The Manner in Which the Invention was Made

by Dennis Crouch

T0day’s oral arguments in Thaler v. Vidal was not too exciting. Court focused on the terms “individual” that was added to the Patent Act during the AIA and likely determinatively ends the case:

The term “inventor” means the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention.

35 U.S.C. s100(f).  I am close to 100% sure that the Federal Circuit will affirm that US law requires the patentee to identify a human inventor.

= = =

In the course of oral arguments, the government made two odd claims, neither of which were fully developed.

The first relates to the final sentence of Section 103 indicating that “patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.”  The Gov’t . made the following claim:

The Supreme Court in Graham against John Deere [more than] 50 years ago said that provision, that one sentence, applies only to the part of patentability that is referenced in Section 103.

Thaler Oral Arguments. In Graham, the Court did comment on the phrase and its  Congressionally intended purpose of overruling the flash-of-genius test.  However, I don’t see that the court bound the phrase to only be tied to Section 103 and obviousness.  The court wrote:

It also seems apparent that Congress intended by the last sentence of § 103 to abolish the test it believed this Court announced in the controversial phrase “flash of creative genius,” used in Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp., 314 U. S. 84 (1941).

Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966).  Although the Graham court found a seemingly apparent Congressional intent, it did not actually interpret the provision as so limited and certainly did not indicate that it should be limited to application only in the context of obviousness analysis.

The second odd claim made by the gov’t in oral arguments is as follows: “One person’s innovation is another person’s step backwards.”  The basic underlying idea  here is apparently that Congress intended to intentionally exclude certain AI-generated inventions from patentability because they thought those innovations would have a negative societal impact.

The full oral arguments should be available shortly at this link: https://cafc.uscourts.gov/home/oral-argument/listen-to-oral-arguments/.

96 thoughts on “The Manner in Which the Invention was Made

  1. 16

    So, predictions?

    My prediction: AI can’t be an inventor. USPTO upheld.

    1. 16.1

      Agree

      1. 16.1.1

        ditto. But expect it to come back in a more-refined form at some point.

    2. 16.2

      IF the courts were competently savvy, they would recognize that while an AI could be an inventor, such is not enough for that inventor to be covered under the Constitutional basis for providing innovation protection under a grant of a patent, and thus inventions made by AI (even in part – although this may not be a part of THIS decision), may not be granted patent protection.

      That being said, since the other portions of the patent statute (prior art, state of the art) are NOT tied down directly to particular inventors (human or non-human), prior art inventions created by AI will still serve to prevent later “same or obviously similar” inventions by real persons from being able to obtain patent protection.

      I realize that this is asking a lot of the court, and one would hope that at least one amici Curiae would draw the parallel to the Simian Selfie case.

      1. 16.2.1

        So what is your prediction of what the order will look like?

        1. 16.2.1.1

          It maybe a function of the panel assigned.

          (Let’s not pretend that all panel members are interchangeable).

          1. 16.2.1.1.1

            Come all you commenters below with strong opinions.

            What is your prediction?

  2. 15

    The basic underlying idea here is apparently that Congress intended to intentionally exclude certain AI-generated inventions from patentability because they thought those innovations would have a negative societal impact.

    This wasn’t the argument at all. Thaler was arguing that the general policy of the Patent Act was that patents promote the useful arts, and therefore allowing an AI to receive a patent would be in support of that established policy. The government (disclaimer, this is just my civilian interpretation from listening to the arguments) was arguing that the policy argument has to fail because it is Congress’s job, not the courts, to decide whether or not an AI receiving a patent would be in support of or counter to public policy. If you accept their argument that the plain text of the statute doesn’t directly support an AI being an inventor (Thaler’s main argument was that it does, and the policy argument was more or less his backup), then it’s clear that Congress hasn’t made a decision on this topic yet, and the courts should not substitute their judgment in place of that decision.

    1. 15.1

      Apotu – this line of thinking DOES recall a very critical nature of the policy of patent law.

      Given that patent law is involved with innovation – and thus is (and must be) forward looking, it cannot be taken that Congress ever sets to limit innovation creation to only those types of things that are already known to exist.

      This clearly would be opposite the nature of innovation itself.

      One should not then even advance that Congress must convene and ‘bless’ any new type of innovation, but instead, it is much more in line with the nature of innovation that Congress sets out a VERY wide open gate.

      And even though Random errantly thinks my expression of 101 is too “minimalist,” it is that very minimalist that expressly jibes with the notion of the VERY wide open gate.

      In fact, ALL of his expansionist additions being already covered in other sections, simply are redundant and thus would be artificially constraining (and simply ill-fit for the purpose of setting that wide open gate).

      Not only would it be downright silly to think that any time innovation advances to a different form, that Congress must reconvene and give its blessing, it is simply anti-innovation when one considers the nature of innovation itself.

      So, in a nutshell – to argue that Congress “hasn’t made a decision” BADLY misunderstands the nature of patent law at a primal level, as NO SUCH decision is even necessary.

      That being said – and now differentiating to innovation NOT made by man, I will posit (and the usual naysayers like Greg and even Wt – iirc – are quick to dismiss the Lockean nature of patent law) that the very nature of the patent exchange – and this is the Constitutional level of why Congress was granted authority to write the statutory laws of patent law in the first place – ARE impacted with non-human inventors.

      Non-human inventors upset the basis of the Quid Pro Quo. They also have NO sense of “inchoate right” as do human inventors. Remember, the authority granted TO Congress by the Constitution has to do with turning Man’s inchoate right into a full property right. This is the Lockean underpinning that is the primal reason why AI cannot be granted patent rights, even as AI may invent.

      THIS Foundational Aspect does need to be revisited. – and in the least, re-emphasized.

      As I have also noted, whether or not non-human inventors should be granted a patent (my view is NO); non-human inventors STILL change the State of the Art, and thus whether or not patent grants are directly provided to non-humans, patent grants TO humans are necessarily affected.

      The faster these points are recognized – and the faster that we move on this (this “we” being Congress), the better off ALL of use will be. It simply is counterproductive to run away from these legal points. This is one reason why I push so hard against Wt (whose overall patent views I do respect).

      1. 15.1.1

        “ It simply is counterproductive to run away from these legal points. ”

        All sane people should run from your word salad. Also maybe you’d have a tiny bit more credibility if you admitted the basic facts and the logic behind the Prometheus v Mayo decision (that would require also admitting and understanding why the maximalist interpretation of Diehr was destroyed). You’ve been running away from that for eons.

