Ex parte Naeymi-Rad (PTAB 2018)
Intelligent Medical Objects, Inc. (IMO) has an interesting business of capturing, standardizing, and simplifying medical documentation used in 3,500 hospitals and by 450,000 doctors. This process is critical for both treatment and payment — all in an environment where mistakes can lead to death and bankruptcy. In the U.S., companies have spent billions of dollars on designing electronic medical record systems — yet major problems remain.
IMO’s CEO Frank Naeymi-Rad along with 11 others are listed as inventors of the company’s pending Application No. 13/622,934 – recently rejected on eligibility grounds. The claims are directed to a software system for “implementing a controlled vocabulary” within a longitudinal medical record. The examiner finally rejected all 14 claims for on eligibility grounds (withdrawing the obviousness rejection) — concluding that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “providing healthcare by generating and processing medical records.”
On appeal, the PTAB sided with the examiner – holding that – at a high level of abstraction, the claims “can be characterized as collecting, storing, and organizing … and transmitting information.” Although the examiner acknowledges that the claims are novel and non-obvious, the PTAB still found no inventive concept.
Although the second step in the Mayo/Alice framework is termed as a search for an “inventive concept,” the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness.
On this point, the PTAB quoted Diamond v. Diehr:
The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the Section 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.
Rather than focusing on novelty as the “inventive concept” language suggests, the PTAB indicated its second step goal is a search for something “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself” quoting Alice/Mayo. One approach that works for patentees is to show that their invention is an improvement of computer functionality. Here, however, the PTAB ruled that the claims simply use computer technology — “generic components … employed in a conventional manner.”
IMO argued (through its attorney Richard Beem) that the addition of patient-by-patient controlled vocabulary was a key feature that allowed the longitudinal medical records possible because it allowed for relational storage — reducing memory and increasing speed. I expect an appeal to the Federal Circuit on these (and other) points.
I list claim 1 below:
1. A method of implementing a controlled vocabulary in a longitudinal electronic medical record, comprising:
generating a first instance of a plurality of data objects during a first encounter, said plurality of data objects comprising data elements further comprising a first instance identifier and temporal identifiers;
linking a data object in said first instance to a summarization reference with a pointer, where the plurality of data objects and the summarization reference are related as part of a directed graph data structure;
creating an additional instance of a plurality of data objects during a later encounter, said additional instance of a plurality of data objects comprising data elements further comprising an additional instance identifier and temporal identifier;
providing continuity for said plurality of data objects of said first instance over time[, wherein said providing step comprises tracking a relationship between said data object of said first instance and a data object of said additional instance];
capturing said controlled vocabulary using a computer by forming a list of medical terms and list of associated descriptions;
creating a list of codes internal to said controlled vocabulary[, wherein said controlled vocabulary maps to at least one of a reference terminology or an administrative terminology];
storing said codes, said medical terms, and said descriptions using a computer in a format suitable for use in the longitudinal electronic medical record; and
tagging elements within a domain within the longitudinal medical record with said controlled vocabulary[.]
This has to be one of the most ridiculous statements ever made in patent law. An “inventive concept” that is not a 102/103 analysis. Not possible and ridiculous.
please, fed circ, mandate that this patent be burned in a public square and advise the drafter to look for another career. the patent is embarrassing to those of us who actually had to write programs for a living before becoming patent attorneys.
This is just a person opinion with no cited evidence.
This is just a person opinion with no cited evidence
Sometimes the jokes write themselves. Wow.
While I’m not suggesting that the following might help the claim’s eligibility, it certainly will make the claim more understandable, if not completely compliant with 112(b). The problem is that the claim has a plurality of steps related to processing data objects and a plurality of steps related to processing a controlled vocabulary and the two sets of steps don’t seem to have anything to do with each other.
