|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 03:29 PM EDT |
> [The claims] recite methods or machines depending on which
> claim you are discussing.
Ah, but do they recite methods or machines that are eligible
for patent under §101 thru 112? You don't have the luxury
of stopping at the end of §100 and saying "That's it, patent
granted",
you must consider all the law. Judge Prost knows this.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: YurtGuppy on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 04:40 PM EDT |
Sounds to me like inventive concept is covered by
1) is it new
2) is it not obvious
Is this a legal term of art or are we using plain english?
---
a small fish in an even smaller pond[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Thursday, July 12 2012 @ 05:03 AM EDT |
35 U.S.C. 100 Definitions.
When used in this title unless
the context otherwise indicates -
(a) The term "invention" means
invention or discovery.
(b) The term "process" means process, art, or
method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture,
composition of matter, or material.
The term "process" means "not
a machine".
35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable.
Whoever
invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a
patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this
title.
Inventions can be one of the items in the list, but not
more than one. A process or method claim has no place in a machine patent. A
process or method is something that someone can do. The process or method patent
may cite using an existing machine in a new way to do the process or method (the
quoted bit of law says just that). The patent does not protect the machine
configured to do the process or method. Only the doing of the process or method
is protected by the patent.
If you wish to protect a computer with
computer instructions or a shrimp deveining machine (Deepsouth Packing Co. v.
Laitram Corp.) then you need a machine patent to do that. The law does not allow
the patenting in 'one' patented invention of both the method and process of
shrimp deveining and the novel, invented machine that makes doing the process,
possible. This is made clear in the rules for patent submission from the USPTO
which says that each invention must be the subject of its own patent even if the
disclosures and descriptions are common to both.'Mirrored' claims are used to
break the black letter of the law.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
