Processing Checks and Patent Eligibility

Solutran’s new petition for writ of certiorari asks a seemingly simple question:

Does Alice’s step one require that the claims be viewed as a whole and that consideration be given to the claimed advance over the prior art?

Solutran, Inc., v. Elavon, Inc. (Supreme Court 2020).

In the underlying litigation, the district court denied the defendant’s summary judgment motion on eligibility.  Similarly, the USPTO PTAB had refused to institute a covered-business-method review  on eligibility — explaining that the method of processing paper checks includes nothing “that would indicate that it is directed to an abstract idea at all.” On appeal, however, the Federal Circuit reversed — holding that the claims were directed to the abstract idea of crediting a merchant’s account as early as possible while electronically processing a check.

Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,311,945 is a method of processing checks and lists a four step process: (1) receiving data associated with magnetic ink character recognition (MICR) for each paper check (but not an image file of the checks); (2) crediting the merchant account; (3) subsequently scanning the checks for a digital image and (4) comparing the scanned image with the MICR information.

[Petition]

Solutran v. Evalon: Processing Paper Checks and Patent-Eligible Subject Matter

 

 

102 thoughts on “Processing Checks and Patent Eligibility

  1. 7

    I presume the case on appeal was the typical posture of 12(b) failure to state a claim because 101. The simple question presented powerfully cuts to the “heart of the issue” (pun intended). Hey are we going to read the claim? (like the statute requires), or keep on with this “gist,” “heart of the invention” test thereby ignoring the claim? And since this is in the posture of 12(b), there is obviously no Markman order at this pleading stage, yet somehow magically there is some understanding of the “invention” as being 101 abstract. How this passes for due process is anyone’s guess, but glossed over under the SCOTUS (and CAFC) holdings.

    1. 7.1

      Slight correction to your:

      but glossed over under the SCOTUS (and CAFC) holdings.

      ==>

      Glossed over directly as a result of the Supreme Court gift (that is, improper Common Law law writing) OF the “Gist/Abstract” sword.

      Congress laid out in 35 USC 112 exactly who has the authority and responsibility for setting out what “the invention” is. And that laying out was NOT to the judicial branch.

      So even though the Supreme Court misplays 101, and a colorable argument is that they are actually ‘applying’ 112 (or some combination of 103/112), even then, they are acting ultra vires.

  2. 6

    It is interesting that the anti-patent judicial activist just feel there is more structure in the chair claim below. It evokes some image in their minds of a physical structure so they feel that it is an OK claim.

    Reality–the chair claim recites no more structure than most of the information processing claims and maybe less. Without looking at the prosecution history I’d bet that the following is why it was allowed: “(g) whereby as said back member is tilted rearwardly said seat member realizes a slight lowering and the horizontal distance between the center of gravity of the occupied chair and said transverse support arm is minimized.”

    So the iron-age crowd feels that this is somehow more structure than what is typically recited in an information processing claim. It is not. (g) could literally be performed by an endless number of physical arrangements and is functionally claimed. The physical structure recited in the information processing cases is ever bit as real in order to actually build the machine.

    Step (1): Directed to the abstract idea of a chair. Then go to step (2). And the judge can then say that the claim recites no new elements. The claim is merely an arrangement of well known elements. I could spend another 5 minutes and make the whole thing a lot more concrete, but then the anti-patent judicial activist crowd never actually respond with substance.

    The key to all of this is that the mob tells us how a claim feels like it evokes images of structure in their head when the information processing claims do not, which is not surprising as they don’t understand information processing or the structure, but it is every bit as real.

    1. 6.1

      You really have to understand that this is what the judges do. The judges have no idea how information processing works and when they read a claim they think about a human thinking. When they see a claim to a chair they see a physical structure.

      But a person skilled in the art sees a physical structure when they see an information processing claim.

      1. 6.1.1

        I’m skilled in the art and I see no new physical structure in an information processing claim. I see the same, unimproved physical structure processing different information. All that is changed is the information.