We have a step that calls for “capturing said controlled vocabulary….” I can find no other incidents of this term in the claim except in a preamble. In particular, the steps from “generating” through “providing continuity” are not clearly linked to generating a controlled vocabulary. If the novelty and invention lies in the steps, it would be helpful that the other steps involving the controlled vocabulary capture simply be deleted from the claim because they seem routine and non-inventive. Further they may be central to the holding of ineligibility.
If I’m right in this, the focus of the eligibility analysis should be on the steps from “generating” through “providing.” The steps involve nothing but computer data processing, but it may be sufficient here that there might be some improvement in data processing functionality. I am drawing no conclusions on this issue.
But as I said, whether and how the steps are linked to producing a controlled vocabulary is a puzzle and make the claim a hash.
the focus of the eligibility analysis should be on the steps from “generating” through “providing.”
This kind of talk is just ridiculous.
Les: synonyms: new, original, unusual, unfamiliar, unconventional,
The numbers that “represented” the correlation that the “determiner” in Prometheus’ claims thought of when he/she looked at a patient’s TG levels were also novel.
But that’s the ineligible part of the claim. The test requires you to look at the rest of the claim to see if there is eligible subject matter there that is non-obvious (i.e., not in the prior art; i.e., structurally descriptive in objective terms and patentable over the prior art on that basis).
This is easy stuff. Dennis, maybe try a bit harder to educate your readers? C’mon. You’re a tenured professor at what is supposed to be an okay law school. You really don’t need to be carrying water for the worst attorneys on the planet.
Ineligible…. part…?
Ineligible…. part…?
For the newbies out there, “anon” is pretending to have been born yesterday because he doesn’t have anything of substance to add. So he sits there and makes flatulence noises while his head remains firmly in the sand. Don’t disturb him? He can never change. That’s his natural posture.
Everyone else knows that claims can recite both eligible subject matter and ineligible subject matter. If a claim recites the latter (regardless of whether it recites anything else), you have a potential 101 problem and you need to do the Mayo/Prometheus/Myriad analysis. So-called “claim dissection” (otherwise known as “using your brain to look at the claim and understand what is described”) is an essential part of the analytical process in most cases.
Please Pardon Potential (re)Post
There is no pretending of anything Malcolm.
The lack of substance is from your post, as you continue to attempt to subvert patent law with your feelings that eligibility can be parsed down to parts of a claim, and regardless of any ordered combination, can dictate the eligibility of the entire claim.
Eligibility is not a piece-part pass type of thing.
[added: leastwise as you attempt to dissemble]
“Everyone else knows that claims can recite both eligible subject matter and ineligible subject matter.”
Nothing in my post indicates otherwise – notwithstanding your mindless attempt at spin.
Quite in fact, it is I that on multiple occasions remind you of that fact. I also have to remind you that a claim composed entirely of individual parts that – each in themselves – fitting one or the other description can fully be patent eligible.
The irony of your “logic” is reflected in the Big Box of Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons.
Each in themselves, protons, neutrons and electrons are simply not patent eligible items.
And yet, ALL patent eligible claims of ALL items that are classified in the hard goods categories are nothing more than configurations of these – each in themselves – NOT eligible parts.
As to the “Mayo/Prometheus/Myriad” analysis – by which I presume you mean the “Alice/Mayo” analysis – it is you that is pretending to be born yesterday and refuse to see the broken score board aspects of the judicial muckery.
As to the rest of your mindless ad hominem, nothing more than your usual (and rather stale) Accuse Others meme.
“e., structurally descriptive in objective terms”
And yet again the attempt to turn an optional claim FORMAT into something that is not optional…
Cmon yourself Malcolm – stop repeating your dissemblings
One approach that works for patentees is to show that their invention is an improvement of computer functionality.
True.
IMO argued [the invention] allowed for relational storage — reducing memory and increasing speed.
Possibly good depending on the conventionality of relational storage.
storing said codes, said medical terms, and said descriptions using a computer in a format suitable for use in the longitudinal electronic medical record; and
Oops.
Easy one.
