|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 08:30 AM EDT |
To be fair, I think I have received a clear answer.
I have asked where we can find an analysis of the facts that leads the the
finding that a new machine is made. It is clear now that there is none. It is
also clear that his opinion is that such a factual analysis has a limited
relevance because ultimately patentability should be decided on the basis of
practical utility. I see all this as a clear and straightforward answer.
Also Pr Risch has indicated he is doesn't mind stopping writing software patents
as machine patents based on the facts of computer science. He believes this
would not matter in practice because the same patent could be drawn to a
process. It is just a matter of writing the right magic words in the claim.
That may be true on the long run, but from a short term perspective there are a
lot of existing patents which are drawn in machine form. If we can get a ruling
that ban them, all these patents will instantly be invalidated but they will
remain in the USPTO database and be available as prior art. From pour
perspective, this will reduce the magnitude of the problem. We are making some
progress here.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