        Information is not a physical structure, it is only maintained with physical structures. The meaning of the information is independent of the structure containing it. If the utility arises from the meaning, the structure is irrelevant.

        What am I going to say next Night?

        1. 6.1.1.1

          >>Information is not a physical structure, it is only maintained with physical structures.

          This is incorrect as information of course has structure.

        2. 6.1.1.2

          Information is not a physical structure, it is only maintained with physical structures.

          And? Machines that “process information” do not actually process the information per se. They process the physical structure encoding the information.

          To my mind, the problem with these claims is that the machines that they mean to cover have physical structure, and the processes that these machines enact are physical processes involving physical structures, but the claims themselves never mention of these structure.

          The real problem, in other words, is one of lack of sufficient precision or detail in the claims relative to the technology being captured. This is a problem that sounds in §112(a) or §112(b). The problem is not, in reality, that the invention is “abstract” (whatever that means). In short, the courts are using the wrong tool to tackle a real problem, and the “solution” therefore engenders as many problems as it resolves. Whatever the problem, however, it cannot be that “information is abstract,” because the machines and methods being claimed do not actually purport to process information except insofar as the information is embodied in tangible media and physical matter.

          1. 6.1.1.2.1

            This is a problem that sounds in §112(a) or §112(b). The problem is not, in reality, that the invention is “abstract” (whatever that means).

            Closer.

            in at least recognizing that such is NOT a 101 problem.

            As to Greg’s own “whipped out credentials” (or more to the point, the LACK of those credentials to expound on innovation in the computing arts), what he may or may not deem to be a 112(a) or 112(b) issue is largely nonsense coming from him.

            Wasn’t there a witty Witgenstein quote from Greg that fits….?

          2. 6.1.1.2.2

            … the problem with these claims is that the machines that they mean to cover have physical structure…

            That was inartfully phrased. I should have said “the problem with these claims—where there is a problem—is that the machines… .” That is to say, some claims really have no problems—§101 or §112—and they should just be enforced as valid claims. The ones that are problematic, however, are really (for the most part) problematic under §112, not §101.

          3. 6.1.1.2.3

            Greg to those of us that have been trained in computer science what you are saying is simply not true.

            The reality is that the claims to us are enabled and the enablement involves many, many solutions. We know those solutions.

            There is no lack of precision. I can tell you if software/hardware/firmware fits the solution or not.

            But I like the way you distinguish between the information represented by the physical hardware and the physical hardware. But let’s not forget that another solution is to build special purpose hardware.

            1. 6.1.1.2.3.1

              Not that you need to be reminded Night Writer (there are MANY here that do),

              But “special purpose hardware” is nothing more than the patent equivalent of any of the design choices of “wares” known in the computing arts.

              Sadly, there remains a basic inte11ectual DIShonesty about this plain fact when the topic of innovation in the computing arts comes up (even — or especially — by those who would anoint themselves ‘skilled in the art.’

        3. 6.1.1.3

          Marty,

          You are most definitely NOT skilled in the art as that term of art is to be understood.

          If you want to make what amounts to false arguments based on words spun out of context, then what you can (and should ) expect is push back for your unorthodoxy.

          1. 6.1.1.3.2

            Martin’s argument is a bit like saying that the test tubes don’t change so anything that goes on in them has no structure.

            Formally, Martin, you have no argument. Physicists will tell you that information and the conservation of information is one of the most important laws of physics. I’ve posted papers.

            But a better way to think about this is as a transformation of one state of information to another state of information as what the machine or method is performing.

            Information processing requires energy, time, and space to perform the transformation.

            You argument to on its face is absurd. The question is why even run the computer if what you say is true?

    2. 6.2

      “I could spend another 5 minutes and make the whole thing a lot more concrete, but then the anti-patent judicial activist crowd never actually respond with substance.”

      “A chair” doesn’t fall into any of the three buckets identified by the Iancu guidance. Already no SPE at the PTO is willing to sign off on your argument.