Pssst PTAB:
nov·el2
ˈnävəl/
adjective
adjective: novel
new or unusual in an interesting way.
“he hit on a novel idea to solve his financial problems”
synonyms: new, original, unusual, unfamiliar, unconventional, unorthodox; More
different, fresh, imaginative, innovative, innovatory, inventive, modern, neoteric, avant-garde, pioneering, groundbreaking, revolutionary;
rare, unique, singular, unprecedented;
experimental, untested, untried;
strange, exotic, newfangled
“a novel way of making money”
antonyms: traditional
How do you get around the fact that the Supreme Court did not decide the claims in Alice as being non-obvious nor novel despite declaring them ineligible?
Sorry, miswritten, but you know what I meant – The SC did not hold the claims as being obvious or anticipated, yet still held them ineligible.
The Alice decision is absurd. That is one of the points of my post.
You didn’t make your ‘point’ well then. Your post just makes it look like you’ve never read Alice.
All I did was post the definition of the word Novel.
How does that make it seem like I never read Alice?
Ben is an examiner and in the new PTO where examiners have been made into tiny sovereigns it has gone to his head.
Ben–you seldom if ever have any clue as to what you are talking about.
” Here, however, the PTAB ruled that the claims simply use computer technology — “generic components … employed in a conventional manner.””
Employed in a conventional, but yet novel and unobvious manner at a decision point where novelty and unobviousness have no bearing, but conventionality does.
We are in a double speak vortex folks….
Alice asks if the non-abstract features are conventional. Obviousness asks if the claim as a whole is obvious. You’re not considering the same set of features in each analysis.
Alice claims were non-obvious because nobody had suggesting applying the economic practice to a network computer before. Alice claims were ineligible because once you stripped the economic practice, what remained was “applying it on a computer” which was conventional.
But just a little ticker here – I’m willing to bet that the obviousness rejection was not withdrawn because the claims were truly non-obvious, but because proving obvious would have required “too many” references, which is a procedure the office usually follows. That procedure has no bearing in actual law. That being said, it’s a moot point as withdrawing obviousness doesn’t render the claim eligible. If it did, we’d have no Alice procedure at the office.
proving obvious would have required “too many” references, which is a procedure the office usually follows. That procedure has no bearing in actual law.
Oh my. If you listen really closely, you can hear the usual screechers screaming “Rogue lawless PTO! Rogue lawless PTO!”
Do you hear them? You have to listen really really closely. Like imagine that you’re listening to a whole different universe.
Haha yeah. I’m not saying this is clear error, but I have seen clear error resulting in an allowance and you never hear the applicant complain.
I have seen clear error resulting in an allowance and you never hear the applicant complain.
Shocking!!!
LOL
Rubber stamping Accept Accept Accept is not acceptable.
Rubber stamping Reject Reject Reject is not acceptable.
This has been my consistent view like forever.
Rubber stamping Accept Accept Accept is not acceptable.
It’s not rubber stamping, as it applies a test. The test simply isn’t the test under the law.
Reply never made it out of the “do not have a dialogue” count filter.
Perhaps salvaged:
March 1, 2018 at 1:04 pm
Random,
Do you understand what the term means?
during examination, “applying a test” has jack to do with anything.
The term applies to the entire examination process (including application of any test)
“Alice claims were ineligible because once you stripped the economic practice, what remained was “applying it on a computer” which was conventional.”
Wow… Ya see, thats where you go through the looking glass.
If no one ever did the “economic practice” on a computer before, then how can: applying the economic practice on a computer be conventional?
That is a good point Les. And it goes to the SCOTUS’s jurisprudence that the way you get a computer do something is write down what you want on a piece of paper and give it to a boy to get done over the weekend for a pizza.
It is funny that at the very start of the computer age that is what some smart people thought. Then they learned that actually implementing something could be impossible.
The SCOTUS work as if it is about 1900. Your brain is not an information processor but a place where the soul is stored and your thinking occurs in the ether.
