improvement (“hardware”)
These are NOT new points. These are merely points that you have attempted to NOT answer (repeatedly) and in the sense of an Internet shout-down, you stick your fingers in your ears and chant your same spiel without the decency of replying to the valid counterpoints presented to you.
Such is inte11ectually dishonest – and you should be well aware of that.
Ned >>as data is neither a machine, manufacture or composition and the machine is old
This is just offense. You should be sanctioned Ned.
Merits. Deener is a process for processing grain. Data in and of itself does not need to be patentable for a machine or process that processes data to be patent eligible.
What a joke the discussion on this matter is. Our brain is all about processing data, but somehow a machine that processing data is not eligible? Ridiculous.
Processing data takes time, space, and energy. The conversation of information is one of the most important laws in physics (if not the most important.)
Reyna is a Google selected judge who admitted he knew nothing about technology or patent law just a few years ago. What a joke he is. Criminal that a person who is unqualified to be a judge at the CAFC would be appointed by Google.
I read through the petition for awhile and had to stop. Trying to apply Morse to cases like this is a real problem.
What is claimed is manipulating data on a computer using known techniques. Now that cannot be patentable subject matter as data is neither a machine, manufacture or composition and the machine is old.
A machine that manipulates data might be eligible, but an existing data processing machine that only does what it did before, varying only the data, is not made new (or improved) by the particular data.
Why can’t we make the analysis that simple?
Hotel Security.
That simple?
Not likely.
House/Morse and “it’s already in there” fallacies abound in your (over-)simplifying attempts Ned.
Grand Hall Experiment.
Listen anon, it is that simple. Truly.
Test
Really? How is that Ned? You are a clever person that has found a way to try to sell this with abstractions.
But, you have to deal with the underlying reality.
Processing data takes time, energy, and space. You have to address that issue.
What you said Ned is irrelevant. I could write the same thing you said about any subject area including processing grain under Deener.
You should be sanctioned for writing this stuff Ned.
I expect that a more infringer-friendly panel…..
Imagine this in other contexts…
I expect that a more murder-friendly panel…
I expect that a more embezzler -friendly panel…
I expect that a more thief -friendly panel…
I expect that a more tax evasion -friendly panel…
Are there really infringer-friendly CAFC judges? Highly, highly doubtful.
“Are there really infringer-friendly CAFC judges? Highly, highly doubtful.”
You are woefully out of touch.
I think so. You can find them if you just Google infringer-friendly CAFC judges.
Are there really infringer-friendly CAFC judges?
Of course! They’re all infringer friendly. They sit around in a Star Chamber and plot about how to eliminate the patent system entirely because it’s the Most Important Thing Ever. Patents, after all, are the only possible way to regulate corporate greed. Everybody knows this!
Anyways, the judges sit around in the Star Chamber drinking the best iced tea — just the best, I mean really really great great iced tea — and everything is paid for by Google, Facebook, Apple, and the company that makes those spinning toys that burn your kid’s face. And they’re really devious so they disguise their plan by picking a few judges to pretend that they are pro-patent just to throw the d 0gs off the scent. That’s why you see these oddball cases and dissents every so often.
I can’t believe that everyone doesn’t know this already. You are so woefully out of touch! Also, these judges are basically ter r0r ists who make Benedict Arnold look trustworthy. They should be impeached and then spend a month in jail for each time they suggested that software wasn’t patentable. Also Mark Lemley and Arti Rai are going to have a baby and when it grows up the merged Google-Apple company is going to install her as President and make it illegal to talk about patents. Again, if you don’t know this already you haven’t been reading Gene’s blog which is totally not fake news like this one.
“which is totally not fake news like this one.”
Lulz.
“Anyways, the judges sit around in the Star Chamber drinking the best iced tea — just the best, I mean really really great great iced tea”
They actually do have a very nice little cafeteria in their building. It probably does have great great iced tea.
Well, there are panels that bend over backwards to “interpret” 101 to invalidate allowed claims, making up restrictions in the statute that simply aren’t there in order to arrive an an infringer friendly decision.
How would you characterized them?
How would you characterized them?
Public servants.
Your view of “public” does not match what Les is describing.