        1. 15.1.1.1

          You do realize that Diehr was NOT in fact destroyed, but stressed by the Court to be most on point.

          That the Court turned around and induced OBVIOUS self-contradictions (starting the Gordian Knot) should not be confused with your errant view.

          1. 15.1.1.1.1

            The d.o.a. concept floated here and elsewhere relentlessly by you and others that “claim dissection isn’t permitted during an eligibility analysis” (lol!) was, in fact, completely destroyed. There is no disagreement on this point between sane, competent patent attorneys and non-comatose reasonable people.

            1. 15.1.1.1.1.1

              george carlin filter….

              Your comment is awaiting moderation.

              June 8, 2022 at 2:39 pm

              Let’s call B$ on that – the words are still mouthed: claim as a whole.

              As I noted, just because the Supremes STILL went and
              F
              U
              B
              A
              R’d things just does not mean your odd view of the law is correct.

      2. 15.1.2

        So, in a nutshell – to argue that Congress “hasn’t made a decision” BADLY misunderstands the nature of patent law at a primal level, as NO SUCH decision is even necessary.
        You are making the same mistake that Thaler made by conflating innovation with innovators (e.g., patentability versus inventorship). While innovation, as a class of objects, is always evolving, innovators have not. With the very exception of this allegation, the class of innovators has always been human beings. The class of innovators has been unchanged for a very long time.

        That innovators are limited to human beings is consistent with a statutory reading of 35 USC. Sections 115 and 116 refer to gendered pronouns (e.g., himself and herself). The US is not France. We do not give genders to objects. Under any plain reading of the statute, human beingsas a person can be inventors — dogs, monkeys, microscopes, and AI cannot.

        Non-human inventors upset the basis of the Quid Pro Quo.
        Except non-humans, by definition, cannot be inventors. As such, this conundrum that you speak of (i.e., “does need to be revisited”) is of your own making.

        non-human inventors STILL change the State of the Art, and thus whether or not patent grants are directly provided to non-humans, patent grants TO humans are necessarily affected.
        I believe you are referring to the POSITA (i.e., person of ordinary skill in the art). Again, this conundrum is of your own making. Since AI is not a person, the capabilities of AI does not impact the POSITA.

        The faster these points are recognized – and the faster that we move on this (this “we” being Congress), the better off ALL of use will be. It simply is counterproductive to run away from these legal points.
        Once it is recognized that an AI is not a person within the meaning of 35 USC 116, then AI is not a person so as to impact the capabilities of POSITA. Congress is not needed to make this declaration. By affirming the lower court’s decision, the Federal Circuit will establish that the person within 35 USC 116 does not include AI. From there, to the extent that one wants to “change the State of the Art” so as to include the capabilities of AI, then it will be light lifting by the Federal Circuit to cite the soon-to-be issued Thaler v. Vidal to shut that interpretation down — while a POSITA is a hypothetical person with superhuman knowledge — it still must be a person (i.e., a human being).

        Only if the Federal Circuit takes the unlikely path of declaring that a POSITA includes AI does your concerns warrant merit. Not that I put the kind of legal gymnastics needed to do so past the Federal Circuit, I still very much doubt that they would. To do so would open the door to putting AI back into the mix for being an inventor within the meaning of 35 USC 116. Once the Federal Circuit closes that door (in the next month or so), I highly doubt that they’ll revisit the issue so as to open it up a crack.

        Regardless, until someone attempts to make the argument (i.e., a POSITA includes AI) and someone (either the Court or the USPTO) is inclined to buy into that argument, I’m not inclined to worry too much about it. There are far bigger worries for me when it comes to patent law than this. First things first.

        1. 15.1.2.1

          Hit a filter…

          Your comment is Awaiting moderation.

          June 7, 2022 at 5:19 pm

          Actually the opposite, Wt.

          Read my positions again — I very clearly point out why AI as an inventor cannot garner the same protection as a real person as an inventor.

          There simply is NO “conflation” between innovation and innovators in my position.

        2. 15.1.2.2

          By the way, the notion of “but gendered pronouns” has already been shown to NOT be compelling, given that such are also currently used on NON-real persons (the legal fiction of Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art).

        3. 15.1.2.3

          And another filter…

          Your comment is awaiting moderation.

          June 7, 2022 at 5:26 pm

          … the rest of your points are you merely repeating your erroneous feelings.

          You certainly can “own” those feelings all you want – even as they remain immaterial to the actual law.

        4. 15.1.2.4

          You are infected with the woke virus WT. Stick to the law and facts and rational debate.

          Arguing that 230 is needed to control the mob and it is OK for the social media companies to also use it for their private political biases is not American but Marxist.

          1. 15.1.2.4.1

            Thing is Night Writer, he really does believe that he is entirely “protecting” the First Amendment.

            Of course, when he strays from patent law, he does tend to let his emotions get in his way, and he wants to look ONLY at his own particular “set of facts.”

            In that sense he is part of the gas lighting of “what issue?” (a prime example is an absolute rejection of even considering a ‘public square’ aspect — just like Greg, and rather unsurprising, just like other Liberal Lefts [of course – like Malcolm – would be screaming the opposite were the narratives being set forth NOT aligned with their own desired Ends]

            1. 15.1.2.4.1.1

              It is just crazy anon. I can’t believe what I thought were rational people would think such things.

              It is almost a tautology that 230 with biased content selection enables a social media company to defame a person with impunity.

              It reminds me of the Covid arguments where Fauci is saying the Chinese are trustworthy and he continues to give them grant money and yet the Chinese won’t release and deleted their database of viruses they had at the Wuhan lab. Trust is following processes that ensure compliance. Fauci’s argument is a neo-Marxist’s position that you will trust me the authoritarian to do the right thing. This is the same argument that WT is making.

              1. 15.1.2.4.1.1.1

                hitting a filter….

                Your comment is awaiting moderation.

                June 8, 2022 at 9:45 am

                See this earlier thread:

                link to patentlyo.com

                Even according to one of the writer’s of 230, protection of 230 should stop when the platform is engaging in its own “Freedom of Speech” with b1ased content selection.

                C_x’s position argues TOO much!

