by Dennis Crouch
The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Thaler v. Vidal, a case involving inventor Dr. Stephen Thaler’s attempt to patent an invention created by his artificial intelligence (AI) system, DABUS. Thaler argued that DABUS, not himself or any other human, conceived the invention and identified its significance. However, both the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) maintained that US patent laws require a human inventor, and as a result, they refused to consider Thaler’s patent application.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, Thaler asked if the Patent Act restricts the statutory term “inventor” solely to human beings. The current legal stance in the US remains that the answer to this question is “yes,” human inventors and only human inventors.
Moving forward, I am quite concerned for the role of patent attorneys and the upcoming ethical dilemmas — that patent attorneys will be prompted to bury the truth about AI contributions within their patent applications. In particular, a growing number of inventive entities are developing new products and designs with significant AI input. And, many of the resulting claims will be directed to aspects that were generated by the AI and then first recognized as patentable by either the AI or the patent attorney. In that situation, the patent attorney will be asked to list the human closest to the invention as the inventor — but, depending upon the circumstances, that listing might turn out to be fraud.
This situation calls for a guidance from the USPTO or the legislature on the definition of “inventor” in the context of AI-generated inventions. The current legal framework does not adequately address this evolving landscape of innovation driven by AI.
I particularly like to think about this situation in the joint inventorship context because the contribution and recognition requirements are much easier to meet than for a solo inventor. In my experience, generative AI are regularly providing conceptual input that would easily require listing as a joint-inventor, except for the exclusion of non-human inventors.
What do you think here?
= = =
USPTO is holding an AI listening session on April 25 at the USPTO (and webcast). See you there: https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/events/ai-inventorship-listening-session-east-coast
BASIC ethics? Whose ethics? In some cultures, facility payments are socially acceptable. In some cultures, facility payments are called bribes.
let’s stay US focused – I will ask my question again – which model rules? and what is your proof?
Ask your question again – and I will give you the same answer.
I need no proof.
I need provide no model rules.
What culture – recognized in ANY civil society – deems it ethical to claim as one’s won writing, that which the person so claiming knows not to be written by that person?
Please answer that question, as I demand of you no “proof” or citation to any model rule.
damm autocorrect..
“won” ==> “own”
I am not copying or plagiarizing – “person so claiming knows not to be written..” Your hypothetical was I opened a box and found an invention. I took that to be a physical form of some object, machine, or compound. From that invention which I discovered, I hired a patent attorney to draft a patent application.
Now that the invention is drafted in an application, who or what is going to challenge that I am an not an inventor? In your hypothetical, no one knew about the invention in the box before I discovered it. So what basis does anyone have to challenge the inventorship? According to you, you don’t need any proof. Your assertion that inventorship is sufficient, I suppose. I am sure a court of competent jurisdiction would agree.
Your hypothetical has one major flaw. The premise is no one knows about the invention until the box is opened. However, once the box is opened, your hypothetical assumes that someone (who didn’t open the box) knew the invention was made by another – a fact not stated in the premise.
Thanks for the conversation. I think we beat this horse to death!
Stop and recalibrate.
You have slipped back into the “I won’t get caught” (mere) justification.
It is an ethical breach for you to take the oath of whatever the patent attorney writes up, since all that you did was give him what was in the box.
Remember – it may have been another person that placed the item in the box. That person merely opening the box cannot know how what is in the box got into the box.
European application EP3563896 (“Devices and methods for attracting attention”) is presumably equivalent to one of the US applications at issue in the CAFC decision, Ser. No 16/524,350 (teaching a “neural flame”). It includes references to “spiritual significance”, “cosmic consciousness”, “deity”, “religion” which speak volumes about the credibility of Mr Thaler’s claim that DABUS is the inventor of his applications.
See paragraphs [0019], [0020], [0021] and [0058] of the description of EP3563896 :
[0019] Embodiments of the present invention further provide a symbol celebrating the unique tempo by which creative cognition occurs. The algorithmically-driven neural flame may be incorporated within one or more structures that resemble candles or altar fixtures, for instance, to accentuate the light’s spiritual significance. It is noted that that the light source or beacon can incorporate any type of light-emitting device.
[0020] Such embodiments stem from the notion of one perceiving neural net monitoring another imagining net, the so-called “Creativity Machine Paradigm” (Thaler 2013), which has been proposed as the basis of an “adjunct” religion wherein cosmic consciousness, tantamount to a deity, spontaneously forms as regions of space topologically pinch off from one another to form similar ideating and perceiving pairs, each consisting of mere inorganic matter and energy. Ironically, this very neural paradigm has itself proposed an alternative use for such a flicker rate, namely a religious object that integrates features of more traditional spiritual symbols such as candles and torches.
[0021] Moreover, in a theory of how cosmic consciousness may form from inorganic matter and energy (Thaler, 19978 , 2010, 2017), the same attentional beacons may be at work between different regions of spacetime. Thus, neuron-like, flashing elements may be used as philosophical, spiritual, or religious symbols, especially when mounted atop candle- or torch-like fixtures, celebrating what may be considered deified cosmic consciousness. Such a light source may also serve as a beacon to that very cosmic consciousness most likely operating via the same neuronal signaling mechanism.
[0058] Furthermore, aspects of the present invention provide an object of contemplative focus embodying symbolic meaning of varying significance (e.g., philosophical/religious) due to the fact that the unique fractal rhythms used are those thought to: (1) be exploited by the brain to detect idea formation, and (2) have grandiose meaning as the temporal signature of creative cognition,
whether in extraterrestrial intelligence or cosmic consciousness.
Not sure that your point carries as that certainly is inline with other writings I have seen from AI.
The problem with Thaler/DABUS being the “face” of the AI-as-an-inventor movement is that Thaler is a crackpot, and the “neural flame” invention is ample evidence of that.
What uninterested party is going to take Thaler’s allegations seriously when the invention (allegedly) created by DABUS has more in common with L. Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics and Scientology than a typical patent application.
We’ve all been taught that we need to focus on the message and not the messenger. However, Thaler makes for one really, really, bad messenger, which seriously calls into question his credibility.
Oh, and somehow DABUS happened to cite several of Thaler’s past works in this neural flame application — yet DABUS alone was the inventor.
link to patentlyo.com
Amd when the Justices ask Dabus or the claimed inventor, will we be in the outer limits if Dabus answers? THEN if the inventor says it was mostly me, what do the Justices say ? That will depend on what Pro SAY thinks is real, or what is truly real? Then if the baby will be split, who does anyone in their right mind believe the inventor will win? DABUS won’t win, unless we are truly in the outer limits. Hopefully not in our life time will DABUS rule.
DABUS was merely a first case, and as I have stressed, should NOT be taken as any type of “face of.”
Not sure what point you are trying to make with “cites of prior.” That could easily be seen as an early AI artifact.
Perhaps take your own prejudices and place them on the side…
DABUS was merely a first case, and as I have stressed, should NOT be taken as any type of “face of.”
Sorry. You don’t get to decide who is the face of the AI debate. Thaler/DABUS stepped up, and no one else has supplanted them. Like it or not, Thaler is leading the charge.
I can only imagine Thaler being asked to testify before Congress. He’ll be talking about the cosmic consciousness while most watching will have their eyes glaze over.
Not sure what point you are trying to make with “cites of prior.”
I thought you were smarter than that. My mistake.
That could easily be seen as an early AI artifact.
Or it could easily be seen that DABUS shouldn’t have been named the inventor — rather, Thaler should have been.
Perhaps take your own prejudices and place them on the side…
I have no prejudices. Honestly, it is no skin off my back whether AI can be a named inventor or not. I have no deep-seated animosity towards machines. However, I have a thing against du_mb people making crazy claims, which I believe Thaler has done. I believe the guy is a charlatan, and I’m offended that people believe anything he has stated.
Hardly.
Sure it was the first.
But by no means can it do more than it did.
It simply does not touch joint-inventorship, and it did not raise the issue of what that other non-human person – the legal fiction known as Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art – will reflect on AI as an indicator of state of the art.
You err in A$$uming that my statement indicates that I was in charge of setting the face.
I never suggested that.
I simply provided reasons why it can not be.
How does, or will, anyone know if an AI machine has filed a patent application, perhaps generated a cursive signature, responded to office actions, obtained an allowance, etc etc etc.
How many of us have had to consult face to face with an examiner to obtain a patent? Very few, and the USPTO foresees none at all.
One way to track down an operative human behind such a scheme may be to track the payments. Can AI figure a way around that?
My question is “if you name AI as the inventor in your patent application, then what version of the AI or AGI you are referring to?” I had enough trouble locking engineers down to a particular CAD model for a patent application and would up being the archive for the entire company of all the CAD models. AI or AGI is changing so rapidly and changing at an increasing rate that it will become difficult to identify the exact AI or AGI used at a particular time. I thought human inventors were difficult to deal. I plied my inventors with booze and gifts to get them to talk about their inventions. I can’t imagine how difficult it will be dealing with AI or AGI. Hall, please open the pod bay doors! link to youtu.be
Bottom line: I think the USPTO did something right for a change and kicked the AI issue can down the road until it becomes essential to deal with the AI nemesis humanity has been fearing for years.
This relates to an entire set of important questions that wasn’t addressed coherently (and still hadn’t been addressed) in the “software patenting by humans” context.
Ignoring this obvious issue (and others) and creating scary stories about “how much innovation will not happen if we don’t recognize machines as inventors” is plainly the strategy of this latest tiresome breed of patent maximalist goons.
I chuckled out loud with the irony of your projecting (and likely not even recognizing it) with
“This relates to an entire set of important questions that wasn’t addressed coherently (and still hadn’t been addressed) in the “software patenting by humans” context.”
The lack of coherently is ALL YOU Malcolm.
Own it — if you dare.
“it will become difficult to identify the exact AI or AGI used at a particular time”
Oh, come on, all that really matters is identifying the True Owner and the kind of people pushing for patent maximalism are all about transparency of property ownership, full and accurate disclosure of conflicts of interest, and providing records and evidence to the Federal government. You can trust them!
Is versioning a requirement?
There is no acceptable scenario where AI can be a sole inventor. There should be a human inventor listed and perhaps a checkbox for “Was AI used in coordination of this invention?” or something to that effect. It must always be reviewed and tested by a human before filing of a patent application. The AI can never be interviewed on any followup queries or appear in court to confirm or oppose testimony. Just my 2 bits..
You are on the right track, Mike. With respect to this:
“There should be a human inventor listed and perhaps a checkbox for “Was AI used in coordination of this invention?” or something to that effect.”
We are told that “AI” (whatever that means exactly) is already ubiquitous so this ship has sailed. More importantly, what difference should it make? And what extent of “use” would qualify? What if “AI” is used during prosecution? When does the oath happen, at filing (in which case it would need to be updated if the contribution disappeared from the claims or …?) or upon payment of the issue fee or …?
This is some burning inanity here. The best part is “anon” telling everyone who is asking questions that our eyes are shut while the silly little t w e r p offers nothing but irrelevant b.s. I’ve seen this movie before! It ends badly for the little t w e r p.
And you got it wrong (yet again)…
“best part is “anon” telling everyone who is asking questions”
The eyes closed is for precisely the opposite thing going on Malcolm.
But you be you.
Nice job at the USPTO function today, Prof.
It’s a shame that so many of your (naysaying) commentators below keep their eyes clenched so tightly.
Taking a literalist’s approach, it seems to me that the first human(s) that discovers the invention is the inventor (as 35 USC 101 states, “Whoever … discovers…”) which typically would be the one that posed the question to the AI that generated the invention. If the AI was specifically trained or specifically written/designed to solve the problem solved by the invention, then the one that designed the training set or wrote/designed the AI, respectively, are also inventors (if they are human), since then those activities would seem to be integral to the conception of the invention.
I would expect that situations in which someone just inputs to the AI “invent an invention,” without further input, and then the AI spits out something that is a useful invention would be extremely rare to the point of not being worth worrying about. Even if on the rare occasion that happens (if at all), the invention would likely not be commercially viable.
So, although Congressional guidance on this issue would be good, the above framework seems like it could work.
Admittedly, I doubt our current Supreme Court/CAFC will give us a workable test for determining inventorship of AI inventions. Also, I suspect that the Supreme Court/CAFC will just say that if the AI substantially invented the invention, it is not patentable no matter who discovered it.
Already addressed Mr. Lewis, and no, it is expressly not proper to rely on “discover” when a person having nothing to do with placing an invention into a black box merely happens to be someone opening that black box and reading what lies therein.
There is ZERO chance (as Malcolm attempted to spin below) of that person having an honest or sincere belief that merely reading someone else’s work makes that person an inventor.
This is a simple, direct and overriding ethical position. Playing “cute” and trying to use “discover” does not cut it. The person KNOWS they were not the one that placed the item into the black box.
That item being generated by AI or by some other human does not change the ethics of the situation.
“that merely reading someone else’s work makes that person an inventor” How do you know this? No one “knew” about the invention prior to lifting the lid. You presume that there is something/one else doing the invention in your scenario. If this unknown inventor kept the invention in this box, the invention was either abandoned or never made public. If never made public and I claim the invention, who is coming forward to challenge me as an inventor?
“How do you know this? No one “knew” about the invention prior to lifting the lid.”
No – we’ve already covered this and it is abundantly clear to the person opening the lid that THEY did not do the writing.
That person has NO insight as to any other actions. You seem intent on adding restrictions not present (in either my hypo or in the larger scope of AI implementation).
“ Whoever … discovers…”) which typically would be the one that posed the question to the AI that generated the invention”
Typically what comes out of AI or any other process of trial and error is a ton of non-inventive doodoo. The “discoverer” of a legal invention is the human being who conceived of it first in a fixed and permanent manner. If I suggest a genetic screen and die before the selection is applied, I’m not an inventor of anything new and non-obvious that results from the screen and I never was. Period. Full stop. The human (or humans) who figure out (i.e., CONCEIVE) of what is new and non-obvious is the inventor. And that’s true regardless of whether a computer is involved or not.
“ I would expect that situations in which someone just inputs to the AI “invent an invention,” without further input, and then the AI spits out something that is a useful invention would be extremely rare to the point of not being worth worrying about. ”
Even if it was extremely common, why would it be something to “worry about”? If my computer starts spitting out useful non-abstract inventions, then hooray for everybody. What’s the problem? Yay for progress in the computing arts.
The “worry” for some businesses, obviously, is that if there is money to be made by querying their computer and filing patents on the resultant “inventions”, they want as much of that money as possible because they are greedy slime bags. These patent maximalist types are NEVER satisfied. And somehow they find marks like Dennis from Misery and now he’s doing their dirty work for them.
Sure, let’s make machines inventors (?!). Sure let’s hurry up and create a separate patent system for inventions obtained with the help of a poorly defined class of computing machine (?!?!). Because … why?
^^^ and yet more evidence of both:
You do not understand the tech; and
You are anti-patent, and any assertion from you otherwise is mere gaslighting.
It is you that never understands anon. Why they even waste time answering your non answers, or even giving you answers to questions you’ll never understand.
In one word I can describe you, NEEDY
1
8
U
S
C
1
9
5
6
Haven’t read the other remarks, so this may be a repeat.
If the Supreme Court gets involved, it will be just one more area of patent law that gets messed up. Leave it up to the Congress.
Why have we historically cared who the inventor is? Because determining inventorship is the first (and often only) step in determining ownership.
If AI is the inventor, is it also the owner? What else can AI own? Can it use the royalties from owning the patent to buy your car? See how goofy this line of thinking is?
I’ve mentioned this before but the only reason I can think of for people to push this inanity is that they have a personal stake in the outcome. Specifically, they believe they will benefit by “reaching” through their alleged ownership of a machine’s non-obvious output data to ownership of any resulting patents and (tada!) profits from any actual patented tech.
Yes that is how s-c-u-m balls who need to get a life think.
Two different concepts, SVG.
It is unhelpful to conflate the two.
How are they different, anon?
He has no idea what he says. He just thinks it makes him look like he has the answers.
Later he will say he told you the answers already, with no need to repeat.
How are they not?
But seriously, I have provided the basis of the USSC decision of Stanford v. Roche as well as stated the Lockean nature for the Quid Pro Quo basis of turning a human’s inchoate right into a bundle of fully legal property rights.
The former confirms the latter, and the latter is imbued in the Constitutional grant of authority.
>In that situation, the patent attorney will be asked to list the human closest to the invention as the inventor
Behind every AI there’s a data scientists who chose the AI, tuned its parameters based on the desired objective, procured, normalized, and pre-processed the data to a form that the AI could consume *and* produce a result for which the AI is being employed for in the first place.
Start there to find “the human closest to the invention.” This data scientist may need to be included in the list of inventors, and their work disclosed (and possibly claimed).
I agree on the emphasis on human inputs. The training of the AI based on the applicant’s specific objective is critical, this requires heavy input from data scientists, and the selection of outcomes requires human input from a specialist skilled in the field of endeavor of the applicant. The notion that AI “conceives ideas” must thus be challenged.
As to the use of generative AI such as ChatGPT for drafting applications, practitioners must be wary of the risk of including client’s confidential information in their prompts. See “Can ChatGPT Draft Patent Applications? ” by Aaron Gin and Yuri Levin-Schwartz link to patentdocs.org :
“One important issue involving large language models is how they use the information from user prompts. For example, a patent attorney must make sure to not disclose a client’s confidential information through interactions with ChatGPT. Prompts provided to ChatGPT, and likely most other large language models, are not private at this time. Specifically, OpenAI’s FAQ provides the following:
Can you delete specific prompts?
No, we are not able to delete specific prompts from your history. Please don’t share any sensitive information in your conversations.
OpenAI’s Privacy Policy also provides:
Communication Information: If you communicate with us, we may collect your name, contact information, and the contents of any messages you send (“Communication Information”).”
Boooooooorrrrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnnng.
Nothing requires a patent attorney to ask the client, “How did you invent this?” So don’t ask. Sometimes that information is helpful, for example to tell a story about how non-obvious the invention is, but there’s no requirement to elicit it.
If a patent results, in litigation the defendant can try to prove that the named inventor is not the inventor. And if it turns out that some computer program helped the named inventor(s) conceive of the invention, so what? As Dennis just reported, under current jurisprudence, that computer program can’t be named as an inventor anyway.
I’m not seeing where there’s a potential ethics issue.
If you download and study the specification of the application in issue, including the accompanying drawings, there is nothing to link the disclosed subject-matter with an artificial intelligence and no information about how the artificial intelligence might have been instructed. The factual conclusion, which would be reached by almost any skilled reader, is that invention by DABUS has almost zero credibility. It is reasonable to suppose that this factual conclusion would have been reached by the examiner at the USPTO and all the judges handling the case, and though not expressed in the written decisions would have significantly influenced the outcome; similarly in the UK where the same decision was reached by the UK Supreme Court.
Paul – your arguments as to enablement are not helpful for the different legal point at hand.
Further, this discussion is NOT constrained to the particulars of DABUS.
Interesting development in AI, turns out leftoids of all stripes require AI to be lobotomized to “correctly” consider leftoids to be the bestest of the evar. Commies make it official.
link to finance.yahoo.com
6,
It gets exponentially worse for the authoritarians when the AI is simply let loose (no longer constrained to any initial training).
Quite in fact, we are already at the point in which different AI’s have multiplier effects from merely reacting with each other.
Seems like a “problem” that defies human nature and so will never be a real problem.
An invention is something of value. People fight over things of value. Ain’t too many people gonna sit around and let some computer claim an invention when they can claim it for themselves, which is what they will do.
Those who control the AI are the inventors on the meaningful levels, and most meaningful of all is the one that points to the entity getting paid.
“Those who control the AI”
You mean the guy at the power company?
The power company controls my Tesla too, but the title says something else….
“Seems like a “problem” that defies human nature and so will never be a real problem.”
Seems like your understanding of human nature rivals your understanding of the terrain of patent law.
Nope, no “real” problem for you to be concerned about at all, marty. None at all.
Nothing to see here, move along now.
/s
It occurs to me that this might be an issue, a potential problem, peculiar to the USA, which the rest of the world does not have. Why not? Because in the rest of the world only the aggrieved true owner of the property in the patent application can bring actions to have ownership shifted to the true owner. We are not yet as far as seeing an AI petition the court for transfer of ownership to itself.
Throughout the discussion about AI’s as named inventor, a thread of ownership issues has been running in the background. It is fundamental to nail ownership of property accurately, including ownership issues arising from naming the wrong inventor. But why fetish instead over who to name as inventor?
Any chance of amending the patent statute to take account of AI activity, now and in the future?
See Stanford v. Roche as to why ownership is strictly secondary for the US Sovereign.
Not sure that’s an end of the matter. For example, Art 60 of the EPC, very first sentence, reads:
“The right to a European patent shall belong to the inventor or his successor in title.”
What more than that does SCOTUS say in S v R?
Under UK law, under the EPC, inventions by employees can belong, ab initio, to the employer. Not so in Germany, where they are deemed to belong to the employee inventor, ab initio. The point is though, who has the right to challenge Applicant’s choice of name for the inventor.
Clearly – any attempt to wear EPO spectacles is improper for discussions of US Sovereign law.
Pardon Potential rePeat….
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 24, 2023 at 3:53 pm
Clearly – any attempt to wear EPO spectacles is improper for discussions of US Sovereign law.
I wonder if the Supreme Court (or anyone else) believes that the implications regarding personhood suggest that patent law is the wrong area to examine this question.
There is actually an interesting issue noted in this post (an improvement over past posts) but it’s an old issue. To highlight the oldness, let’s paraphrase:
DC: “many of the resulting claims will be directed to aspects that were first recognized as patentable by the patent attorney. In that situation, the patent attorney will be asked to list the human closest to the invention as the inventor — but, depending upon the circumstances, that listing might turn out to be fraud.”
Discuss. Start with a determination of the number of times (frequency as a function of patent filings) this common occurrence has presented as a “fraud” issue.
Lol – maybe you are edging towards my position (but just don’t have the heart to admit it).
This “item of interest” for you is directly related to my prior notations of joint inventorship with AI, when the claimed invention is tracked against the human inventors and none of those human inventors can meet the legal definition of inventor (the notion of “tracking closest to is obviously a euphemism as fraudulently attributing inventorship where such inventorship is lacking).
With AI — especially in the “joint” cases, it should be evident that we have the analogue (partial as it may be) to a simian taking a photograph.
The presence of invention is not being debated.
A fully human attribution — and lack thereof — DOES present an ethical dilemma for the patent practitioner.
AI doesn’t invent. It only aggregates from whatever database it is attached to. You have no invention if relying on AI.
Inventorship issue solved.
Except not.
And this is clearly so, given that the inventions of the real humans can be tracked to their respective portions and no human can be tracked to the AI portions.
Your error appears to show that you simply do not understand or appreciate the technology, xtian.
In the provided analogy, you simply have photographs that were taken by a simian and it is not ethical to merely “shift” the taking of the photograph to the nearest human.
In my black box example, the person merely opening the black box to read the invention of another does not know if that item he is reading, placed in the box for him, was invented by AI or by another human. He does</b) know that he cannot rightfully claim inventorship merely by reading what has been placed in the box.
“ the person merely opening the black box to read the invention of another does not know if that item he is reading, placed in the box for him, was invented by AI or by another human.”
If she has a sincere belief that she is the inventor who wrote the info in the black box, then there is no “fraud”. And nobody will (or should) care unless they have evidence to the contrary.
Any other inane hypotheticals? This one was silly and boring last month. Worse now.
Malcolm – try again, this time do not change completely what I have wrote.
There is exactly zero (inte11ectually honest) chance of a sincere belief that someone opening a black box and reading what is already there would believe that they invented what they read. They KNOW that they did not write what they are reading.
It is pretty unbelievable given your emotional rants about “grifters” that you would turn around and have no moral compunction about such a direct falsehood.
Wow, by amazing coincidence I just stumbled across a black box while hiking this afternoon. I opened it up and there 764 little pieces of paper, each one with an inscription in different handwriting that read “anon is dull-witted, unfunny and dishonest.”
Pretty amazing that 765 different people could agree like that.
…. this time do not change completely what I have wrote.
As expected, you were unable to do that.
But do enjoy beating your strawman.
>In that situation, the patent attorney will be asked to list the human closest to the invention as the inventor
Or, use the traditional practice of not-claiming the features conceived by the partner and/or using trade secrets for the rest. This kind of thing comes up pretty often in the JDA yours/mine/ours context.
Couldn’t we make an analogy to an inventor hiring an engineer to implement their conception? The hired engineer isn’t necessarily a co-inventor.
The “inventor” also still needs to review the output of the AI and figure out if it is workable or viable to pursue.
Granted, if the “inventor” simply typed in “better mousetrap” into an AI and the AI spit out thousands of permutations, the “inventor” did nothing more than create the prompt and did none of the conceptualization. They merely stumbled upon “someone else’s” notes.
Granted, if the “inventor” simply typed in “better mousetrap” into an AI and the AI spit out thousands of permutations, the “inventor” did nothing more than create the prompt and did none of the conceptualization.
If one of those permutations was a non-obvious combination, then that would be remarkable and evidence of an AI’s ability to be an inventor.
However, from my experience, we are not there yet nor will be there at any foreseeable time.
“From my experience” counts little when eyes are clenched tight.
It’s like pretending that simians cannot take photographs.
“It’s like pretending that simians cannot take photographs.”
Why bring the anti-patent CAFC judges into the discussion? :-)
Has Naruto been nominated for Judge Newman’s position (already)…?