Always pertinent to this point:
link to xkcd.com
Your link is pathetically out of date. It’s trivial to find a bird in an image with today’s image recognition AI.
You miss the point (whether or not trivial today is NOT the point). The two items bespeak of different levels and the incorrect coalescing of levels based on some supported “should be easy” mindset is: incorrect.
I doubt it. Captcha asked ME to select all the pictures with a store front and I missed one…. and I must not be the only one that misses on occasion, ’cause it gave me a second chance.
If no one ever did the “economic practice” on a computer before, then how can: applying the economic practice on a computer be conventional?
Again, because the question is not whether the WHOLE claim is conventional (which is the scope of the question you ask). If that were the test then 101 could always be disposed of by 102. The test is whether the non-abstract features are conventional.
The question is if programming a computer to perform an analog information processing method is conventional. It is. The fact that the programming is a method for an abstract idea (programming for a fundamental economic practice) is simply not tested against conventionality. That is just not the test that was laid down. You want to make the test into something its not and then complain that what you made doesn’t make sense. That may be true, but that’s because your logic doesn’t make sense, not the SCs.
That’s the distinction you see in DDR Holdings and McRO. In both those cases it was not conventional to program a computer to perform the analog method because both cases presented a problem that didn’t occur in the analog world. A computer does not conventionally simulate a gut instinct and a computer does not conventionally mimic a brick and mortar store in every way.
“The question is if programming a computer to perform an analog information processing method is conventional. ”
That is not the question.
That’s the “Big Box of Protons, Neutrons, and Electrons” version.
Les, I second Random’s post.
The question is whether there is invention in the subject matter of the claim that is otherwise eligible. There has to be a new or improved machine, etc.
Now, if a computer had never been used as a particle accelerator, then I think this would be a new use for an old machine. But calculating numbers, which are what computers do, is all the computer is asked to do, then the computer itself is not improved.
Q: is there a new capability not present previously?
A: of course, but you won’t get that from Ned’s dissembling (after all, he “just uses” by magic and the software component need not even be around)
OMG Ned. Abstract “calculating numbers” is not being claimed. A particular method of generating medical records is being claimed.
If every method implemented with a computer is just “calculating numbers,” then every drug is just “chemicals” and every mechanical device is just “gears ‘n suff.”
Les, the meaning if the information developed by the process is, in the words of the Borg, irrelevant.
Unless of course, Ned, it isn’t irrelevant….
Sigh…. Ned, Ned, Ned. Seven used “irrelevant” with some frequency (not a shield frequency or a subspace frequency mind you, but with some frequency). However, the Borg as a whole don’t stand around an debate much and so didn’t really have occasion to classify the points of other conversation participants as “irrelevant” or otherwise. You shouldn’t …. lets say extrapolate from one sample so much…. Also, not every method implemented with a computing device is abstract.
Beyond that, I agree more or less with your somewhat non-sequitur assertion. What is important is the method. Its the journey, Ned. Not the destination.
Les: If no one ever did the “economic practice” on a computer before, then how can: applying the economic practice on a computer be conventional?
Good grief.
That’s almost as mi ndless as your old classic drivel “If it was so obvious how come it wasn’t invented before?”
You’re not addressing the point, Les. You’re kicking up dust and pounding on a strawman.
“You’re not addressing the point [ ]. You’re kicking up dust and pounding on a strawman.”
“The jokes wright themselves”
…the airplane humor flies right over the heads…
Under my test this is easy: it’s eligible because machines are consuming the information. If you can patent MPEG and encryption, you should be able to patent something like this.
Of course, this invention is utterly non-novel and obvious, because the USPTO (or this examiner) have no clue about the history of software or the vastly wider meaning of “equivalence” in the software arts.
The notion of standardizing terms and providing a fixed dictionary goes back decades- or more. In my own industry, it goes back the 20 years we have been in business- and I’m certain in other disciplines it goes back toward the very first use of computers.
link to hropenstandards.org
Under my test this is easy: it’s eligible because machines are consuming the information.
