Eligible?:
1. A method for implementing a blackjack game in a physical casino, the method comprising:
providing the physical casino with a physical gaming table with a felt layout on top of the gaming table, the felt layout including a plurality of betting circles imprinted into the felt layout;
providing one or more physical decks of cards;
receiving a wager from the player in the form of one or more physical chips in a player’s betting circle of the plurality of betting circles;
dealing, using the one or more physical decks of cards, cards for a player’s hand and cards for a dealer’s hand;
enabling the player to play out the player’s hand;
resolving the dealer’s hand, comprising, upon meeting a bum condition of a number of the cards for the dealer’s hand exceeding two and a point total of the cards for the dealer’s hand exceeding a predetermined amount and equaling a preset total,
burning a card in the cards for the dealer’s hand and dealing an additional card for the dealer’s hand; and
resolving the wager according to predetermined blackjack rules.
PTAB says not eligible. Ex Parte Hall, APPEAL 2017-002594, 2018 WL 460997 (PTAB Jan. 12, 2018). The Board’s two step analysis is as follows: (a) the claims are directed to the abstract idea of “rules for conducting a wagering game;” (b) although the claims is tied to physicality, it does not provide “something significantly more than a claim on the abstract idea itself.”
This thread is a little old in the tooth (especially for the anti-patent drive-by monologue “sAme one” “contributors, but the title fits the topic of the link:
link to yahoo.com
From the link:
The researchers think the particles might flit from one nearby atom to another as they pass through the rubidium cloud—like bees in a field of flowers. These passing photons can could form “polaritons”—part photon, part atom hybrids. If more than one photons pass by the same atom at the same time, they might form polaritons that are linked. As they leave the atom, they could stay together as a pair, or even a triplet.
In other words, the nature of the “intangible” “wavelength” of a photon, through the dual nature of particle/wavelength is now even more so becoming clear that tangible particles can be CONFIGURED.
Someday the reality of the universe will be caught up to by the legal chicanery of such decisions such as In re Nuitjen…
anon The real issue is that the score board is broken.
The real issue is that you’re an entitled whiner.
My goodness give us all a break already you ridiculous inf@ nt.
LOL – as the Accuse Others meme is being worn clear through…
A break already? How about your 12 years of documented blight?
Scope of enablement is the way to think about it. The only problem in the Morse case was the use of the word “any”.
Plus, Diehr is not worth thinking about. It is a contrivance to get around Benson.
The way to think of 101 is that Benson needs to be expressly overturned with legislation along with Alice. Read Deener.
The endless prattle about is ridiculous.
Again, too, according to the people on here a computer with any software is the same as the computer. OK. Then what if the computer is hooked up to a machine that builds molecules (which is possible as we know how to construct any molecule). Then every molecule is per se obvious as being disclosed already.
Etc. You see, when you try to mis-characterize science, it always breaks in some way.
Night Writer,
Let me amend your statement “just a touch:”
“according to the people on here a computer with (ANY) software is the same as the computer with NO software.”
That statement is the very essence of the Grand Hall Experiment, introduced in the comment section of this very blog many years ago now.
There have been a sum total of ZERO views that have taken that thought experiment, appreciated the meaning of that thought experiment, and integrated the lesson from that thought experiment and have been able to maintain the anti-patent rhetoric that is blasted out time and again and again and again (from the likes of the exact sAme ones on this blog).
Zero.
Until the issue is approached with some semblance of inte11ectual honesty on the plain facts of the real world, ALL that we will see in the comments section here is the sAme exact type of drive-by monologue statements that make up the Internet style “shout down” that the anti-patentists engage in.
Nothing more.
The counter points have long been on the table of dialogue.
They need to be read.
They need to be acknowledged.
They need to be understood.
They need to be integrated into the anti’s arguments.
And, the reason they are intellectually dishonest and anti-patent judicial activist is that they won’t engage in real debate. They simple ignore the facts that don’t suit their agenda.
they won’t engage in real debate
LOL
I’m ready to “debate” at any time. Suit up your finest. You ain’t it, I can tell you that.
And if “not engaging” is a real problem for you, take your miserable whining over to Big Jeans place where anyone who doesn’t parrot his inane talking points is banned. Ya silly hypocrite. Grow up already.
Your comments here are simply and rather unsurprisingly untrue.
Noting you put “debate” in quotes, as it is no wonder that you refuse to reply what Night Writer actually wrote: real debate.
Such would include inte11ectual honesty – of which you are bereft.
