|
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 02:22 PM EDT |
An inventive concept is also one of the aspects of patentable subject matter, is
it not?
Others were handling the issue of "process" in replies above. The
short answer is: a recipe or algorithm does not mean a patentable process.
Are you a troll or something?
---
a small fish in an even smaller pond[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 03:41 PM EDT |
Of course, I can't speak on their behalf... ultimately we'll just have to
wait and see.
From the Prometheus
ruling:
Moreover, “[t]he chemical processes involved in catalytic
conversion of hydrocarbons[,] . . . the practice of monitoring the chemical
process variables, the use of alarm limits to trigger alarms, the notion that
alarm limit values must be recomputed and readjusted, and the use of computers
for ‘automatic monitoring-alarming’” were all “well known,” to the point where,
putting the formula to the side, there was no “inventive concept” in the claimed
application of the formula.1
Unless you argue that all
the following points are "Laws Of Nature", as opposed to applying the knowledge
of Laws for a given result, the Supremes don't seem to be expressing a
limitation of "inventive concept" to just "Laws of Nature":
- Chemical
processes involved in catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons
- Practice of
monitoring the chemical process variables
- The use of alarm limits to
trigger alarms
- The notion that alarm limit values must be recomputed
and readjusted
- the use of computers for "automatic
monitoring-alarming"
Here's an interesting question, do you view all
of the proceses outlined above, 1 through 5, to be "Laws of Nature"?
And
to cover the "misunderstanding" that may occur, I do mean my question in the
context of actual Laws of Nature and not an educated application of Laws to
achieve a result.
So do you really view "the use of a computer for
automatic monitoring-alarming" to be a Law of Nature?
It'll be
interesting to see how you respond to the above question:
A: you admit the
use of a computer for anything is a Law Of Nature
B: you admit you were
mistaken and "inventive concept" is not measured only against "Laws Of
Nature"
C: you simply don't respond
D: you actually attempt to
explain how you can reconcile A and B - two apparently mutually exclusive
conclusions
1: The follow up sentence to the quote I provided is rather
interesting:
Id., at 594. “[P]ost-solutionactivity” that is purely
“conventional or obvious,” theCourt wrote, “can[not] transform an unpatentable
principle into a patentable process.” Id., at 589, 590.
It kinda
makes me wonder if that can be used to get the Supremes to rule Software is non
patentable subject matter much as Math is:
Logically: Since the Supremes
used "use of computers for automatic monitoring-alarming" in the context of "can
[not] transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process" - the "use
of computers for X" must not be patentable.
I find that potential to be
.... delicious. If that logic is correct, then my suggestion that simply
programming a computer can not be patentable because it's no different then
using a calculator is dead on target!
To do nothing more then use a
calculator to answer mathematical equations is an unpatentable
principle!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 03:49 PM EDT |
You are claiming that all of the judges were wrong.
Prost: "The majority does not inquire whether the asserted claims include
an inventive concept."
Majority (footnote 2): "[T]he dissent criticizes the majority for not
inquiring whether the asserted claims include such an inventive concept or even
whether the claims disclose anything inventive. But that is precisely what the
majority has done in examining the language of the claims themselves and in
criticizing the district court for ignoring the invention the patentee actually
claims."
I've noticed that quite a few people arguing about the case don't seem to have
read the opinion.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, July 11 2012 @ 08:51 PM EDT |
To be patentable something must be
1. not abstract mathematics
2. original and inventive
Consider
A: Some original abstract mathematics
B: A standard piece of kit - eg a computer
You can't patent A and you can't patent B. But patent lawyers claim that you can
get around the restrictions simply by putting A and B together in a box.
To the extent that there is any legal basis for this idea the law is completely
ridiculous. Anyone except a patent lawyer seems to be able to see that.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 20 2012 @ 06:55 PM EDT |
The question before the court was, "is this a valid patent". [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|