Really? Is the doctor a robot? I’m pretty sure its a human that’s ultimately consuming the information. The information doesn’t mean anything to a computer (as it’s not about computer health, and isn’t used for fixing a computer problem) and it doesn’t allow the computer to do anything (as the computer doesn’t treat).
Do you also argue that when you write down e=mc^2 that the paper is “consuming the information”?
No, a translation table is an intermediate step. Computer A sends its data, in its original schema to this “invention”, which translates the original scheme into a fixed schema (machine consumption) which then translates the fixed scheme to the target system schema (machine consumption). The target system provides information for human consumption (i.e. a medical record) and I would say that a claim for an electronic medical record, by itself, is not eligible.
I would also add that the actual nature of the invention and the information consumer(s) would need to be determined as a matter of law in an expanded Markman procedure, so that we could also identify the PHOSITA involved (e.g. doctors, database designers, XML/API designers, linguists, health insurance coders, etc.)
One thing we can all be quite sure of is that there is no improving of computers, as computing machines, going on here.
I would say that a claim for an electronic medical record, by itself, is not eligible
Even if it’s new and non-obvious and only readable by a machine? Why not? Why would it fail your ad hoc eligibility test, Martin?
Because an electronic medical record is composed only of information, and the utility of the information only has meaning to human beings, which means the information is absolutely abstract. In semiotic terms, the medical record elements are symbols, and every symbol has three parts. The computer that hosts the record is the vehicle, and is not abstract. The parameter(s) of the measurement or description are the referents of the symbol, and are social conventions agreed upon by human actors- abstract, but reasonably similarly shared in some kind of recognizable objective reality. The utility of the referents, on the other hand are the interpretants, and they are unique and totally unknowable except to each individual consumer, which means the value (utility) and scope are impossible to Constitutionally litigate, not only for liberty interests, but because due process requires a greater measure of repeatability and objectivity.
If the interpretants are being used (consumed) directly by a non-human, and they are new, nob-obvious, and fully described, I would consider them eligible and patentable. The odds of that happening are low, but possible, which is the entire point of the Bilski decision.
an electronic medical record is composed only of information
True of all records and also all instructions (e.g., software)
the utility of the information only has meaning to human beings
And that’s just false. The phrase “utility” “only has meaning to” is nonsensical, by the way. Your “simple” test is allegedly whether the information is consumable by a machine. Period. That’s what you wrote up just upthread. We can all see it. You can’t erase. If you want to apologize and correct the error, go ahead. But spare us the silly semiotics lecture followed by a pronouncement that your test is “easy.” C’mon.
“Your “simple” test is allegedly whether the information is consumable by a machine”
No MM, that is a misreading. Not consumable. Actually consumed to create the infringement. No infringement with human consumption.
You like to say “silly” for things unimportant to you, but the nature of symbols is, for some reasonable people, just a wee bit important in discussions about the eligibility of symbolic processing methods.
Computer A sends its data, in its original schema to this “invention”, which translates the original scheme into a fixed schema (machine consumption) which then translates the fixed scheme to the target system schema (machine consumption).
So if I have data in one language that a computer understands, and I turn it into second data that a computer understands, that’s eligible? If I were to take string data and reorganize it into table format, but the computer is capable of understanding both the string (as it obviously could make a table out of it) and the table (as that data gets displayed to the user) then I have an invention? Would you argue that if I have the text of a book in English that translating it to Spanish is an inventive act? After all, the data has been (and I’m about to use an apt but loaded word here) “transformed” into different but similar-meaning data.
What if I have a bunch of individual baseball statistics for each year, and I use a computer to find the statistics over the player’s lifetime, and then I display those statistics. I’ve certainly reorganized (or “translated” to use your phrase) the data, and the computer obviously “consumed” the aggregated data (to the extent the system, rather than the user, cares about “consuming” baseball statistics). But doesn’t that seem like just the “using a computer for its information processing capability” that is the hallmark of one kind of mental-step-but-applied-on-a-computer abstraction?