      And if by “substance” you mean discussion of your orifices, you’re absolutely right. You appear to be the only one willing to stoop to that level, so you can rest assured there will be no such response from anyone else.

      1. 6.2.1

        But it was not ‘just a chair,’ but instead was just an abstract idea of a chair with lots of abstract doohickeys.

        You have not been paying attention, Ben.

      2. 6.2.2

        Examiner Ben, the test is a judge at the CAFC or a justice and not one of your SPEs.

        And, in typical fashion, your posts drips with attitude about how you feel about me and my position and is completely devoid of any substance.

        I will go back to ignoring you.

      3. 6.2.3

        It is also interesting that Ben’s opinion is what I wrote is inadequate and yet the CAFC regularly writes nothing but a bare statement that a claim is directed to an abstract idea.

        The recited below is directed to the abstract idea of a chair.

        1. 6.2.3.1

          Let’s not lose sight of Ben’s reference being to the Iancu guidance.

          A guidance that is necessarily incongruent as that guidance has BOTH affirmatively recognized that the Supreme Court ‘gift’ of Common Law (new) law writing [as opposed to a proper use of Common Law as mere interpretation] has created non-resolvable and self-conflicting Gordian Knot of contradictory case law AND has sought to integrate ALL of that conflicting case law into a multi-off-ramp eligibility guidance.

          It is also worth noting, by the way, that the Iancu “multi-off-ramp” seeks to help the examiners avoid having to apply the higher standard of proof of conventionality — a standard mind you that those same courts have set as BEYOND merely providing 102 or 103 prior art.

          How many examiners (and maybe Ben can speak to this) are prepared to provide APA level evidence of FULL ordered combination of claim elements being adopted on a widespread degree in the art in order to meet the Office burden of a prima facie showing of actual conventionality?

          Bottom line here is that the more “flack” that those like Ben may want to throw at your “information processing must have real world physical effects” view, the more incongruent their own support for an anti-position can be laid out before them.

          They really don’t want to deal with your actual argument, Night Writer, because to do so would require venturing into the very LACK of a meaningful foundation that supports their views.

  3. 5

    More poop from the court. A company physically processes a check and executes a financial transaction, and the Fed. Court considers that an abstract idea. Go home Alice. Step out of the rabbit hole you created and take your Myriad of Mayo with you. When is congress going to come out of hibernation?

    1. 5.1

      When is congress going to come out of hibernation?

      When consensus is reached on a reform text that can pass Congress, and not before. That is to say, when a compromise is reached between the entities that like Alice and those that do not that all side can regard as fair and productive. If you want to see legislative reform (and I know that I want to see it), you need to be thinking of what compromises you are willing to see enacted.

      We are never going to get a 100% return to the status quo ante, because Congress does not want to enact a 100% return to that status quo ante. The best we are going to get is a step or three back from the full Mayo/Alice mess. We need to consider what are the most significant excesses of Alice to be undone, and then get behind that reform. If we continue to shoot down reform efforts because they do not give us 100% of what we want, then we are going to continue to get 0% of what we want. To my mind, 50% reform would be better than what we have now.

      1. 5.1.1

        Your first paragraph provides a NULL set purposefully because entities NOT wanting reform have jumped up, proclaimed that they want reform, and will do ANYTHING to defeat the clear and straightforward reform that would work as a first step — for everyone.

        Voices such as Greg’s, who would not look a gift horse in the mouth and wheel into within the city walls a Trojan Horse, are NOT the people that you want to be listening to when it comes to “compromise.”

        What he is selling is not compromise.

        What he is selling is abdication under a heavily spun fallacy.

      2. 5.1.2

        I suspect part of the reason for lack of appetite for compromise is because a large subset of the community (specifically, patent prosecutors) have already seen significant improvements in their sphere with no compromise through Iancu’s test.

        If you’ve already gotten 30% of what you want for free, why would you start giving up ground?