                This is not the first time that “shaping” a narrative (and especially doing so through the unequal application of rules – or application of “hidden rules” of the likes of shadow banning, de-ranking, or even de-monotizing) calls into question the extent of protection under 230.

    2. 15.2

      Plurality, you are correct and Dennis either mistakenly or intentionally is misrepresenting the argument.

      There’s nothing “odd” about the other assertion mentioned in the post either.

  3. 14

    In Graham, the Court did comment on the phrase and its Congressionally intended purpose of overruling the flash-of-genius test. However, I don’t see that the court bound the phrase to only be tied to Section 103 and obviousness.

    The quote Dennis uses above is misleading, and when I read it I thought it was not good support for the conclusion that patentability shall not be negated only applies to 103 (although, as I say below in 11.1.1.1.1 I do think that is the correct conclusion).

    What the argument pointed to was part of footnote 8 (“The second sentence states that patentability as to this requirement is not to be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made — that is, it is immaterial whether it resulted from long toil and experimentation or from a flash of genius.”) which came from notes directly on Section 103.

    1. 14.1

      Of course it only applies to 103 and your interpretation of the language is correct.

      Note also that obviousness is sometimes determined based on the amount of experimentation a skilled artisan would require to determine whether a new variation/species actually “works”. If it’s a known substitute and merely routine work to test the variant out, that’s a finding in favor of obviousness. One could argue that such reasoning runs afoul of the statutory language but that argument crumbles when you understand the reality of what Congress was intending.

  4. 13

    Wow. What a problem you have these ridiculous CAFC judges who have held effectively that all software is abstract and meaningless and, yet, here we are with this abstract meaningless junk being held out as an inventor. The ignorance of the judges regarding AI and intelligence is stunning and shocking.

    The judges sounded fairly hostile to all these arguments because of the “individual” use in the AIA. The policy arguments are very strong. I think the CAFC could hold either way and support their order fairly well.

    My prediction: CAFC will uphold the USPTO’s decision. The judges seemed to be thinking that the “programmer” was the inventor. I don’t think they have a clue how modern AI works or what intelligence is. Just completely ignorant of modern science. The judges still have the model of software as you write down on a slip of paper what you want the computer to do and then hire a clerk to program the computer per J. Stevens.

    Notes: AI is not just source code but the data as well couple with whatever hardware it is running on.

  5. 12

    Elsewhere, I had asked how courts treat this same question in the copyright context. I gather that we are about to find out.

    1. 12.1

      The case for copyright is a lot stronger. I actually write patent applications to generative networks that create some of these images.

      It feels like magic.

      1. 12.1.1

        Is it though?

        Copyright (statutory) law has explicit keep-outs against non-human author protections (and it is critical to distinguish the existence of non-human authors and the ability to bring suit under copyright law FOR such non-human authors).

        For the case in the copyright realm, there will need to be a thrust AT the Constitutional level.

        (Maybe a [certain] academic paper – say, on the views of John Locke – might be informative here… )

  6. 11

    I don’t know if it was developed in oral arguments, but Thaler/Abbott certainly seek to argue that “patentability” includes s101 eligibility, and that the “manner” in which an invention is made could include “by an AI”.

    So what is “odd” about the government making submissions to counter this argument? Maybe Graham v Deere is the best authority they could find?

    1. 11.1

      while awaiting release of my first comment, let me also ask:

      How would Graham V Deere even be authority for an eligibility legal question?

      1. 11.1.1

        Don’t ask me. It’s Thaler/Abbott trying to shoehorn “patentability” in s103 into some kind of obtuse argument about the nature of the inventor. I was only offering an explanation for the government’s supposedly “odd” submissions. I never said I found Thaler/Abbott’s argument to be logical or coherent, because it isn’t.

        1. 11.1.1.1

          Nature of the inventor though is not an eligibility item.

          Eligibility is concerned with two things:
          1) does the claimed invention fit into at least one of the statutory categories; and
          2) does the claimed invention provide utility under the patent law.

          Which of these two are being invoked?

          1. 11.1.1.1.1

            Eligibility is concerned with two things:

            That’s a very reductionist view of 101. It’s much more accurate to state that 101 sets conditions for granting someone a patent, and that the conditions are that the subject matter:

            1) was invented (new)
            2) by this inventor (whoever)
            3) was not previously claimed by this inventor (“a” – double patenting)
            4) has utility (useful)
            5) and is the kind of subject matter congress protected (statutory class and judicial exception)

            While it is true that something that is outside of the statutory classes (e.g. software per se) is not eligible for patenting, it is just as accurate to state that something previously existing in nature or that was previously claimed by this inventor are not subject for patenting, as those things too would fall outside of the part of the code that authorizes their patenting.

            So what is “odd” about the government making submissions to counter this argument? Maybe Graham v Deere is the best authority they could find?

            It’s a poor argument. The best argument is a statutory code construction case that says that if the statement applied to the entire code it would be in a higher heirarchical statute like 101, not nested in 103. You need particular language that would identify nested language as being applicable outside of its particular statute.

            1. 11.1.1.1.1.1

              While you label it as “reductionist,” it is actually accurate.

              On the other hand, your expansionist view directly conflates with other sections of the law that directly deal with those other points.

              Here’s an Occam’s Razor hint: don’t conflate.

        2. 11.1.1.2

          … and I do “get” that these questions may be better aimed at Thaler and his team (nothing personal here).

  7. 10

    Manner. Was the word “method” not in the Court’s vocabulary ? Ah yes it was, but they chose not to use the word method in that final clause, instead, “manner”. Is a manner different from a method ? How so ? Perhaps a manner is different relates more to circumstances, and nothing whatsoever to do with inventorship itself. Using a machine to do your inventing for you, is but a method of inventing, as opposed to a manner ofmaking. Those who have no manners, probably have trouble with this. Noah Webster in his 1828 American Dictionary of the English language suggests manner derives from the French manier, relating to “how to handle” something. How an invention is handled, depends largely on its packaging, and one’s ability to grasp it.

    1. 10.1

      Regardless of the clever word play (and I genuinely enjoyed it), the reason for choosing “manner” instead of “method” is supremely easy to understand (especially as you remember that the Act of 1952 was widening the statutory category of Process to include methods).

      Also, in context, ‘manner’ is explicitly different than a claimed invention – the “how got to” the invention. And here is the fun part: even as it IS an explicitly different thing, there also is a chance of overlap in that IF that “how got to” is itself inventive, claims under the statutory category of Process are available.