And again, your 0bsess10n with Quinn surfaces, and you are clearly not correct about what it takes to get banned there. Unlike this blog which puts up with your L I E S for a full dozen years now, engaging in the tactics that are your forte are what will get you banned.
By the way, did you see this:
link to ipwatchdog.com
“Ya silly hypocrite. Grow up already.”
says the site’s biggest hypocrite and one needing most to grow-up….
Not surprising, since your number one meme has long been Accuse Others Of That Which You Do.
The counter points have long been on the table of dialogue.
Yes, the alleged “counterpoints” are stale and they smell.
They need to be read.
That happened a long time ago.
They need to be acknowledged.
The alleged “counterpoints” were acknowledged to be vapid and non-responsive.
They need to be understood.
LOL. They were pretty easy to understand to the extent they weren’t self-serving or gibberish.
They need to be integrated into the anti’s arguments.
No, Billy. That’s not how it works.
LOL – except for the fact, “Billy” that the only reason why you refuse to “have that work” is because of your antics would cease to exist.
I am sure that shocks no one.
NW according to the people on here a computer with any software is the same as the computer
Nobody is saying that. You’re taking the result of a legal analysis of a patent claim and confusing it with a non-legal statement about an object.
It’s like ranting on a criminal defense blog that “According to the people on here k lling a person with a gun is the same as k lling them with a baseball bat.” Well, for certain legal purposes it is the same. Mocking people in this manner just makes you look like a f king id i 0t.
“ You’re taking the result of a legal analysis of a patent claim and confusing it with a non-legal statement about an object.“:
You are being entirely dishonest.
What exactly about the intersection of “non-legal statement about an object.” AND “the result of a legal analysis of a patent claim” are you having difficulty with, Malcolm?
Other than your feelings getting in the way?
Night, if using a computer and making a new computer are the same thing, then why did Benson come out the way it did?
Ned,
Why did Benson say this:
“It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold.“
Anon, there is a quite a bit of difference between categorically holding that software is eligible regardless of what it is based upon it being loaded into a computer and allowing the eligibility of software that improves computer or computer system functionality. If software is categorically eligible, it would permit the patenting of business and mathematical methods that do nothing about improving computers or computer systems.
It is down what surprising that you do not see the difference. But you have been arguing this point for generations indicating either that you do not see the difference or are incapable of seeing the difference.
“categorically”
STOP right there.
Do you remember all of the dust kicking that you have done over that particular word?
Think about it – it goes back YEARS.
NO ONE is attempting to say “categorically” for ANY subset of ANY statutory category. Instead, the obfuscation (from you) comes in with attempting to use the “ly” as opposed to the normative “as a” – as in, “as a category, one cannot dismiss or attempt to denigrate methods of any kind, given that methods are a FULL EQUAL category, just as valid as any of the hard goods categories.
Now, then, let’s try to parse through your attempted obfuscation here.
You want to NOT draw to the plain facts of the matter as exemplified in the Grand Hall experiment, is that correct?
You want to NOT admit – on its face – that there is IN FACT no magic and that an actual physical change MUST occur when looking at a time slice between a machine PRE-software loaded and a machine POST-software loaded (and in which the machine is necessarily changed due to that REconfiguration that occurs with the loading of the machine component called software.
Is that correct?
Please answer these questions first – without guile or subterfuge.
Once you answer these questions – and establish in an inte11ectually honest manner – that the basis of MANY of your very own arguments are without – in fact – merit, THEN we can get to the second phase of your questions wherein you seek to insert “policy” concerns.
(At this point we do not even have to dismiss your facial fallacy regarding business methods).
As it is, you seek to obfuscate while claiming it is I that somehow “does not see” something.
No Ned, the “not seeing” here is YOU and your desired tactics.
Those tactics f00l no one.
It’s time instead for you to be inte11ectually honest.
The test of whether the computers in the great hall experiment are new is whether they are the same or different when one turns them off and then turns them back on again.
And that turn off/turn on does not help you.
YOU still have to face the facts that when a machine is changed and reconfigured when that software is loaded, you have – in fact – changed the machine.
Software simply does not – and cannot – operate by “magic.”
when a machine is changed and reconfigured
Claim the “reconfiguration” in objective structural terms distinguishing the “reconfigured” machine from prior art machines on that basis and your eligibility problems will disappear.
Go ahead.
Otherwise you’re just claiming logic “on a computer.” And logic is ineligible subject matter. This is an Alice problem that you need to overcome, which is to say that it’s a fundamental problem that you can’t overcome.
So you’ll kick up dust and whine, whine, whine.
Game. Set. Match.