But you already knew that, eh?
haha, good point.
I’m reluctant to respond to what looks like a non-serious comment, but yes, and there’s nothing necessarily wrong with that.
Any appellate court is going to have some amount of panel-dependency. If, for example, you’re doing a criminal appeal in any of the other 12 U.S. courts of appeals, you’ll probably understand that some judges are more willing to rule against prosecutors and police than others (call them “defense-friendly” or “prosecution-friendly” or whatever, if you prefer), and the names of the judges on your panel will often affect your optimism about the outcome. Or if you prefer, look that the Supreme Court’s docket (setting aside selection bias issues): some Justices are more skeptical than others of various types of claims.
On the Federal Circuit, some judges are more willing to invalidate patents than others. It doesn’t necessarily mean that any of them are biased or nefarious. If you put any group of 12 people on the Federal Circuit, after a while they’d all start to show some tendencies, and some would look instinctively more pro- or anti-patent than others (or more or less “accused-infringer-friendly” if you prefer). All else being equal, if I were the patentee in a Federal Circuit appeal, there are certain judges I’d prefer to see on my panel and certain judges I’d prefer not to see.
One way to break down the eligibility issue is to march through the claim steps:
1. A computer program product embodied on a computer readable storage medium for processing network accounting information comprising: computer code for receiving from a first source a first network accounting record;
Okay, that’s ancient and nothing more than a necessary first step. “Wherein the method takes place in the universe”. Whatever.
computer code for correlating the first network accounting record with accounting information available from a second source
“Correlating” is an ineligible abstraction. Any information can be correlated with any other information. There’s nothing there. So where’s the meat?
using the accounting information with which the first network accounting record is correlated to enhance the first network accounting record.
“Using” X to “enhance” Y. This is handwaving ba l0ney in the most absurd terms. Was there an invention somewhere in this application? Maybe (but I doubt it). In any event, it’s not a court’s job or the PTO’s job to read limitations into a meaningless word salad.
Might as well just claim “A method, wherein the method is non-obvious, wherein the method is described somewhere in the specification, and wherein the method achieves enhancement of data.”
Is that an eligible claim?
MM, thanks for copying the claim. I haven’t looked at the constructions of the information content limitations, but the general operation described seems typical of any database system.
One has tables linked by a field. Linking and correlating seem the same.
Once the two tables are linked, information from the one can be copied to the other, or a third table can be produced combining fields from both.
This seems old as the hills.
Now, exclude from the 102/103 analysis printed matter — the meaning of the symbols, and what is left?
what is left…?
How about not conflating 102/103 and having a proper analysis of 101 (as in, are the T W O aspects of 101 met: is the invention in at least one of the statutory categories, and is the utility of the invention in the Useful Arts)?
That – apparently – is a H U G E “what is left.”
This case is bizarre. The app won an interference against patent no. 6405251 and the examiners subsequently allowed it without any comment on the substance of the invention.
Ed, two possible reasons, neither good:
(1) Examiner wanted to just get such a long-pending application off his or her docket ASAP to avoid getting “dinged,” and/or
(2) Examiner wrongly assumes claim validity was considered by the PTAB in the interference. [It could have been, but is not unless one party knows enough to know they are going to loose on “invention” date priority and files a motion to attack validity of subject claims in the interference motion period, or does not need to attack validity if it got a license.]
Third possible reason:
Examiner conducted a full search and consideration of the application, and found only US Pat 6405251.
Given that, by my count, 58 documents were made of record, my money is on the third possible reason.
And there were also 56 non-patent references on the face of the patent. [Obviously all cited by the applicant, since no examiner ever cites that many references.]
I’m sure the examiner had no difficulty in carefully reading all 114 citations in their typical 6.5 hours of search time, and then doing an [unrewarded] second prior art search after the interference. After all, as anon and others insist, an applicant is entitled to a multi-thousand dollar prior art search from the US PTO even if they only pay a few hundred dollars for it.
“After all, as anon and others insist, an applicant is entitled to a multi-thousand dollar prior art search from the US PTO even if they only pay a few hundred dollars for it.”
Getting your jollies by mischaracterizing what I have had to say on the matter, Paul?