        1. 5.1.2.1

          I think that you are correct about that, at least for some of those resisting the original Tillis/Coons text and subsequent proposed compromises.

          1. 5.1.2.1.1

            and subsequent proposed compromises.

            … coming from those that ONLY jumped up and said “We want reform too” when it was clear that the only reason they did so was because they did NOT want reform.

            Greg has been unwilling to be inte11ectually honest about this very simple and direct point.

        2. 5.1.2.2

          Ben,

          You raise perhaps a decent point here with:

          have already seen significant improvements in their sphere with no compromise through Iancu’s test.

          But it’s not a conclusive one, as most (good) patent prosecutors look beyond the mere obtaining of a granted patent, and fully are aware of the ‘Cleveland Clinic’ syndrome, in which a claim expressly written to mirror USPTO guidance for being patent eligible was nonetheless eviscerated by the courts when it mattered most (during enforcement).

          I think that you sell us patent prosecutor’s more than just a little short with your comment.

          As to “giving up ground,” YOU TOO need to realize what exactly that means.

          Greg has shown no problem throwing non-Pharma under the bus, and ANY view of his that he attempts to spin as “compromise” is already seriously skewed as NOT being “compromise” at all.

          It is NOT compromise to stop the battle out in the fields in order to wheel within the city walls that majestic huge wooden gift horse.

          Please use a bit more critical thinking.

          Thanks,

        3. 5.1.2.3

          [P]art of the reason for lack of appetite for compromise is because… patent prosecutors… have already seen significant improvements… with no compromise through Iancu’s test.

          I do not disagree with this, but with specific regard to my community (patent prosecutors), I think that a much more powerful anti-compromise motivation is the fear that all of the currently pending compromises would expose many prep & pros folks as talentless hacks.

          1. 5.1.2.3.1

            LOL – Greg links to a PatentDocs article in which he feels that he has made some point about prep and pros folks being exposed as talentless hacks — when HIS OWN suggestion points out that GREG is a talentless hack.

            Priceless Greg.

            Too bad you insist on having blinders on and won’t even see your own inanity.

    2. 5.2

      “A method comprising physically processing a check and [insert step of making a non-obvious inference here].”

      Eligible for patenting?

      I know, I know: this is really tricky stuff. Call a friend!

      1. 5.2.1

        …is that like “physically changing some rubber by way of some ‘even obvious inference’ here” type of thing….?

  4. 4

    “I’m not going to try to understand something that isn’t in my financial interest to understand. Instead I will whine and complain about how confusing everything is and then cry about civility when my obviously willful ignorance is criticized!” <— the maximalist playbook

    Meanwhile let’s all continue to pay a pointless effective tax for routine applications of ancient data processing logic in every prior art context where logic is useful. Rich Whitey deserves no less!

    1. 4.1

      I cannot comment on whether rich whitey “deserves” what MM is talking about. But I can say this, as almost having been scammed on a cashier’s check scam the other day they really really really need instant verification of cashier’s checks at time of deposit/cashing at your bank. It’s 100% re tar ded that such does not occur already. You’d think the year was 1970. How fkin hard is it to have the computer contact the other bank as of deposit time and verify if the cashier’s check is good to go or not? It isn’t hard at all. All it requires is banks to coordinate. If there needs to be some “innovation” to make that easier for them to do so, then so be it if it cuts out that nonsense.

    2. 4.2

      Malcolm’s own words — just not how he wants to spin them:

      Instead I will whine and complain about

      Please get over the fact that innovation is fully in the Fifth Kondratiev wave.

      1. 4.2.2

        Per Wikipedia: “In economics, Kondratiev waves (also called supercycles, great surges, long waves, K-waves or the long economic cycle) are hypothesized cycle-like phenomena in the modern world economy.”

            1. 4.2.2.1.1.1

              Clearly, not so.

              But you already knew that (even as YOU delve into an item that you have wrongly attempted to accuse me of in the past).