The reason the machine-or-transformation test isn’t indicative of eligibility is that a computer always transforms data. That is what it does. That is what information processing is. Using a processor to process instead of a mind simply is not eligible unless there is some sort of inventive act in instructing the processor.
So if I have data in one language that a computer understands, and I turn it into second data that a computer understands, that’s eligible? It could be eligible. It’s obvious in 2018, so not patentable, at this point, but if someone came up with a new, non-obvious method of processing it…well….
Let me ask you: how are encryption and MPEG patents eligible?
What if I have a bunch of individual baseball statistics for each year, and I use a computer to find the statistics over the player’s lifetime, and then I display those statistics. I can do the semiotic analysis just like a medical record…the utility of the stats is totally in the eye of the beholder (the human consumer). Not eligible, in my view, as abstractions.
On the other hand, if you had some clever algos that took that stats and they were used by a pitching machine to select pitches or something like that, I would think that invention would be eligible. The utility of the information is not variable to the machine- the machine cannot host a meaning (or any abstraction) at all.
Also please remember I prefer MM’s position- ideally no information or logic or clever algo, no matter how clever, would be in the patent system. But thousands or millions of people think otherwise, and I’m looking for a philosophical or metaphysical line that can be drawn, and used, in a reasonable system of justice.
Let me ask you: how are encryption and MPEG patents eligible?
An encryption standard is only eligible with accompanying evidence that using the standard hardens the data against attacks. For example, evidence that one means of attacking data is to do steps X Y Z and how the encryption frustrates XYZ. The courts passed on whether it was inventive to merely translate a long time ago.
MPEG is eligible under the same standard as Enfish – evidence that the format either reduces data storage space or improves read efficiency. Encoding and storage protocols aren’t eligible because of the translating, but because the structure of the data storage has particular benefits (the same reason a particular compression protocol is eligible).
On the other hand, if you had some clever algos that took that stats and they were used by a pitching machine to select pitches or something like that, I would think that invention would be eligible.
But this defeats the hypothetical. Now the values are relevant to the machine-qua-machine because the values control the speed of the ball-accelerator. Doing math on the statistics and displaying them to the user has no relevance to the machine-qua-machine.
Also please remember I prefer MM’s position- ideally no information or logic or clever algo, no matter how clever, would be in the patent system.
Yeah this is a point where MM and I disagree. I think particular new logic as to how to solve a problem is eligible. Where he and I do agree is that because *particular* new logic is rarely commercially valuable, most claims are directed toward the act of using logic to solve the problem, rather than the particular logic that does solve the problem.
An example I like to use is calculating a driving route and estimating arrival time. A particular algorithm which selects a faster route is clearly eligible in my mind. But nobody will claim that particular algorithm because its so easily designed around (i.e. people are willing to sacrifice a small amount of efficiency to avoid having to pay a licensing fee). To prevent the public from having that constitutionally-protected option, most claims are configured to claim ALL algorithms which select a route (something like “wherein the processor calculates the optimal route” or functional language like that). That is a claim to the abstract Act of Solving the problem rather than a concrete solution.
Assuming some of the former patents exist, they rarely get to court because people design around them. Consequently, the only patents we see and discuss on this site are the latter ones, and they’re almost universally ineligible. As I say in post 9 above – I could clearly envision a set of facts that would make a claim similar to this one eligible. But this claim, which uses a functional term to claim all possible structures, is directed to the abstract act of solving an problem rather than a particular concrete solution to the problem.
structure of the data storage ?
Really? There is no more “structure” in an MPEG algo than there is in this sentence.
Encryption is exactly translation- the only difference is that the target “language” is a one-off. The “structure” is no more or less than any other linguistic array.