[shrugs]
“in objective structural terms”
Yet again you trot out your optional claim format as if that were anything but an option.
Software is not logic – as you well know, so you might as well stop that dissembling.
“Game. Set. Match.”
Not in your favor, so your continuing to [shrug] remains most odd.
Ned, this is just like a way to convince ignorant people. Please stop this.
Why did Benson say this: “It is said that the decision precludes a patent for any program servicing a computer. We do not so hold.“
Because (1) they were clueless, (2) they were spineless, and (3) the issue was poorly briefed because that wasn’t the issue squarely before the Court.
Note that the Supreme Court has completely reversed itself in short periods of time (relatively speaking). Bowers v. Hardwick lasted less than 20 years and it isn’t ever coming back. Your beloved dicta (LOL) in Benson is worth diddly squert. Less than your beloved dicta (LOLOLOL) in Bilksi.
Just wait for the back of the hand, “anon.” It’s coming at you. Ouch.
Bowers….?
What are you sniffing?
Ned >Night, if using a computer and making a new computer are the same thing, then why did Benson come out the way it did?
Ned, please stop trying to cleverly simplify. “Using a computer”? Is that what it is? Or is it inventing an information processing method/machine and then using a general purpose computer to implement your invention?
We both know the answer. Ned, the CAFC/SCOTUS can proclaim that the Sun orbits the Earth, but that doesn’t make it so in fact.
“but that doesn’t make it so in fact.”
The real issue is that the score board is broken.
Note how Ned (among others) try to “defend” the broken score board by merely – and without critical thought – try to say “The score board says…” when the fact of the matter is that the score board is now a mess of a self-conflicting Gordian Knot.
For all of the jumping on the band wagon to use the Court’s ad hominem towards patent attorneys (i.e., “scriviners”), the Court itself exhibits a woeful application of its own “scrivining.”
Those of us who are attorneys should look deeply at our own State attorney oath and see if our fealty be with the Court (above the Constitution) or with the Constitution (with each and every branch constrained by that Constitution.
As noted previously, the single exception of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts clearly designates OUR duty.
Some, such as Ned, subvert that duty when the broken score board aligns with their personal views of what should and should not be patent eligible. Their desired “Ends” are used to justify their “Means” of turning a blind (but selectively blind) eye to the violation of the separation of powers that occurs – for patent law – with the legislating from the bench.
As I have noted, common law is all fine and good – for those places wherein common law is applicable. The statutory law that is patent law is NOT one of those places, given how patent law has been set forth in OUR Constitution.
Until there is a Constitutional amendment and the power to write patent law is set differently (or Congress again chooses to share its authority properly), EVERY attorney should be aghast at what the Supreme Court is doing.
“anon” Their desired “Ends” are used to justify their “Means” of turning a blind (but selectively blind) eye to the violation of the separation of
*click* (((((((((YAWN)))))))))
Give it a rest, hypocrite. You don’t give a shert about the “separation of powers” and we all know it. You’re just a glibertarian trying to stuff his pockets and spewing shert everywhere while you do so.
…except for the fact that you are wrong, continue to be wrong and the only thing that you can do is to spout your usual stream of mindless and pointless ad hominem.
Try a little substantive arguments on point instead of the ad hominem.
You won’t.
You can’t.
Night Writer,
Also take note that Ned will NOT address the quote from Benson.
This will NOT be the first time that Ned runs away from that quote. It will not be the last time.
anon, that is part of the game they play. They ignore anything that doesn’t fit their agenda.
if I had to guess, I’d say that Ned is getting money for pushing this. Either directly or by being accepted by his mentor R. Stern (the author of heart of of all evi1 of patent law–Benson.)
Night Wiper: They ignore anything that doesn’t fit their agenda.
Projection, folks. It’s a thing with these people. They can’t help themselves.
“Projection, folks. It’s a thing with these people. They can’t help themselves.”
Says the absolute Queen of Accuse Others Of That Which Malcolm Does…
Stultifying.
Plus, Deener. Read that case.
Greg DeLassus This is aesthetics, not law properly speaking, and at the point that patent tribunals are doing aesthetics instead of law, one really has run badly off the rails.
Looks like we have another vote for eliminating design patents entirely. Definitely an idea whose time has arrived. Let’s make an even bigger f0 0l out of Dave “Kappy” Kappos, shall we? Assuming that’s even possible.
I’m sure the glibertarians are with me, right? Smaller government and all that. Right? Right? (LOL – hypocrite sc um b@gs)
Of course this claim is ineligible. My goodness what a pile of junk. Why on earth would we want this g@ rbage in our patent system?