              You and I are NOT the same, nor have our actions (and our levels of understanding of innovation) been the same.

              I am still curious though what your actual line of work is that makes you think as you do (and yes, I am using “think” in a very loose manner).

              Why have you refused to be forthright about your line of work? Is it really that embarrassing?

                1. The filter says I can’t ask the question again. I ask the question again. What is the item that I have wrongly attempted to accuse you of in the past?

                2. Oh, Snowflake. That’s part of becoming an adult, defending something you said. What is the item that I have wrongly attempted to accuse you of in the past?

                3. It is so charming when you Accuse Others Of That Which You Are, acting as a snowflake, and trying to get a rise out of someone by using that term.

                  Maybe you deserve a Nobel Prize for that?

                4. … and you are ‘all about’ defending what you have said…

                  A paragon of self-flagellation, you are.

                5. I am still curious though what your actual line of work is that makes you think as you do (and yes, I am using “think” in a very loose manner).

                  Why have you refused to be forthright about your line of work? Is it really that embarrassing? Is it not something ‘that you can defend?’

                6. Come now Shifty – you over react with your “avoided” schtick, as I have provided clues to you (in order to have some fun in our exchanges).

                  You really do not remember your fiasco with trying to put me down for using a reference to Wikipedia (for which I subsequently provided a direct reference saying the exact same thing)….?

                  What line of work is that you are in that does this to you?

                7. Who could ever forget that, Snowflake? I’ve never seen a putative adult so proud and excited to demonstrate that he can cut and paste from the Internet. And post it, too!

                8. And yet again you miss the entire point of your own attempted put-down — then AND now. (I ‘get’ how you want to scramble to somehow have these be a matter of presentation skills, which is why I originally mistook your line of work as being an examiner, but your other traits indicate that your line of work is not even to that level).

                  That’s either quite the skill or quite the dullard.

                  What is your line of work that drives you to be so capably oblivious?

                9. Somebody said you can no longer cut and paste from the Internet. Are you calling him a liar? Prove it.

                10. We’ve seen this game of yours of demanding meaningless and off-topic items.

                  It did not work then.
                  It does not work now.

                  C’mon, Shifty, do something slightly amusing. Maybe a gif….?

                11. Is the “it” that you are mysteriously referring to your line of work?

                  What is your actual line of work that makes you think as you do (and yes, I am using “think” in a very loose manner).

                  Why have you refused to be forthright about your line of work? Is it really that embarrassing? Is it not something ‘that you can defend?

                12. Per Wikipedia: “In English this distinction is not made through grammatically different forms of we. The distinction is either evident from the context or can be understood through additional wording, for example through explicitly inclusive phrasing (“we all”) or through inclusive “let’s”. The phrase “let us eat” is ambiguous: it may exclude the addressee, as a request to be left alone to eat, or it may include the addressee, as an invitation to come and eat, together. “Let us” ranges from the extremely formal (e.g., “Let us pray”) to the relatively informal; the less formal the usage, the more likely the usage is to be exclusive. This (somewhat) less formal use of “let us” contrasts directly with the even more informal contracted form “let’s” (e.g., “Let’s eat”), which is always inclusive.”

                13. That’s called and OVER-defense.

                  Not sure that there is a Wikipedia page for that.

                  (Maybe try reading that post again that you responded to that prompted my reply of:
                  y
                  o
                  u
                  r

                  and:

                  y
                  o
                  u

                  You seem to be doing that purposefully obtuse thing again. Combined with an OVER-defense of your actions, this tends to show something other than what you think — and more of your games playing than anything else.

                  What is your line of work? You seem to have some peculiar traits and I really do wonder if they reflect your line of work, or just you personally.

                14. Per Wikipedia: “The page ‘Over defense’ does not exist. You can ask for it to be created, but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered.”

                15. What is your line of work? You seem to have some peculiar traits and I really do wonder if they reflect your line of work, or just you personally.