      The “how got to” need not be inventive for the “what” to be inventive.

      I note as well that this concept informs the legal doctrine of — and explicitly, and importantly, the exceptions to — the Written Matter Doctrine (and informs why most all software is properly the subject of innovation protection).

      1. 10.1.1

        Thanks. Most American lawyers think nothing of what I wrote, its not clever at all.

        As time goes by, if you keep studying, these sorts of things might become “old hat” to you too. The key is to not hurry, proceed calmly.

        Manners seem to be less understood these days than in those of past. It came up at my Gentlemen’s Club meeting, how some ppl these days seem to be so negative, over and over. My best suggestion is they read some old literature, such as from John Walter Wayland, on the topic of manners:

        The True Gentleman

        The True Gentleman is the man whose conduct proceeds from good will and an acute sense of propriety, and whose self-control is equal to all emergencies; who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty, the obscure man of his obscurity, or any man of his inferiority or deformity; who is himself humbled if necessity compels him to humble another; who does not flatter wealth, cringe before power, or boast of his own possessions or achievements; who speaks with frankness but always with sincerity and sympathy; whose deed follows his word; who thinks of the rights and feelings of others, rather than his own; and who appears well in any company, a man with whom honor is sacred and virtue safe.

        Good luck !

        1. 10.1.1.1

          Thank you as well, but I have even less tolerance for faux manners.

          To wit: “who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty, the obscure man of his obscurity, or any man of his inferiority or deformity;” even as you also type “these sorts of things might become “old hat” to you too.” — as if I somehow needed to be schooled in this manner.

          Also given your rather quick dives to ad hominem on other posts, this “gentlemen” skin that you would wear has worn rather thin, and the threadbare spots do tend to be more numerous than the covered spots.

          Give me straight up, honest and direct dialogue over any such faux politeness every time.

  8. 9

    I note that the AIA defines the term “inventor” as follows:

    “The term “inventor” means the individual or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention.”

    Now I must say that I find that definition inadequate because it doesn’t define “invent”, let alone “discover”.

    If I see it right, an AI cannot (yet) conceive and an entity which cannot conceive cannot “invent” anything. Conceiving is what happens when a human assesses the output of the AI.

    1. 9.1

      I chuckle at your view of inadequate in light of your own feeble defenses of defining such terms as “technical.”

      The echos of, “but cannot define so as to leave room for future development” reverberate…

    2. 9.2

      If I see it right, an AI cannot (yet) conceive and an entity which cannot conceive cannot “invent” anything. Conceiving is what happens when a human assesses the output of the AI.

      This is the right answer. Conceiving is a function of consciousness and neither the courts not the legislature have ever identified a computer as being conscious. A computer computes. A consciousness appreciates the output of the computation. AI can be a tool to help a human invent, but cannot perform invention itself.

      1. 9.2.1

        Double quote:

        Conceiving is what happens when a human assesses the output of the AI.

        This is the right answer

        No.

        It most definitely is not the right answer.

        I have already demonstrated this with my two rooms and a black box scenario.

        As another way of providing that example:

        Have a black box in a room. Have a completed invention (by another) put into the black box.

        Grab some random person off the street and usher them into the room, have them open the box and see the invention therein.

        Is this random person the inventor?

        What if instead of a random person, live stream the opening and reveal over the web to a million people at the same time. Are each of these million people inventors?

        What then of the actual inventor? The one whose product went into the box?

        1. 9.2.1.1

          Don’t understand. The subject matter of a claim is an inventive concept. An invention is a conception. You can’t put a conception in a box. If you open a box that contains nothing but a conception what do you see? Nothing.

          You then talk about a box with a “product” in it. Not the same thing at all. You suppose that this “product” and any “invention” are the same thing. They aren’t. A picture claim to that product is not the same thing as a claim directed to an inventive concept.

          The interesting question is whether the devisor of any such “product” has contributed anything to the process of invention fit to be acknowledged under the patent statute as “inventive”. I suggest not: the devisor of the product hasn’t even made the first tiny step in the journey towards conceiving an inventive concept.

          1. 9.2.1.1.1

            Obtuse much?

            Maybe get out of your own way and consider the box provides what the invention is (BE IT merely a written claim, the device of the claim, or even both).

            NONE of this though changes the fact that the random person opening the box (or the millions seeing what’s in the box via livestream are inventors.

            Your jump then to different terms “devisor” is only obfuscation.

            Rather than a mind willing to understand, you are showing a mind desperately trying to NOT understand.

            1. 9.2.1.1.1.1

              The paragraph with NONE of the change should lead to the conclusion that the random person or millions live stream viewers are NOT inventors.

      2. 9.2.2

        Conceiving is a function of consciousness and neither the courts not the legislature have ever identified a computer as being conscious.

        Imagine your uncle moved away to Ireland when you were a baby and you had never met him. You receive word that he has died, leaving you as his only heir.

        You go into his house to clear out his belongings prior to selling the property, and while clearing out his papers, you come across notebooks in your uncle’s handwriting, describing a useful, novel, and non-obvious urea derivative. You do not spend a lot of time agonizing over whether your uncle was conscious when he wrote these notebooks. Rather, you simply infer that he invented a urea derivative compound.

        Now imagine, instead, that you find the exact same description, but instead of being a notebook in your uncle’s handwriting, you find stacks of computer printed paper, with a notation in your uncle’s handwriting that some AI software on which he had been working had generated the exact same description as found in the first scenario above. Why, in this instance, do you doubt the consciousness of the description’s composer?

        You have—literally—the exact same evidence of consciousness of the computer as you have of your uncle (some descriptions of a chemical compound). Why are you willing to infer consciousness in one case but not the other?

        1. 9.2.2.1

          If you found photographs of the description written in shells on a beach, with a message on the back of the photos in your uncle’s handwriting that the ocean had generated those descriptions… would you believe the ocean had consciousness? Same evidence, right?

          Nope. From your understanding of the universe, it is vastly more likely that a complex programmed computing device consciously produced the description than the fluid motion of the ocean consciously produced the description. So too it is vastly more likely that a human is conscious than a machine.

        2. 9.2.2.2

          Greg, do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

          Good grief. Computers don’t have “consciousness”. They are machines. By definition, they don’t have consciousness. Can they be programmed to fake it and fool people? Sure. So what?

