Polr, I agree with your analysis, but it needs some case law to back it up. What you present is the factual underpinning for an argument based on prior art and obviousness, rather than on section 101 patentable subject matter. E.g., does hitting a different nail with the same hammer create a new hammer?

There is a line of Supreme Court cases directly on point that address precisely the issues you raise that have yet to be addressed by the Court in the context of software patents. I briefed those cases in a prior Groklaw comment.

I suggest that you examine those case decisions in light of your present factual arguments.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• courts which have deliberately rejected this - Authored by: PolR on Sunday, July 22 2012 @ 08:09 PM EDT
  • courts which have deliberately rejected this - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 07:24 AM EDT
    • courts which have deliberately rejected this - Authored by: PolR on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 09:01 AM EDT
    • courts which have deliberately rejected this - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 09:34 AM EDT
    • thank you - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 23 2012 @ 03:37 PM EDT