Encryption is exactly translation- the only difference is that the target “language” is a one-off.
Is it? If I translate english into spanish, can I reconstruct the english quite easily? If I hash a message using a public key, can I reconstruct the message easily without the private key? I’m sure the government regulates the exporting of encyryption technologies because it is “exactly translation.” Why not store your credit card numbers on the internet by spelling them out in spanish and see how far you get.
There is no more “structure” in an MPEG algo than there is in this sentence.
Try opening a MPEG file in a program that can’t read the MPEG format. Data, unlike life, does not just find a way.
Why not store your credit card numbers on the internet by spelling them out in
spanishsecret Klingon and see how far you get.Sophistry Random Guy. If nobody be me and one other person knew Spanish, it would work just great.
I’m recognizing a difference between what is intrinsically abstract- human consumption of information- and what is extrinsically abstract- claims that too broadly grab scope to which they are not enabled/entitled. Sooner or later this very real dichotomy will need to be recognized.
MS: There is no more “structure” in an MPEG algo than there is in this sentence.
Encryption is exactly translation- the only difference is that the target “language” is a one-off. The “structure” is no more or less than any other linguistic array.
Gotta say, Martin: I appreciate the candor. It’s good to be honest about this “structure” nonsense.
Arguing that “we must make an exception for this super special stuff!” is one thing (more specifically, it’s a policy thing). That can be done honestly (even if it’s not persuasive, ultimately). But trying to argue that our patent system compels the patenting of non-obvious data encryption algorithms because “structure” is beyond absurd. I have no idea why people cling to nonsensical arguments that plainly go nowhere (e.g., “no claim dissection!”) but they do. Even when they don’t work.
Let me ask you: how are encryption and MPEG patents eligible?
What makes you think they are eligible? Has the Supreme Court ever opined on their eligibility? No they haven’t. Your assumption rests on a foundation of dust and fairy wings.
The CAFC created a myth about the “essence of electronic structure” and the alleged eligibility of encryption and MPEG patents rests on that mythology along with some nonsensical self-serving cr @pola relating to a moebius strip with numbers printed on it (useful for “learning” and “entertainment” … riiiiiiight).
“Has the Supreme Court ever opined on their eligibility? No they haven’t. Your assumption rests on a foundation of dust and fairy wings.”
LOL – the assumption that until the Supreme Court opines as to eligiblity, the eligibility is not there is ITSELF the stuff of dust and fairy wings.
Malcolm at his typical Accuse Others….
“nonsensical self-serving cr @pola relating to a moebius strip with numbers printed on it”
So says the guy that claims he knows about the exceptions to the judicial doctrine of printed matter better than anyone else….
Stultifying.
Instead of a mind….
Anthropomorphication….
Anthropomorphication….
As everyone knows, “anon”, the worlds foremost “anthroporphicators” are the scriveners who routinely describe what computing machines do using terms that also describe (shocking!) what brains do.
Or haven’t you “determined” this yet?
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Brush aside the ad hominem, and what is your point here Malcolm?
Do you have one?
MM >>(shocking!) what brains do.
We don’t know how brains work. And, what is described in a claim is only what is enabled. Your statement is absurd.
The irony is stultifying as it shows that his own brain is not working.
We don’t know how brains work.
LOL
Right, it’s a total mystery. In 2018.
Meanwhile, back on planet Earth …
RG: The reason the machine-or-transformation test isn’t indicative of eligibility is that a computer always transforms data. That is what it does. That is what information processing is. Using a processor to process instead of a mind simply is not eligible unless there is some sort of inventive act in instructing the processor.
Logic is ineligible for patenting. Doesn’t matter if it’s new or non-obvious.
Prior art computing machines exist solely to process data according to logic instructions that humans provide to the machines. Why did we invent the machines? To perform ineligible logical operations on data so we can focus our brains on other ineligible activities.
Game. Set. Match.
This is how it’s going to play out, folks. It’s over.