                  Maybe your next moniker could be Pavlov…?

    3. 4.3

      Paraphrase that never made it out of the Count Filter purgatory:

      Malcolm’s Accuse Others meme in full display (with suitable modification):

      I’m not going to try to understand something that isn’t in my philosophical interest to understand.

  5. 2

    There is no opinion that cites to Alice that makes any sense.

    The CAFC judges are just flat out heinous. The Scotus handed them the ultimate weapon for a sovereign to invalidate any claim they don’t like and they use it with glee.

    Part (1) of Alice: Everything is directed to an abstract idea.

    Part (2) of Alice: A 103/102/112 analysis performed in the head of a judge with no expertise, no facts, and no regard for the rights of a patent holder.

    1. 2.1

      Can anyone cite to a claim that isn’t directed to an abstract idea?

      Can anyone perform part (2) of Alice without performing a 102, 103, and/or 112 analysis?

      The answers are “no” and “no.”

      1. 2.1.2

        1. An office chair comprising:
        (a) a seat member and a backrest member having a lumbar region, said seat member and backrest member hingedly articulated together about a first horizontal axis extending along the rear of said seat member and the lower edge of said backrest member, said backrest member being curved from top to bottom about a second horizontal axis extending through said lumbar region;
        (b) a support system including:
        (i) a vertical column extending upwardly from a base and a support frame having a transverse support arm;
        (ii) said transverse support arm mounted on the upper end of and extending perpendicularly from said vertical column, said transverse support arm extending beneath said seat member along a third horizontal axis;
        (iii) said support frame further including a front member and a longitudinal member extending forwardly from said transverse support arm;
        (c) a pair of side arms, each side arm affixed to an opposite end of said transverse support arm and extending upwardly then rearwardly therefrom, the upper end of each side arm pivotally supporting opposite side edges of said backrest member at a point substantially aligned with said second horizontal axis;
        (d) spaced slotted housing secured to the undersurface of said seat member adjacent the front portion thereof;
        (e) connecting means slidably joining and selectively locking said front member of said support frame within said spaced slotted housings;
        (f) the second horizontal axis extending through said lumbar region lying rearwardly of said transverse support arm, said first horizontal axis being movable responsive to tilting of said backrest member between a first upright position in which said first horizontal axis is positioned substantially rearwardly of said second horizontal axis and a second tilted position in which said first horizontal axis is positioned substantially beneath said second horizontal axis;
        (g) whereby as said back member is tilted rearwardly said seat member realizes a slight lowering and the horizontal distance between the center of gravity of the occupied chair and said transverse support arm is minimized.

        1. 2.1.2.1

          That’s just an abstract idea of a chair with lots of abstract doohickeys

          (you are also guilty of using functional language)

          1. 2.1.2.1.1

            I mean, all I did was Google chair patent and copy/paste the first claim from an actual patent!

            I’ve said it before, but I do feel like some of the hyperbolic claims made by posters here and at other forums make having a reasonable conversation about the issues difficult at times.

            1. 2.1.2.1.1.1

              >>but I do feel like some of the hyperbolic claims made by posters here and at other forums make having a reasonable conversation about the issues difficult at times.

              So, you are just going to ignore that anon pointed out that your claim does not disprove what I said.

              Are you sitting on that chair with your fing er up your rump?

            2. 2.1.2.1.1.2

              IamI,

              That you took something from an actual claim MEANS NOTHING to how the current state of the (Gordian Knot mess) law actually IS.

              Perhaps what you view as hyperbolic does in fact make “reasonable” into an impossibility — but such is NOT due to those making the statements. The law itself is simply NOT reasonable at this time.

              Or rather, I should say that the Supreme Court Scrivened re-writing of the law is not reasonable.

              1. 2.1.2.1.1.2.1

                It weird the way the anti-patent crowd seems to think or probably just fabricates that somehow reciting something that they think in their “brains” is physical like chair somehow becomes concrete whereas anything to do with information processing is abstract because they have no idea what it would look like at the bottom of the ladder of abstraction.