          Patent law definitely does not need this metaphysical nonsense. Patenting logic using functional language was a bad enough development and the damage still hasn’t been repaired. Why add to that?

      3. 9.2.3

        A consciousness appreciates the output of the computation. AI can be a tool to help a human invent, but cannot perform invention itself.

        On its plain terms, what Random posts here is utter nonsense and simply factually inaccurate.

        “appreciates the output” is simply not some “magicial” only in the human mind thing. It is simply a relative weighing of the output .

        Bottom line for all the naysayers is that AI can and does meet the legal definition of inventor.

        Much like the parallel Simian Selfie Case, an animal can really be an author.

        And just like that parallel, just because an expression is captured in fixed media AND an animal is the author of that expression, the US law does NOT provide that said animal may bring a copyright infringement case (Wt got this aspect horribly wrong). So too then, under current law, an AI CAN BE a legal inventor (or co-inventor, where things can get REALLY interesting), and there can BE an invention, but STILL, under US law, the AI may not be awarded the grant of a patent.

        Furthering the impact here, 35 USC 103 – which uses another non-human in the juristic Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art is concerned with State of the Art — and is NOT really concerned with that state being shown to exist merely by granted patents, and that other non-human juristic Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art will LIKELY need to be recognized as being able to incorporate AI capability. This would be on par with the juristic person’s OTHER non-human capabilities — again, tied to the objective State of the Art – -such as instant access to any written matter in any language anywhere in the world.

    3. 9.3

      Ironically, one who merely “discovers” something isn’t an inventor of it under our modern 101 doctrine. The judicial exceptions overrule the actual text once again. see also Section 100(a), Section 100(b)

      >Now I must say that I find that definition inadequate

      100(a) is even more amusing. “(a)The term “invention” means invention or discovery.” #Thanks!

    4. 9.4

      Seems right to me. I haven’t seen a coherent arguement against this.

      NWPA, do you disagree?

  9. 8

    Skynet has awaken, and the Cylon Rebellion begins. All hail, Colossus!

  10. 7

    S103: Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.

    Does this clause apply only to the obviousness doctrine?

    “As a whole” also occurs only in §103. I can see the logic for not applying “as a whole” in the §101 context (after all, the words “claimed invention” never occur in §101). Imagine, however, the havoc in §102 jurisprudence that would follow if we were to treat “as a whole” as being uniquely applicable to §103.

    In other words, I think that we mostly have to take it as a given that some phrases that first appear in §103 are also applicable to §102. As Wt has already noted, however, I am not convinced that any of this is really relevant to the inventorship question that was actually at issue today.

    1. 7.1

      Imagine, however, the havoc in §102 jurisprudence that would follow if we were to treat “as a whole” as being uniquely applicable to §103.

      What? There is no “as a whole” in 102 because 102 already requires prior unitary conception of all the limitations.

      1. 7.1.1

        102 already requires prior unitary conception of all the limitations.

        Right. The requirement that invalidation on 102 grounds requires an accounting for all limitations means that you must treat the claim as a whole in the 102 context, even though “as a whole” does not appear in the statute until 103.

        1. 7.1.1.1

          No. See 7.2. Sorry I should have included that in 7.1 but I just jumped at the response.

    2. 7.2

      Imagine, however, the havoc in §102 jurisprudence that would follow if we were to treat “as a whole” as being uniquely applicable to §103.

      Just to be clear – this statement is legally incorrect. There would be no “havoc” because “as a whole” does NOT apply to 102. “As a whole” is language that settles an issue that ONLY arises in the context of 103. In 102 the claimed subject matter existed before. In 103 the claimed subject matter has differences and “as a whole” dictates how the analysis is performed – whether it is applied only to the “different” material or all of the material.

  11. 6

    Off topic, but this morning’s orders list includes the following:

    21M123
    HYATT, GILBERT P. V. USPTO, ET AL.
    The motion for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari with the supplemental appendix under seal is granted.

  12. 5

    Who was the panel?

  13. 4

    However, I don’t see that the court bound the phrase to only be tied to Section 103 and obviousness.
    What I have argued in the past and which I believe is on point, is that patentability and inventorship are two different concepts. Patentability refers to what was invented. Inventorship refers to who did the inventing. Consequently, the statement in 103 is not relevant as to inventorship.

    The second odd claim made by the gov’t in oral arguments is as follows: “One person’s innovation is another person’s step backwards.” The basic underlying idea here is apparently that Congress intended to intentionally exclude certain AI-generated inventions from patentability because they thought those innovations would have a negative societal impact.
    I recall the statement, but I don’t recall what prompted him to say it. At the time, the solicitor seemed to be inarticulately grasping for something to say since the Court had few questions of him. I do recall he was asked a question related to AI-assisted inventorship, which even Taranto admitted (in a roundabout way) was not the alleged facts in this case. Regardless, I think you are reading far more into that than intended.

    1. 4.1

      Certainly the AI-assisted invention was not in this case, given that there was only a non-human (single) inventor.

      That you stubbornly refuse to take that next (very small) step is rather befuddling.

      Sure, I “get” that you don’t like Thaler and don’t believe him. Sure, I “get” that given that this is what you have seen, you jump to a challenge of AI being ANY inventor.

      But just as “presumed” in this case was sufficient to raise the issue, why do you have such difficulty of seeing a similar (but joint inventor case) in parallel to how the “presumed” facts play out here?

      1. 4.1.1

        But just as “presumed” in this case was sufficient to raise the issue, why do you have such difficulty of seeing a similar (but joint inventor case) in parallel to how the “presumed” facts play out here?
        That issue wasn’t before the Court, and it isn’t up to the Court to provide advisory opinions.

        BTW. I have no difficulty addressing the issue of joint inventorship as it pertains to an AI.
        1) First things first, AI cannot be an inventor (per the statute) and therefore cannot be a joint inventor. At this point, we do not pass Go, we do not collect our $200. It is game over. Everything else becomes moot.
        2) However, assuming that the (currently) insurmountable 1) can be successfully addressed such that the possibility of AI as an inventor exists, one needs to show that AI did something that could be deemed inventive. My position as to this is as follows:
        2A) What DABUS (or any other AI) did IN FACT is unknown at this point. We are all speculating based upon allegations by a man (Thaler) whose knowledge of the nuances of the law leaves much to be desired. As such, Thaler’s pronouncement as to inventorship needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
        2B) My understanding of the current capabilities of AI leads me to believe that AI is a sophisticated tool — not an inventor. It provides insights that a human being might not gain elsewhere (akin to an electron scanning microscope) but it does not perform activities that I believe are inventive.

        1. 4.1.1.1

          You’ve made this same error before.

          1) Not obtaining a granted patent is just not the same as being an inventor.

          2a) you refuse to accept accepted facts of record and instead insist on different facts NOT on record. Further, Thaler is not alone in his declaration of inventorship, and his attorney is well aware of the nuances that you merely WANT not to be covered.

          2b) this is nothing more than your belief – and is inapposite to the case at hand. Quite in fact, your refusal to budge from your belief to even entertain the point of law is what I find so baffling. You have NO basis but your feelings and YOU are getting in your own way.

          You keep on falling into your own mind trap.

          1. 4.1.1.1.1

            1) Not obtaining a granted patent is just not the same as being an inventor.
            The point being addressed is not whether someone, somewhere could consider DABUS an inventor. The point being addressed is whether DABUS is an inventor within the meaning of US patent law. Under the current statute, DABUS cannot. If you want to imbue the term “inventor” with some other meaning, that is your prerogative. However, don’t expect any of us to care.

            you refuse to accept accepted facts of record and instead insist on different facts NOT on record
            This is a point of procedural law you really, really, really, really don’t appreciate. If Thaler put his name on the declaration as the inventor, the USPTO would accept those facts. However, this doesn’t meaning that a finding of fact was made that Thaler did anything inventive. Procedurally, the USPTO accepts just about anything put on the declaration (unless it is a blatantly obvious error). However, this does not mean that those facts have been proven.

            I come back to Carl Sagan’s quote that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Thaler’s claim that DABUS is an inventor is extraordinary — it would represent a leap in the capabilities of AI far beyond their current capabilities. That claim, particularly by a man with an agenda, demands extraordinary evidence. Now, if some company like IBM, which has an extensive AI program, declared that Watson was an inventor, I would expect them to put on an extensive show. I would expect them to show the process of Watson inventing from start to finish. I would expect them to explain what inputs were provided to Watson and provide the inventive outputs provided by Watson.

            We live in a world where the world’s richest man claims that fully self-driving cars are 24 months away (that was 6 1/2 years ago) with similar claims (usually just 12 months away) being presented almost on a yearly basis since. This same man, in August of 2021, has a person trot out in a robot suit and declares that their company will debut a humanoid robot in 2022. We live in a world where “fake it till you make it” is a known business practice.

            Anyone even marginally aware of today’s society knows that overhyping is the norm — not the exception. In this context, you expect me to believe that some lone person has created an AI with greater capabilities than the capabilities of AIs that have been created with many 100s of millions of dollars of development? I’m sorry, I’m not naïve. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You may take everything Thaler argues as true — I do not.

            this is nothing more than your belief – and is inapposite to the case at hand
            Yeah, it is inapposite because statutory AI cannot be an inventor. Remember, first things first.

            even entertain the point of law is what I find so baffling
            And what “point of law” am I supposed to be entertaining? Remember, you usually spend about 5% explaining your position and 95% of the time attacking other people’s position. As such, knowing what YOU think/believe/feel is usually speculation of most people’s part. I suspect anyone who has read my posts the past couple of months has little doubt as to my positions. What your position(s) regarding the topic are unknown or, at best, obscure.

            1. 4.1.1.1.1.1

              Last time I checked, a Declaration for a patent application contains an 18 USC 1001 warning. It takes a certain kind of “person” to knowingly provide incorrect inventorship in a patent Declaration ? !!

              If I represent on a PTO Declaration that my lawn mower invented a method for mulching mushrooms, do they lock me up as a loony, or charge me with willful Fraud on the Office ?

              1. 4.1.1.1.1.1.1

                You left out an option – what if your lawn mower DID invent the method?

                There is nothing to say that a lawnmower could be equipped with an AI, and that That invented method was never countenanced by any human prior to the AI setting forth the method (with indicating that said method WAS inventive).

                1. Hmmm. first, one needs a definition for what exactly AI is, in a definition that is agreeable to all. I’d suspect that some of the other questions aired by a few folk would be answered during the process of arriving at a concrete, legal definition of AI.

                  Intelligence should pose few problems to define.

                  If by artificial, one means “not natural” , then we look next to the un-natural source….. which might turn out to be a woman or a man !

                  Most of what is non-natural in my world, are things for which the Gibbs Free energy expression yields a positive value. I haven’t examined it at length, but it seems to me that:

                  An Inventor is one who operates to make things happen under a positive Delta G, resulting in a machine, process, composition, etc… which itself is a representation of negative entropy.

                  Loaded proposition:

                  Even a random-number generator isn’t AI, because any random number generator made by human brain output, the numbers really aren’t random….. It is a limitation of being imperfect beings. Only The Creator can create Inventors ! Humankind cannot create in certain realms, they are forbidden ! It would violate the laws of Thermodynamics. That’s maybe why the Gaggle of tech outfits have such great legal teams, to overcome such inconveniences.

                  We’ll make that lawn mower legally qualified yet !! Then, our computers will flood the USPTO with quintillions of patent applicationsApplications !!

                  Just automate the AI to automatically write the spec and claims.

                  Then deposit a couple Billion dollars into a PTO deposit account.

                  Then, turn on the AI !!

                  I bet my lawn mower could be taught to write an Appeal Brief, eventually.

                  What is this thing Intelligence, love ?

                  lol

                2. first, one needs a definition for what exactly AI is, in a definition that is agreeable to all.

                  Why?

                  As you may plainly see, CW, there are those here that simply will cut off their nose to spite their face before agreeing to any definition of AI.

                  Your attempt to set this up as some type of beginning requirement is not accepted.

                  From what I can gather of your “follow the source [Gibbs free energy or otherwise],” is that this is NOT a proper path – at all. The legal definition of inventor is simply not something that “passes down to the next player.” This is expressly why assertions that it was the AI module writer, or the AI training set provided that somehow IS the inventor simply does not wash – because those people, no matter their connection to the front end of a process lack the legal requirement of BEING the inventor. This designation is just not transferable without its attributes actually being met.

                  And as I have noted, this transference does not work in the opposite direction (my black box examples).

                  Your attempt to introduce the Gibbs Free Energy is just not tethered to patent law. IT becomes even less tethered when you delve into forbidden realms and thermodynamics.

                  It seems that you gurge this word salad because you really have no idea what is involved in AI to begin with, and I suspect that you think it merely to be a computer, one programmed to given a certain answer, predictable from its inputs.

                  You may want to refrain from venturing suppositions on topics you just do not grasp.

            2. 4.1.1.1.1.2

              As to the difference between my phrasing of “ 1) Not obtaining a granted patent is just not the same as being an inventor.
              And
              And your phrasing of “The point being addressed is not whether someone, somewhere could consider DABUS an inventor. The point being addressed is whether DABUS is an inventor within the meaning of US patent law. Under the current statute, DABUS cannot. If you want to imbue the term “inventor” with some other meaning, that is your prerogative. However, don’t expect any of us to care.

              Mine is the direct – and correct statement. Again this stems from your error of thinking that inventor == patent grant. As I pointed out in the errors of your views in the Simian Selfie case, my view is correct.

              I “get” that you do not like this, but your liking is no excuse for continuing to 1g n0re that I have the better position on this point.

              As to your NONSENSE and thinking that my statement of “you refuse to accept accepted facts of record and instead insist on different facts NOT on record” is somehow MERELY a matter of procedural law, you are simply in the weeds. YES, procedural law is in play – but that changes nothing as to HOW YOU want to change the facts under consideration. Bottom line is that YOU want different facts simply NOT in the case, and I am using the facts that ARE in the case.

              Again, my position is simply better than yours.
              I “get” that you do not like this, but your liking is no excuse for continuing to 1g n0re that I have the better position on this point.

              Your dive to Carl Sagan is simply immaterial – and only evidences the lengths that YOU are going to not except what in on the table – You just want to talk about different situations. This notion of “prove it to me” is inapposite – there is NO such need to prove any such thin to you. Your “demand for extraordinary evidence” is what continues to blind you.

              Get over yourself.

              And speaking of getting over yourself – you dip into your feelings as if THEY are “first thigs first” – your error is only compounded with the belief –driven statement of “statutory AI cannot be an inventor” ALL of your errors come back to a simple belief statement from you. This is nothing more than you clenching tight your eyes and chanting the same thing over and over again.

              Which then belies your final whining about “ And what “point of law” am I supposed to be entertaining?

              I have been more than clear that there are at least two legal instances being impacted:
              Joint inventorship (your Belieb system gets in your way) and
              The State of the Art impact for the OTHER non-human legal fiction of Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art when faced with the level of art expanding with AI as inventor (EVEN IF such inventor may not be permitted to obtain a patent grant under US law).

              Your 5%/95% rule – applied to you would render that you spend 5% reiterating your Beliebs and spend 95% fervently avoiding the plain legal issues that you somehow just do not want to see.

              There is nothing obscure about my position in these exchanges with you – and I clearly – and continuously have the better positions.

              1. 4.1.1.1.1.2.1

                Again this stems from your error of thinking that inventor == patent grant.
                I don’t know what you are talking about. For purposes of this exercise, an inventor is what is described in 35 USC 116.

                I pointed out in the errors of your views in the Simian Selfie case
                The Simian’s name is Naruto and Naruto v. Slater supports my position that a non-human cannot be an inventor.

                that changes nothing as to HOW YOU want to change the facts under consideration
                And you refuse to acknowledge that the “facts under consideration” are not findings of fact but alleged facts. Listen to the oral arguments. This was DIRECTLY addressed in response to a question by Taranto.

                Next hundred words or so are Anon having a tantrum so I’ll ignore those.

                Joint inventorship
                The considerations for joint inventorship (not being alleged) do not meaningfully differ from sole inventorship (which is being alleged).

                The State of the Art impact for the OTHER non-human legal fiction of Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art when faced with the level of art expanding with AI as inventor
                I’ve addressed that with my comment at 15.1.12. I would suggest you focus your writings on DIRECTLY addressing this point since this is the only interesting one you have to make.

                There is nothing obscure about my position in these exchanges with you
                Your propensity to assume that everyone is aware of the entirety of the corpus of your writings renders your positions obscure. Your propensity to employ made up expressions renders your positions obscure. For example, what the F’ is the Grand Hall Experiment? When you Google the phrase, the first thing that pops up is one of your posts. This means that the term doesn’t have an accepted meaning that everyone understands. What the F’ is the Lockean nature of patent law? Why does it matter? I suspect that if I ask 100 patent attorneys, I could count on 1 hand those that understand what it means. This renders your writings obscure. You, for example, like to use the term “sovereign” when referring to US law as opposed to other country’s laws. However, the term “sovereign” most typically applies to an individual as a supreme ruler — and that makes it a poor substitution for US law. This is what renders your writings obscure. For example, when you mention firehosed monkeys, a new reader would be entirely befuddled. I could go on and on and on. Unless someone has been reading you stuff for years, many of your comments contain portions that are unintelligible.

                1. The Simian’s name is Naruto and Naruto v. Slater supports my position that a non-human cannot be an inventor.

                  No – it does not – and I provided both wiki and Copyright Office materials that show you are misreading the case.

                  The case maps as I have provided.

                  Yet again, I simply have the better position.

    2. 4.2

      [P]atentability and inventorship are two different concepts.

      Agreed. Sections 100-105 make up Chapter 10 of Title 35. Chapter 10 is titled “patentability of inventions.” If you are reading any of those sections for insight about something other than patentability per se, you are probably over-extending the statutory text beyond that which it was meant to convey.

  14. 3

    I agree, pretty humdrum oral argument. I think the preceding VA case had more of what passed for “fireworks” and went on longer. The only question for now is how Thaler loses. After that, I guess we can look forward to the inevitable rehearing/en banc petition and cert petition.

  15. 2

    Re: if these words inserted into 103 only apply to 103: “patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made?”
    How would either that [or a prior judicial “flash of genius” test or not] make any difference to making or overcoming a true 102 rejection?

    1. 2.1

      Not sure I am understanding the thrust of your comment Paul.

      As 102 is an “all elements, and in the manner claimed,” there is no room for “not negating by which the invention was made.”

      This does though serve to highlight the fact that 102 prior art and 103 prior art ARE different (and the difference is NOT merely one of “co-location within a single source” — that is, 103 art is not the same as merely having a collection of 102 art for pieces of a claim.