Find that simply
Unbelievable,
pal
A more interesting question in this case is whether or not the claims at issue, which were copied from another patent in a successful interference, would (a) render that other patent relevant for claim construction of the word “correlating” and (b) cause the patent to be invalid for failing to support a context based interpretation of the word (since “correlating” was copied in from another case and possibly not supported in exactly the same way). Very interesting prosecution history here.
Yes, especially in view of Ex parte Smart, Appeal No. 2009-015036, application 10/818,920 (03 January 2011), the first published Board decision on an appeal dealing with the Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc., 567 F.3d 1366, 91 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2009) claim construction doctrine for copied claims. Smart expanded the Agilent doctrine into ex parte, pre-interference, prosecution. The Agilent doctrine requires that, during an interference proceeding, claims that have been copied from the target case be construed based upon the disclosure of the target case for purposes of determining whether the copier has written description support, instead of being construed based upon the disclosure of the copier. [Never made clear sense to me, but who cares.]
Also of course a party may be also be stuck with claim interpretation arguments it made in the interference.
The Agilent doctrine requires that, during an interference proceeding, claims that have been copied from the target case be construed based upon the disclosure of the target case for purposes of determining whether the copier has written description support, instead of being construed based upon the disclosure of the copier. [Never made clear sense to me, but who cares.]
Paul, I think the reasoning is that if you construe the copied claims based on the disclosure of the copier, you tilt the odds in favor of finding written description support for the copied claims in the copier’s disclosure. The doctrine, in contrast, stands for the proposition that if you are copying claims from another patent/application, then you are necessarily “copying the construction” of those claims as well.
May need more coffee.
That makes sense to me for an interference “count” but how under 112 for an actual patent claim?
While I can see that the claim should probably fail 101 subject matter eligibility under Alice/Mayo, why hasn’t 102 anticipation / 103 obviousness been thrown in as well? Looking at the claim on its face, couldn’t the litigants have found at least some killer prior art on the claimed subject matter? Even a basic accounting textbook would seem to render the claim invalid.
Well, why would anyone in the prior art have need to enhance an accounting record obtained from a first source? Why not just demand the needed information from the first source or make due with the information available from the first source? The Examiner allowed the claim. Clearly, the Examiner found it worth. That’s not an easy hurdle.
Les, re “why would anyone in the prior art have need to enhance an accounting record obtained from a first source?”
Enron, Global Crossing, Ponzi schemes, any Russian company, etc, etc, etc.
Someone who works at SAP, Oracle or Intuit, etc. might be able to come up with a good answer to that, but it seems to me that e.g. large business enterprises would have multiple accounting records coming in from their various divisions, i.e. two or more sources, and have need to generate enhanced records on occasion, e.g. when preparing financial statements, or to reconcile records in multiple currencies. Surely one might find at least some high-end accounting software with computer code for performing the apparently broad steps set forth in the presented claim.
What’s the definition of “enhance” provided for in the specification?
The CAFC: We approved of the district court’s construction of “enhance” to mean “to apply a number of field enhancements in a distributed fashion.” Amdocs I, 761 F.3d at 1338–40. In so doing, we
approved of the district court’s “reading the ‘in a distributed fashion’ and the ‘close to the source’ of network information requirements into the term ‘enhance.’” Id. at 1340. We also approved of the construction of “completing” to mean “enhance a record until all required fields have been populated.” Id.
Not the answer to the question I asked.
My question is: how was the term “enhance” defined in the specification?
I could care less how it was “construed” in the absence of a definition because any construction of that term in that claim in the absence of a definition is nothing more than result-oriented judicial activism in its purest form.
Also, the circularity in the construction is noted. What is a “field enhancement”? The term “field” appears nowhere in the claim. That claim states that it’s a “record” that is being “enhanced”, according to the claim.
And lastly: that ridiculous pulled-out-of-the-hat construction doesn’t change the eligibility result. It’s still just a bunch of vaporous h 00 haw.
“any construction of that term in that claim in the absence of a definition is nothing more than result-oriented judicial activism in its purest form.”
You have your own little version of reality that simply does not match anyone else’s.