                It illustrates how the anti-patent crowd play to the ignorant and petty minds of the mob.

                1. I am not taking laml as (necessarily) being a part of the anti-patent crowd.

                  He just thought that ‘details’ would make a difference (when those that HAVE followed the mess of the Supreme Court’s Gordian Knot know otherwise).

                2. What is the objective physical “structure” of “authorized user data” at the “bottom of the ladder”?

                  Tell everyone.

                3. Are you (yet again) trying to make an optional claim format to be something other than an optional claim format?

                4. MM >>What is the objective physical “structure” of “authorized user data” at the “bottom of the ladder”?

                  Let’s flip this MM. I just posted a link to a video to the guy that designs chips. Do you think you can represent “authorized user data” in a machine without structure?

                  Your little game is that in information processing there are many ways to go down that ladder of abstraction and end up with structure, but you will always have structure.

                5. Instead of not answering the obvious follow up question that was put to you in direct response to your key assertion, how about you just answer the question, Night Wiper?

                  Really “civil” blog you have here, Dennis.

                  LOL

                6. Malcolm — of ALL people — commenting on civility…..

                  Stunningly stultifying.

                  Tell me again Malcolm, how many of your posts have been expunged directly due to YOUR lack of civility?

                  Here’s a hint: more than anyone else.

                  Here’s another hint: more than ALL others combined.

                7. “Let’s flip this MM. I just posted a link to a video to the guy that designs chips. Do you think you can represent “authorized user data” in a machine without structure?

                  Your little game is that in information processing there are many ways to go down that ladder of abstraction and end up with structure, but you will always have structure.”

                  Fancy way of saying: “there is none, because it is all physical structures” you’ve got there NWPA.

                8. 6,

                  If you want a really fancy way, you are more than free to try that really old Grand Hall Experiment and show (for the first time ever, by anyone) just how a functionality that did not previously exist could be made to exist entirely ‘by magic’ and with the exact same physical structure.

                  As I recall, you did try to muddle through that thought experiment, and had your head handed to you.

            3. 2.1.2.1.1.3

              “I’ve said it before, but I do feel like some of the hyperbolic claims made by posters here and at other forums make having a reasonable conversation about the issues difficult at times.”

              No, they don’t.

              -Mr. Barnard, Room 12

              1. 2.1.2.1.1.3.1

                So rather than addressing substance, Ben, you take cheap shots.

                Try addressing the substance.

                1. I guess I just can’t produce substantive arguments like “Are you sitting on that chair with your fing er up your rump?”

                  Do you have short term amnesia or something? It’s one thing to make rude comments, and it’s quite another to complain about lack of substance 21 minutes after making rude comments.

                2. Ben,

                  The two are NOT mutually exclusive.

                  Of course, in your days of ‘upvoting’ anything and everything by Malcolm, you seem to NOT have a grasp on what those two items are, how they differ, and when one could be BOTH rude and provide substantive comments.

                3. Ben you are not making a substantive comment because as usual you will lose in an argument with me.

                  You have no point and only wish to make snide comments and hope people will infer there is some great argument waiting in the wings.

                  You have nothing.

                4. Ben, you are reverting to the ole go ask the other guy to do some work.

                  You have made no counter argument to what I already wrote. Just vacuous comments–again.

              2. 2.1.2.1.1.3.2

                “No, they don’t.

                -Mr. Barnard, Room 12”

                On further reflection, I don’t get how this is a “cheap shot” against anyone!

                In case it’s not clear, this is a reference to Monty Python’s famous Argument Clinic sketch (Mr. Barnard is the employee of the clinic, and works in room 12).

                My intent was to agree with IamI’s point (which I expect we all agree on, though with different ideas as to who the unnamed “posters” are) in a way that I thought would be amusing.

                The comment does not reference any individual who posts here, and the only group impugned by the comment are those who engage in empty contradiction (which I assume no one here consciously identifies with). So how is this a shot, much less a cheap shot, against someone?

                1. which I expect we all agree on

                  You expect wrong, as no one has expressed agreement with IamI (outside of you, and well, we have seen your level of ‘expertise’ and ascribed a fitting level of credibility to that already, and hint: it’s not good for you).

                  only group impugned by the comment are those who engage in empty contradiction

                  I suppose that since there is NO empty contradictions, that you may want to pat yourself on the shoulder as not offending anyone, all the while missing the fact that your inanity is itself offensive.

                2. So IamI characterizes my argument as “hyperbolic” with essentially no substantive argument as to why it is hyperbolic other than presenting a claim as if this claim cannot be characterized as directed to an abstract idea. IamI takes his own little private victory lap. He makes no argument as to why when, in fact, a moment’s reflection illustrates that the claim can be characterized as directed to the abstract idea of providing furniture for sitting. (anon and I make substantive points as to why the claim fails to illustrate IamI’s point.)

                  Ben writes a comment that you agree with IamI that my statement was hyperbolic and the reference to Monty Python’s skit on people enjoying arguing merely emphasizing your attitude that my comment was hyperbolic and intended to provoke an argument.

                  Just weird stuff from you Ben. You act as if you are just so smart that no one is going to get your little jabs. The fact is that people ignore your comments. They don’t go over our heads, but under our radar as being supercilious.

                  I stand by my statement and would like to see a claim that cannot be characterized as directed to an abstract idea. Comments that express your attitude towards my comments provide no substantive response.

                  Anyway, I think I will go back to ignoring you.

                3. This is all a very unimpressive distraction from your lack of response to post 2.1.2.3.

                  Any claim can be said to be directed to a abstract idea. What matters if it can be persuasively said to be directed to an abstract idea.

                  So why don’t you write up a Prong 1/ Prong 2 analysis of IamI’s chair claim?

                  Let’s see if your argument has substance or if you’re just full of a substance.

                4. Ben,

                  Your own post of “ What matters if it can be persuasively said to be directed to” is a NON answer to my rebuttal to your comment to Night Writer.

                  It is YOU that still is attempting to live in a fantasy land out of touch with what is happening in the real world.

                  Even if Night Writer would take the time to do as you ask, the plain fact of the matter is that the issue is NOT how you have put it, and the effort by Night Writer would NOT support the position that you want to advance.

        2. 2.1.2.2

          Seat member? Is that like Seat module? You appear to be reciting a means without even any recitation of function. So you mean a seat module for sitting upon?

        3. 2.1.2.3

          I think that’s probably an overly conservative example of a claim that no examiner, APJ, DC/CAFC judge, or justice would consider to be directed to an abstract idea.

          If anyone disagrees, how about they actually write up a plausible rejection? The Office doesn’t give time to examiners for writing up 101s, so it can’t possibly be a burden for someone to produce a few paragraphs conforming with the guidance.

          1. 2.1.2.3.1

            That you would presume that existing 101 rejections ARE plausible only shows that you do not understand the current Gordian Knot mess of eligibility jurisprudence.

            1. 2.1.2.3.1.1

              “I’m not going to try to understand something that isn’t in my financial interest to understand. Instead I will whine and complain about how confusing everything is and then cry about civility when I am challenged on my willful ignorance!” <— the maximalist playbook

            2. 2.1.2.3.1.2

              Per Wikipedia: The Gordian Knot is a legend of Phrygian Gordium associated with Alexander the Great. It is often used as a metaphor for an intractable problem (untying an impossibly-tangled knot) solved easily by finding an approach to the problem that renders the perceived constraints of the problem moot (“cutting the Gordian knot”).

              1. 2.1.2.3.1.2.1

                I do not think that Ben will be back here to read your addition to the conversation.

                I have not checked to see if “Kavanaugh Shears” has made its way into Wikipedia yet…

Comments are closed.