Best part: the Repu k k k e and glibertarian types out there weeping and moaning that these patents aren’t granted while at the same time they p ss themselves and cry about “big government.” What an incredible bunch of ign 0r ant hypocritical s cu m b@gs.
From below: Valid claims can have as much printed matter as they want. The printed matter is just not given patentable weight in 102/103 considerations.
The so-called “printed matter doctrine” is nothing more than an eligibility analysis applied in a particular context and rephrased using different language (much as the EP couches its subject matter eligibility analysis as part of its consideration of “inventive step”). Note that the same hypocrites who spent years soiling themselves over “claim dissection” (“not allowed! not allowed! wah! wah!”) never got worked up at all over the so-called printed matter doctrine which performs the identical analytical steps: identification of what’s “printed matter” (i.e., ineligible information) and what isn’t (i.e., the otherwise eligible physical structures or physically transformative methods). If what isn’t “printed matter” is in the prior art or obvious (i.e., conventional) then the claim is dead.
Deal with it, folks.
I’m also trying not to laugh here as Risch seems to suggest that the USPTO isn’t granting enough patents on enough junk. Games would be so much better and more fun if only there were more patents on them! Then again, Risch also believes that teaching a robot how to use logic to park a car should be patentable which is really just another way of saying that Risch is a really cr@ ppy driver and probably gets on the freeway slower than a blind 97 year old.
LOL – you and your inane attempts to portray the judicial doctrine of printed matter (leaving out of course the important exceptions to that judicial doctrine).
Leaving out material items – how fricken usual for you, eh Malcolm?
(leaving out of course the important exceptions
The so-called “exceptions” aren’t relevant to my points I’m making about the relationship between the so-called “doctrine” and 101 (a relationship which you don’t deny, presumably because you can’t … although that hasn’t stopped you in the past LOL).
Well, I guess the so-called “exceptions” are relevant to the hypocrisy of you and your cohorts who screech about how “abstract” is just impossible — impossible! — to understand. But somehow “functionally related” (LOL) is the clearest thing ever. Sure it is! Because you say so.
“The so-called “exceptions” aren’t relevant to my points
B$.
Try again – those are DIRECTLY on point.
Actually I wonder if I’m confusing Risch with someone else. I’m sure he’ll be along to clarify his position on the patentability of methods of using logic to pilot a car (which is totally different from using logic to decide where and how to toss or kick a ball at a person or object).
Your 0bsession with piloting cars is noted.
You ARE confused, as that is YOUR strawman and NO ONE has the “position” that you straw man about.
I’m surprised no one on this thread brought up the Fed. Circuit’s In re Smith. There, the card game was found ineligible, but the Federal Circuit opined that the if the deck of cards had been “non conventional,” then the outcome would have been different. I didn’t read the case, but I’m assuming that the PTAB would be following In re Smith here, arguing that the deck of cards and table provided in the claims are conventional (we all know that 35 USC 100(b) has now been “interpreted” out of the statute).
An interesting question might be this: What if the layout of the felt gaming table was a non-conventional layout? Would this be the same as a “non-conventional deck of cards” referred to in In re Smith?
Agreed. See note 8.
Here’s a thought: if you invent a “non-conventional” (i.e., non-obvious) card table, then just claim it like a reasonable grown up would.
The game playing by the maximalists is utterly transparent and this is one of the recurring issues that proves what a pile of know-nothing b0t t0m feeders they are.
If you think you’ve got some “non-conventional” eligible structure, then claim it as such.
If you don’t, then get the f ck out of the patent system.
Again, you have absolutely nothing intelligent to add.
Twelve years now, Bguy, twelve years.
A CORREct determination.
A method of organizing human activity, including games, is not patentable as such. However the means for implementing such gains may be patentable provided they provide a new or improved machine, manufacture, process or composition.
Here, it is quite apparent that there is no new means provided. Thus there is no patentable invention disclosed.
Does that fit with (slightly altered):
“A method of organizing human activity, including curing disease, is not patentable as such.”
Where exactly does this “organizing human activity” come from and what does it mean?
I am sure that it is a “soundbyte” from somewhere, but wielded in a vacuum (as here by Ned), it’s a bit meaningless.
Where exactly does this “organizing human activity” come from
For starters, there is the First Amendment jurisprudence. If your patent prevents me and my friends from organizing ourselves, then you’ve got a Constitutional problem. But go ahead and pretend otherwise, “anon”! You’re a very serious glibertarian and totally not a hypocrite who will do and say literally anything if it makes you feel good at that moment.
