decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The components of patent analysis are not separable. | 335 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Inventive concept
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 | # ]

The Supremes may disagree with you
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":
  1. Chemical processes involved in catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons
  2. Practice of monitoring the chemical process variables
  3. The use of alarm limits to trigger alarms
  4. The notion that alarm limit values must be recomputed and readjusted
  5. 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 | # ]

If so, then neither does the majority.
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 | # ]

Patent lawyer trick
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 | # ]

The components of patent analysis are not separable.
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )