Bilski and Prometheus
would say it is abstract, I would say it
lacks practical
utility. But you get to the same end result
of
unpatentability.
Thanks for this clear answer.
You realize
that all software is a procedure to manipulate symbols don't you? Bits are
symbols and computers do nothing but manipulate bits. What you said implies that
merely adding meaning to symbols won't confer this procedure practical utility.
Something more must be done.
Or if we use Bilski and Prometheus all software
is abstract and merely adding meanings to the raw bits won't change this.
Something more is required to have something non abstract.
This is why most
people here make a big thing of whether software makes a new machine. The notion
that all software is manipulation of symbols is fundamental to computer science.
But this point can't be made to patent professionals without first battling our
way against notions like whether software is an invention made of atoms, whether
software makes a new machine and the likes. Bringing the discussion to the point
where the relevance of this fact will be seen is hard work.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