It also comes from the fact that “organizing human activity” typically includes laying abstractions over existing human activity. Consider five people sitting around a table talking. Ancient stuff. But wait! One of them is a “Blarphant” (in charge of “reconciling”), the other is a “Curtort” (with a “plurality of attributes”), the other is a Parser (in charge of — wait for it — “parsing stuff”) and yet another is in charge of keeping track of everybody’s favorite DVD purchases. Totally new! And therefore totally patent worthy, according to the typical maximalist “analysis” of Things that Definitely Should Be Patentable. Because what harm could there possibly be in making some rich people richer by giving them the ability to sue other people for organizing themselves? Gee, it’s such a difficult question.
and what does it mean?
It definitely doesn’t mean “anything involving a human” which is something that only a brainwaveless derpshert like you would suggest.
You mouth FA and – as usual – fail to make anything even remotely substantive as a tie to something that might pass as a legal position .
Try again.
Would LOVE to see a case that deals with patents and FA aspect of freedom of assembly – if any such thing exists outside the confines of your mind and in the real world.
Please provide that
Surprise me.
Thrill me.
Or just be your usual bloviating self.
You mouth FA and – as usual – fail to make anything even remotely substantive as a tie to something that might pass as a legal position
LOL
Here’s a guarantee: go ahead and challenge the restriction against “organizing human activity” and see how it turns out. I can tell you how it will turn out: my arguments will be tracked pretty much perfectly and your arguments will be mocked.
Been there, done that. Several times now. I know you’d love to pretend otherwise but I’ll never ever let that happen. You’re a useful (ahem) t0 0l in that regard.
Would LOVE to see a case that deals with patents and FA aspect of freedom of assembly
Then go ahead and challenge the restriction against patents that protect “organizing human activity.”
[shrugs]
News flash: intelligent attorneys don’t need “case cites” directly on point to win their case. You haven’t noticed this? LOL
I do not need or want a “guarantee.”
Just do as I ask.
OR – as you are doing now, merely continue your usual bloviating.
“Been there, done that. Several times now”
Pure B$. – you have never done that.
brainwaveless derpshert
That’s just plain excellent.
Although I don’t know the game of blackjack very well, where’s the novelty?? Isn’t this how the game is already played in every casino in the world and has been for centuries? Unless I’m somehow not noticing some important feature in the claim, then for completeness it should also have been rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated.
Mark, whether or not the game rules themselves are new are obvious is completely irrelevant. Invention has to be in the means – the new or improved machine, manufacture, etc.
So was the processed grain in Deener a new manufacture? Or what was it?
Notice another one of these inconvenient truths that the antis just pass on every time.
PTAB’s guide to making Alice rejections:
Step 1: Generalize the claim until you are able to form a sentence with 6 words or less. Very important: do not look at the specific limitations of the claim. In most cases, using the claim’s preamble is sufficient.
Step 2: Say the rest of the claim does not amount to significantly more than the sentence you made up in Step 1.
Pro tip – If the applicant argues against the rejection, say the applicant has not offered evidence the claim is patentable. If applicant counters with evidence, say evidence is not needed for a 101 rejection.
Hmmm, you babble just as if you either do not understand the issues presented by Bilski-> Alice, willfully refused to understand, or are incapable of understanding. I am sure the readers of this blog know which of these applies to you.
As readers know what applies to you Ned (and your quite frankly asinine view that there are no problems with the Supreme Court line of 101 cases, when it is beyond clear that the entire mess of Supreme Court 101 jurisprudence is one giant ball of Gordian Knot).
YOU are the next to last person who should be lobbing insults on “understanding the issues.”
anon, jumping up and down and saying the sky is falling does not make it true.
When you say things like a programmed computer is a new or improved machine without more tells me that you simply will not accept reality.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 10, 2018 at 5:07 am
Ned,
You are the one not accepting reality and wanting some type of “magic” to account for new capabilities with no change.
Attempting to turn this around and Accuse Others Of That Which You Do is such the Malcolm move.
It does not work for him. Why do you think that it will work for you?
Ned, >>When you say things like a programmed computer is a new or improved machine without more tells me that you simply will not accept reality.
That is without question reality. The CAFC/SCOTUS can’t change science. They can make proclamations and make us write briefs that say it so, but we all know it is not so, in fact.
Ned reminds me of a clergyman from the middle ages who would argue that of course Galileo was wrong because the Church says the Earth is the center of the universe and all things rotate about the Earth.
He employs that level of critical “thinking.”