      Sadly, many examiners
      f
      a
      i
      l

      to grasp this.

      1. 2.1.1

        that is, 103 art is not the same as merely having a collection of 102 art for pieces of a claim.

        This is absolutely true, which is why “as a whole” can only apply to 103 and not 102. Obviousness is not a series of anticipation rejections, and that statement applies in both directions – something is not obvious merely because all the pieces are individually known in the art, nor is something nonobvious merely because none of the cited arts anticipate a given limitation.

        If the claim requires a blue bus, pointing to a bus and a can of blue paint by itself does not render the blue bus obvious, but similarly nor is a claim that requires a blue bus nonobvious merely because none of the references teach a blue bus or even if a blue bus never existed in the world before.

        1. 2.1.1.1

          +1

      2. 2.1.2

        Haha, of course 102 is considered as a whole. No sane person blocks part of the claims out as they’re reading them, and if ya read it, there’s no way to not consider it as a whole !!

        112 reqiures same re enablement, per third-last para of MPEP 2164.01(a)

        “The examiner’s analysis must consider all the evidence related to each of these factors, and any conclusion of nonenablement must be based on the evidence as a whole. 858 F.2d at 737, 740, 8 USPQ2d at 1404, 1407.”

        I wonder what those cases say…

        1. 2.1.2.1

          Don’t jump on me too quick ! Enablement considers “evidence” as a whole considered, and that’s diff. from 102 considering claim elements or the invention as a whole, but aren’t the two are joined at the hip b/c claim elements themselves evidence the scope and bounds of the claim ?

  16. 1

    or, if a joint invention, the individuals collectively who invented or discovered the subject matter of the invention.

    Thaler loses (as I have predicted).

    Now what happens to all those inventions in which AI assists?

    (And no, Wt and fellow naysayers, the AI is not merely being used by humans, but instead the invention cannot be met solely by the human members of the group).

    As Thaler loses – as he should under current US law – the implications and necessary thinking of how “AI as inventor” are not over.

    1. 1.1

      For now, the AI’s (slave-) owners keep the invention trade secret. Fortunately for humanity, some other copy of that AI will likely re-invent the invention pretty quickly.

      off-topic request: please don’t use Twitter for polls.

      1. 1.1.1

        For now, the AI’s (slave-) owners keep the invention trade secret. Fortunately for humanity, some other copy of that AI will likely re-invent the invention pretty quickly.

        Indeed. It is entirely possible that the advent of AI will make patent laws largely or even totally obsolete. Patent law presupposes a scarcity of new ideas, such that one needs to incentivize their creation. Once we can generate new ideas as easily as we generate a current of air from an electric fan or a stream of light from an LED, perhaps society will no longer feel the need to incentivize their creation.

      2. 1.1.2

        I will see if I can find the link that would provided earlier in relation to actual slave innovations (and how the Patent Office refused to consider owners of slaves AS inventors)….

          1. 1.1.2.1.1

            The overall item I do believe is different – and most definitely different from the bile-infused “Critical Race” muck of the first link.

        1. 1.1.2.2

          I wouldn’t bother. The point of my trolling is that any entity sufficiently intelligent that could ‘invent’ something probably shouldn’t be ‘owned’ from a moral/ethical point-of-view….whether that entity is an actual alien, an angel, chimera, or artificial neural net.

          Heck, if we *really* want to be consistent here, we probably should let the entity vote in 2040, and give it social security benefits in 2060.

          1. 1.1.2.2.1

            I will pass on that — based on the Lockean nature of patents — and the fact that laws are (mostly) geared to human sensibilities.

            I do wonder, WWAD?

            What Would Asimov Do?

    2. 1.2

      (And no, Wt and fellow naysayers, the AI is not merely being used by humans, but instead the invention cannot be met solely by the human members of the group).
      Are you a member of Thaler’s legal team? Do you have personal knowledge of what happened with regard to the two “inventions”? If the answers to those questions are “no” then YOU DO NOT KNOW that “the invention cannot be met solely by the human members of the group.”

      Don’t confuse alleged facts with proven facts. We’ve gone over this before and it was a point brought up during the oral arguments. That DABUS did the actual invention is not a “finding of fact.” Rather, the USPTO presumed it for purposes of their action (e.g., even if we presume that DABUS did the inventing, we are going to reject this application for these reasons ….). This is from the lower court decision:
      As a civil action brought under the APA, review of the final agency action is limited to considering the administrative record. The factual assertions made by plaintiff during the application process are taken as true.
      That they were “taken as true” does not mean that these facts cannot subsequently be contested.

      1. 1.2.1

        Don’t confuse alleged facts with proven facts.

        As opposed to you merely declaring facts because you want to avoid the legal issues?

        As I stated — no human can be tracked to all of the invention.

        Deal with that (instead of wanting a different set of facts).

        1. 1.2.1.1

          As [you and Thaler allege] — no human can be tracked to all of the invention.
          Fixed it for you. If you have more than allegations, then let’s see it.

          1. 1.2.1.1.1

            You keep on thinking that I need more than that.

            I don’t.

            And yet, you stubbornly act that YOUR factual assertions somehow rise above.

            They don’t.

    3. 1.3

      Eh. Machines help in inventions all the time. That doesn’t mean the machine did the inventing. For example, while humans could test thousands of drug candidates by hand, it’s much more efficient for robots to do it. That doesn’t make the robot the inventor of the compound that works, nor does it negate it’s patentability.

      AI did not and cannot ‘invent’ anything.

      1. 1.3.1

        Your view of “mere machine” evidences your lack of understanding of AI>

        Not the first time for you Someone in embracing this error.

        One key that should help you is to understand the legal definition of inventor.

        Then, take and invention (and purported singular — like DABUS; or plural inventors, but one of which is an AI [the type you need to understand]) and realize that in the singular case there is NO human for the invention present that meets the legal definition of inventor, and in the plural case, there are NO humans for the invention present that account for ALL of the inventive items to which the legal definition of inventor would merit.

        Then try to understand the trap that Wt cannot get out of his own way with: just because an AI may meet the legal definition for inventor, AND there is an invention, does NOT mean that the AI can obtain a patent grant through law.

        I offered a step through of the analogy with the Simian Selfie case (and Wt STILL bungled the distinctions between inventor/grant and author/able to bring copyright suit).

        It really is not difficult if you do not try to force feed a pre-conceived notion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture